Updated to 8000ha now, much better than any prescribed burn.

8000 ha is great! That's getting to be what, almost 2% of the Wilmore Wilderness area. Hopefully they monitor the impact of this new habitat on the local sheep (horn growth maybe) and other ungulates. Big fires in sheep country have been suppressed for way too long.

Yes, why not allow it to reach 10,000ha. A decent sized fire, then do some major studies on it. See if larger burns should be done or allowed more often. I do think the issue arises with the unpredictably of large fires life that, as they do create they're own weather systems.

Right on you guys.

A full ecological study should be started.

The Post burn site would be a great place to set some benchmarks for study.

wildfire map says 14888ha at the mooment

14888Ha as of today and its windier than h3ll out here. This is going well. Anyone have aerial photos.

How fitting is it that the icon next to this thread is burning. :D

Could be a good study for the guy who writes for AO, Mark Boyce and friends.

fire
 

Yes letting the Willmore burn and it will regenerate is correct in about 100 years. Some of us do not have that much time to wait for a old growth forest full of game to return.

No one is advocating burning the whole area to the ground. :snapoutofit:

Cyclical pockets of burn areas over time is what is needed.

:huh:

It never was exclusive old growth. Fire has always been part of the landscape, we are not supposed to be "letting" or "not letting" anything; nor do game populations in a true natural area have anything to do with what you want. Nature takes care of itself.

And old growth does not provide much food, so how can it be full of game? old burns, on the other hand, provide an abundance of browse.

Where do you find large areas of old growth full of game? :confused:

Healthy Natural forest ecosystems are comprised of a mosaic of age classes, they are also the most prolific for abundance and variety of flora and fauna. Forested areas comprised of like age classes are more analogous with a dandelion infested lawn, some species like it, but not many nor for much of the year....

It is great to hear that despite Alberta Forestry/Wildfire management's best effort to kill this fire on day one, as is the current policy, Fire will rejuvenate a significant area or the Willmore.

Fire! :happy0034:

Bump to this post. Take the time to make your views known on the governments handling of this fire.

Fire is a natural part of a forests life. Many new seeds and spores are produced by heat. I guess even with the fighting of the fire a lot of this still will be accomplished. Is it possible that if it continues to burn and increase in size it could become an issue for the surrounding town/homes? Just a few thoughts.

You have it backwards, old growth = unproductive.

If you define productivity as "amount of animals supported per acre", then the most productive forest is the the jack pine/aspen forest that grows in the 3-50 year time horizon after a fire, before the black spruce hit the canopy.

Makes sense when you think about it. Animals generally eat leaves/twigs/forbes. When the spruce top out, they block the sun and kill the edible plants.

In the words of one active member here... fire good.

Tough to say. If caribou need old-growth browse to get through the winter, fire can't be good. If the "predator pit" is created by clear-cut logging and other linear disturbance, fire might mimic the same. While animals can always move and recolonize, if the range of a species is drastically reduced, and that range is on fire, it would seem to be a net negative in the short term.

It takes 100-120 years for a forest to mature enough to support Caribou - Fact.

Not every square inch of the Wilmore is needed at any given moment to support Caribou - Fact.

The Caribou in Wilmore did just fine before we ever came along to "help" them out - Fact.

If you really want to help the Caribou, kill some wolves. There is far more old growth in the Wilmore than 10x the existing number of caribou need (probably more) - Fact.

A diverse patchwork of natural forest of varying age is the most productive for all species - Fact. (the monoculture of logging and planting lodgepole pine everywhere and discouraging deciduous growth is another topic all together...)

At the end of the day if nature was allowed to take its course in un-industrialized areas like this the entire ecosystem would be better off. Prescribed burns and other expensive and overthought trifling would be completely unrequired and moot.

What he said ^

fire
 

Guys, I grew up in Alberta when we did not have the $$, equipment or the will to put out forest fires. They would burn massive areas of the province all summer and all that was left were areas of windfallen timber almost impossible to acccess by game or man. Only a "Fool" would ask for a forest fire that destroys everthing for a 100+ years.

Ya, just like the Swan hills fire, destroyed the whole area... wait a minute, isn't that area full of Moose now?

How old are you anyway that all these areas ruined in your youth for 100 years are currently doing just fine?

Thanks. You just proved my point.

A reduction in habitat coupled with already small numbers will make any species less resilient in the short term.

As an example, why are there no caribou left in Banff? The small herd got caught in an avalanche. Small numbers. Restricted range. Wrong place. Wrong time.

Thinking fire is bad for an ecosystem is as laughably wrongheaded as thinking that wolves, with whom caribou have coexisted for millennia, are at the root of caribou population decline.

The ares where fires that went through here in 2001 are doing fine, Re- growing and full of animals.
UHF one that was started by an arsonist a whole dog near ALPAC is also growing back at an amazing rate .
Cat

A picture from the 11th looking to the south of GC. There has been strong winds all week and we are finally getting some rain today.

http://i.imgur.com/1HiECua.jpg

I have sledded by, through etc, the Virginia hills fire zone from a few years back. The re growth is well established and there is no lack of moose and deer sign. Been sledding there every year, went from wide open burn to cant even get through the cut lines or pick your way through the burnt trees anymore due to the re growth of the spruce and pine trees. I'm sure the Willmore will benefit, not be hurt too much by a larger fire.

You missed the point entirely

Think of it in another way. Lets say it takes 500 hamburgers/year to keep you alive. You have 10,000 hamburgers at your disposal. You burn 500 hamburgers and have to throw them away. You will still be completely unaffected.

A little closer to the point. If a population of Caribou require 1mile/animal and have 500 miles/animal available. You then burn enough habitat to reduce it to 250 miles/animal, they will be completely unaffected.

If all of the Wilmore was to burn, in small parcels, a little each year, at a rate that allowed the entire park to be burnt once every 200 years, it would meant that 50% of the parks area would always be prime old growth Caribou habitat and the remainder would be in various stages of growth. This would allow for a healthy ecosystem for all plants and animals. This is how nature has worked for millennia before man ever got the idea that he was so important that he needed to "lend a hand". Sometimes the most helpful hands are the ones left in our pockets.

Hope everyone stays safe
 

I agree with letting wild places go through natural cycles. Hopefully it don't advance on GC anymore

You are thinking of your own selfish definition of what "destroys everything" means. This area (animals/forests/grasslands) did very well with the fire regime it had before people. Just because you don't like the looks or the ease of mobility doesn't mean it's a wasteland.

Theicetitan - ...decided it's probably not worth the effort.

Look at page 46 and page 47 and see what Jasper Park looked like in the 1840's versus today.

On page 46 the painting shows what Jasper should really look like without man.



http://www.historyandclassics.ualber...7WarreKane.pdf

The explorers made a lot of references to brule or burnt scrub land. A lot of writing suggested the areas north of hinton were unproductive forests at that time. Not now...

The town brule et.

We reap the benefits of forest regeneration today. It's temporary though. Important to let it cycle in controllable (natural + free preferably) amounts.

One has to wonder how valid the statements of those forests being unproductive is.

For example:

The Snake River incident. Why would a bunch of "Snake Indians" come as far as Jasper to trade? And Jasper was a pretty dangerous area for them to be in.
If there were no forests in the area, where were the furs for trading coming from? And there must have been enough food for the girl(s) that escaped the massacre and ended up north of Hinton.

The Hudson's Bay ledgers indicate the fur numbers were quite good in the area also.

Now let's take a more modern view of history. What about Mary Schaffer's exploits to Maligne Lake. Her whole trip from Banff was through burnt out forests. The large ungulates did not seem to mind living in these regenerating forests, because that is all they ate.