I live in Rapid City, SD. It's a beautiful place on the edge of the Black Hills, the air is clear and clean the view is unlimited and spectacular.

This morning I had to drive to Sturgis 30 miles to the West. The usually pristine air was more like a bad day in Los Angeles. Visibility was less than 3 miles the air was full of smoke and it looked like it was cloudy but it was smoke. At first I thought a forest fire had started over night. Later I found out there was no fire here, this smoke is from fires in Montana that are 500 to 900 miles away where over 500 square miles have gone up in smoke so far this year and major fires are still burning and will burn until the winter rain and snow extinguish them.

We hear every day how cars and burning fossil fuels and power plants are contributing to the greenhouse gases that cause global warming but Al Gore et al don't say a damn word about the massive amounts of greenhouse gases created by these huge fires. They not only spew massive amounts of Carbon Monoxide and other contaminants into the atmosphere, they remove large areas of plant life that take in Carbon Dioxide and give of Oxygen.

The environmental extremeist will say let them burn they are natural but don't want anyone conduct any logging operations that might remove some of the timber and make these fires less catostrophic. I guess it is better to let the whole forest go up in smoke than to manage it senseably and remove only a portion of the trees.

Until the global warming crowd addresses the whole issue of greenhouse gases instead of just taking pot shots at the power plants and automotive industry how can they be taken seriously. I read an article today that said the methane from cow farts produce more greenhouse gases every year than all the power plants in the U.S. combined. It is time for everyone to stop playing politics, the blame game, quit finger pointing and take a logical approach to this problem or it will never be solved.

I do believe global warming is a problem, but I don't think we will die next month if something doesn't happen now. Its more than cars, cow farts, and pot smokers. I tend to think that because theres less green (trees, bushes, etc) in suburbs and cities that amount to a lot of gasses going into the atmosphere because theres nothing to counter it in those areas.

Just me tho

q- where do we get over 90 percent of our oxygen?

ans. the oceans.

But the oceans are being polluted as well. There hasn't been a real study on oxygen levels at this point in time. There are people with stats about it, but no proof to back those up.

im all for saving the planet, too.

Garden-

You are right forests need to be managed to remove some dead wood and brush to prevent fires or keep their intensity down. Selective logging and controlled burns are the best methods for managing forests to encourage natural growth patterns, retain wildlife and native species and diminish fire intensity's and prevent fires from spreading. Most current forestry managers and environmentalists are well aware of this and would like it to happen. The idea of "untouched, unmanaged preserves" is mostly a dinasour at this point because there is no way to preserve and area and retain it's natural charactoristics amoung so much habitation. But there are several major problems with forestry management efforts.

1. Logging is most profitable when "clear-cutting" methods are used. If you are unaware, clear cutting is just like it sounds- you clear the land of every single tree by cutting them all down in continuous groups. In this manner you just keep making open spaces bigger. Obviously, this is a problem in several aspects- the habitat for the native creatures is removed completely and they have no place to go for one. Also, it's aesthetically unappealing (it's dead ugly in fact). Lastly, but perhaps most directly important to humans, trees serve several purposes: interception and slowing of rainwater flows, water purification and storage, transpiration- which helps regulate humidity levels, CO2 removal and oxygen production. shade and temperature regualtion, etc.

Clear-cutting upsets a lot of these balences because there are no "natural" occurances that would result in the simultaneous removal of all the trees in a large area. So when you clear cut you can create areas much more prone to mudslides, areas that are unstable, or more prone to desertification. You also open the door wide open, by removing current vegetation, to another big problem:

2. Invasive species: in many areas where fire cycles have increased it is a direct result of the introduction and spread of non-native species that have shorter fire cycles. this is a huge problem in the western states where things like cheat grass have been introduced by man in areas where they were not historically present. Cheat grass burns like crazy- it's a really hot fire fuel- and it has a very short fire cycles- naturally burns every few years. So when it was introduced to areas that traditionally only burned every decade or few decades it caused some horrific conflagrations.

3. Encroachment of human habitats and attendent fire risks. Another big problem with forest management is that people are moving too close to forests making it difficult to perform controlled burns to remove deadwoods and undergrowth. This also makes selective logging difficult as neighbors don't like the noise and trucks etc. And humans start fires accidentally meaning uncontrolled fires- during dry seasons especially- occur near large forest tracts. Human landscaping and building practices play a part as well as they generally encourage fire spread and jumping by using flamable materials and plants in semi-open arrays that allow winds maximum fire spreading.

4. People don't understand the purpose and need for controlled burns and protest them. Also, just as in any other field, incompetents go in and start "controlled" burns that get out of control- justifying the fears of the masses who don't like controlled burns.

Selective forestry is very popular with most environmental managers- but not so much with logging companies who don't want the bother and will push for clear cutting whenever possible and claim that they cannot make a profit unless they can take all the trees.

Sorry that was so long- it's really not a simple issue and I don't know how to make it clearer.

In earlier times nature took care of itself, that includes fire, water and storms. It was ok at that time, there were no cars, no factories and no powerplants to add to the damage. Nowadays fires are mostly caused by arson, the balance is off due to forementioned cars and things.
How do you expect nature to cope with unnatural things like that?
Nature still wants to look after itself, but it doesn't "know" about the interference caused by the human race.

Yes invisible, I agree nature is no longer allowed to renew itself in it's natural cycles because of human interference so humans have to simulate natural cycles as best they can while minimizing their own impacts.

yes, and everything has it's own time, but you have to study nature and the natural cycles for that. Men try control rather than to go with the flow, and that is what's causing the problems.

*bows down to oasis* finally an environmentalist who is cute AND smart

Thank you Allen, which part am I lacking??????????

I gave you a compliment last night so you should be happy invis =D

Thank you Damn(?)- but how to shorten your screen name??!?!!?



(invisible I'm sure you are not lacking, perhaps he's just taking turns).

OK forrest fires for some reason.......make the soil very rich in hmmmmmmmmm>>???? idk carbons???? correct me because Im not sure which it is. To plant the trees in this area would be good for the environment no???

Where I live, they had the biggest fire a few years ago since?????????? anyways I see that there are mass trees growing in the areas now that were once burnt.... trees/plants produce oxygen.......

but then again/.......let us not forget the ferocious pine beetle!!!!

ohhhhhhhhh I can feel ppl googling and wiki ing right now

anoasis I am well aware of what clear cutting is, I grew up in Montana when it was the only logging practice used. Selective logging is not the method that most people use. Still the radical fringe in the environmental movement use every method possible to block any logging. Near Lead, SD we have 35,000 acres that are standing dead because of the pine beetle, it's a conflagration waiting for a match, yet the enviros blocked any logging of that dead timber until it was too late for it to be used. We had an 85,000 acre forest fire here in 2000, there were lots of trees that were killed by the fire yet they were still salvageable for lumber and again the environmentalists blocked the harvest of those trees.

However I don't want to turn this thread into an argument on logging, the main intent of this thread was to question why nobody in the global warming mob ever says one word about the greenhouse gases produced by anything other than power plants, industry and automobiles. They take a miopic approach because it serves their purpose and they ignore anything else regardless of the seriousness of the problem if it conflicts with the way they think the Earth should be managed. If they were to acknowledge that the greenhouse gases from these fires are a serious problem related to global warming then it would invalidate their hardline stance on forest management.If they can't grab headlines with it, they aren't interested. They are more about keeping their face in front of the cameras than actually doing something about the problem. They can point the finger, play the blame game, hold meetings to form a consensus and highten awareness but they are not addressing the whole problem and it seems like they never will. No wonder so many people have a problem taking them seriously.

Prolly cause the people who are actually out there working don't have time to sit around and complain about it. THey are out their working their arse off, trying to solve the problem.