This is a mountaineering forum, so please keep your posts on-topic. Posts do not all have to be related to the 14ers but should at least be mountaineering-related.
Personal attacks and confrontational behavior will result in removal from the forum at the discretion of the administrators.
Do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website.
Posts will be removed at the discretion of the site administrator or moderator(s), including: Troll posts, posts pushing political views or religious beliefs, and posts with the purpose of instigating conflict within the forum.
For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
Tony1 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 10:01 am
If there's a silver lining, it's that the first big monsoon surge absolutely stunted fire activity here in CO. Not to discount the destruction caused to a Ouray neighborhood by a debris flow. With more rain coming, the transition to a warm/wet summer may yield a great mushroom season too. In August '22 I saw so many mushrooms I wouldn't have imagined existed in CO on just one hike. Plus the second wildflower bloom, depending on location, etc.
But by and large, yes it's rough and it would be normal to think so.
You would think that a summer like this would be a reckoning moment for those bright minds who still think we're dealing with a normal Milankovitch cycle or whatever the preferred excuse is, but...
yep for me seeing the glaciers shrink every year - it was obvious decades ago things were changing.
now this year i think an average person who is living in the US or europe can see it in plain sight having a summer full of fires, drought, and 100 degree days
cottonmountaineering wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 9:47 am
yep some of those burn scars will last a long time, everything needs to burn and the longer we wait the hotter the fire will burn
But do you want your favorite forest to burn if there's a risk it doesn't regenerate, at least not within several human generations? What happens to bears, mountain lions, and other species if forest cover in the West keeps declining?
I agree that fire is a natural part of the western landscape, and there was a lengthy period where there was too much fire suppression. But with the build up of fuels from that suppression and the warmer and drier climate we're now in, the solution is probably more complicated than every fire being a net positive. Low-intensity prescribed fires, when the weather conditions don't favor extreme fire behavior, are needed. Forest thinning (not clear cutting) to reduce fire intensity in the event of an accidental ignition is probably helpful too. But these huge plume-driven wildfires that are scorching everything down to bedrock? I think those need to be prevented to the greatest extent possible. They seem hugely damaging to the environment, and they release a lot of carbon back into the atmosphere.
But yeah, if by "everything needs to burn" you are talking about low-intensity fire, prescribed or otherwise, then I largely agree.
cottonmountaineering wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 9:47 am
yep some of those burn scars will last a long time, everything needs to burn and the longer we wait the hotter the fire will burn
But do you want your favorite forest to burn if there's a risk it doesn't regenerate, at least not within several human generations? What happens to bears, mountain lions, and other species if forest cover in the West keeps declining?
I agree that fire is a natural part of the western landscape, and there was a lengthy period where there was too much fire suppression. But with the build up of fuels from that suppression and the warmer and drier climate we're now in, the solution is probably more complicated than every fire being a net positive. Low-intensity prescribed fires, when the weather conditions don't favor extreme fire behavior, are needed. Forest thinning (not clear cutting) to reduce fire intensity in the event of an accidental ignition is probably helpful too. But these huge plume-driven wildfires that are scorching everything down to bedrock? I think those need to be prevented to the greatest extent possible. They seem hugely damaging to the environment, and they release a lot of carbon back into the atmosphere.
But yeah, if by "everything needs to burn" you are talking about low-intensity fire, prescribed or otherwise, then I largely agree.
yes i do want my favorite forest to burn, even if it is high intensity, even if it leaves a 100 year long burn scar. the wildlife will die or relocate. the reason why is the longer we wait the more fuels accumulate, and the worse off the forest will be in the long term. there is no "cleaning up" the national forest, the only way out is for the accumulated to fuel to burn.
fed govt does not do prescribed burns in the west at the rate we need due to occasionally losing control of the fire and getting sued, so here we are.
cottonmountaineering wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 10:49 am
yes i do want my favorite forest to burn, even if it is high intensity, even if it leaves a 100 year long burn scar. the wildlife will die or relocate. the reason why is the longer we wait the more fuels accumulate, and the worse off the forest will be in the long term. there is no "cleaning up" the national forest, the only way out is for the accumulated to fuel to burn.
fed govt does not do prescribed burns in the west at the rate we need due to occasionally losing control of the fire and getting sued, so here we are.
I'm not seeing how the permanent loss of forest (unless the future climate somehow cools and becomes more wet), with dead wildlife (and possibly species extinction), plus returning all of that carbon to the atmosphere, isn't the worst possible outcome. We can choose to reduce fuel loading if we dedicate the time and money to it. Agree to disagree I suppose.
cottonmountaineering wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 10:49 am
yes i do want my favorite forest to burn, even if it is high intensity, even if it leaves a 100 year long burn scar. the wildlife will die or relocate. the reason why is the longer we wait the more fuels accumulate, and the worse off the forest will be in the long term. there is no "cleaning up" the national forest, the only way out is for the accumulated to fuel to burn.
fed govt does not do prescribed burns in the west at the rate we need due to occasionally losing control of the fire and getting sued, so here we are.
I'm not seeing how the permanent loss of forest (unless the future climate somehow cools and becomes more wet), with dead wildlife (and possibly species extinction), plus returning all of that carbon to the atmosphere, isn't the worst possible outcome. We can choose to reduce fuel loading if we dedicate the time and money to it. Agree to disagree I suppose.
in colorado, in the natural forest fire cycle, 1-2 million acres of forest should burn per year on average, a quick google search says we do between 15,000-50,000 acres per year of prescribed burns which would take us like ~250 years to get to the whole forest if we burned only unique areas.
so in my opinion there is not the option to "reduce fuel loading" in a reasonable time frame, the only two options are to let it burn now, or let it burn later and at higher intensity
cottonmountaineering wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 11:20 am
in colorado, in the natural forest fire cycle, 1-2 million acres of forest should burn per year on average, a quick google search says we do between 15,000-50,000 acres per year of prescribed burns which would take us like ~250 years to get to the whole forest if we burned only unique areas.
so in my opinion there is not the option to "reduce fuel loading" in a reasonable time frame, the only two options are to let it burn now, or let it burn later and at higher intensity
Well, as in dealing with many aspects of climate change, we need to step it up, especially in the highest-value/highest-risk places, if we want to have some of these forests left to enjoy in the future. Now will we? Probably not. You're right that it's an enormous effort. In the meantime, we can't really stop the high-intensity crown fires either, so we'll likely achieve your outcome by default. I just don't think it's a very desirable one. Is it better than having an even bigger conflagration a few decades later? Yeah. That's an awfully low bar though.
cottonmountaineering wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 11:20 am
in colorado, in the natural forest fire cycle, 1-2 million acres of forest should burn per year on average, a quick google search says we do between 15,000-50,000 acres per year of prescribed burns which would take us like ~250 years to get to the whole forest if we burned only unique areas.
so in my opinion there is not the option to "reduce fuel loading" in a reasonable time frame, the only two options are to let it burn now, or let it burn later and at higher intensity
Well, as in dealing with many aspects of climate change, we need to step it up, especially in the highest-value/highest-risk places, if we want to have some of these forests left to enjoy in the future. Now will we? Probably not. You're right that it's an enormous effort. In the meantime, we can't really stop the high-intensity crown fires either, so we'll likely achieve your outcome by default. I just don't think it's a very desirable one. Is it better than having an even bigger conflagration a few decades later? Yeah. That's an awfully low bar though.
yeah, i think the biggest realistic change that needs to be made is letting wildfires run their course in normal years without a maximum effort to extinguish them, in the future it would prevent having years like this one
cottonmountaineering wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 11:20 am
in colorado, in the natural forest fire cycle, 1-2 million acres of forest should burn per year on average, a quick google search says we do between 15,000-50,000 acres per year of prescribed burns which would take us like ~250 years to get to the whole forest if we burned only unique areas.
so in my opinion there is not the option to "reduce fuel loading" in a reasonable time frame, the only two options are to let it burn now, or let it burn later and at higher intensity
Well, as in dealing with many aspects of climate change, we need to step it up, especially in the highest-value/highest-risk places, if we want to have some of these forests left to enjoy in the future. Now will we? Probably not. You're right that it's an enormous effort. In the meantime, we can't really stop the high-intensity crown fires either, so we'll likely achieve your outcome by default. I just don't think it's a very desirable one. Is it better than having an even bigger conflagration a few decades later? Yeah. That's an awfully low bar though.
yeah, i think the biggest realistic change that needs to be made is letting wildfires run their course in normal years without a maximum effort to extinguish them, in the future it would prevent having years like this one
Ackshually it's to spend a lot of time on raking and cleaning and doing things.
Well, as in dealing with many aspects of climate change, we need to step it up, especially in the highest-value/highest-risk places, if we want to have some of these forests left to enjoy in the future. Now will we? Probably not. You're right that it's an enormous effort. In the meantime, we can't really stop the high-intensity crown fires either, so we'll likely achieve your outcome by default. I just don't think it's a very desirable one. Is it better than having an even bigger conflagration a few decades later? Yeah. That's an awfully low bar though.
yeah, i think the biggest realistic change that needs to be made is letting wildfires run their course in normal years without a maximum effort to extinguish them, in the future it would prevent having years like this one
Ackshually it's to spend a lot of time on raking and cleaning and doing things.
We are only like halfway through fire season right now, 2020 was pretty bad but that actually ramped up later than the fires this year, felt like we were heading for all time Colorado burns this year but those early monsoon rains went along way and I even had a few bluebird days in the past few weeks. For the Denver area 2020 was like constant awful August and September. 2002 Hayman fire was the worst conditions in Denver, using my snow brush to brush off ashes and it felt truly apocalyptic in town. Overall the trend for warmer, drier years, less snow, etc makes me sad as I love cold and snow. The silver lining is I don't have to migrate south to warmer temperatures when I retire, as Denver is like Phoenix 30 years ago now.
well this is neither here nor there - but i figure this place does have a good potential number of forest ecologist - or even the armchair variety - to weigh in on accuracy of these renderings??
Catastrophic Wildfire Recovery After 100 years - various forest types:
the machine is holding out more hope for Western Cascades Douglas-fir-hemlock and Greater Yellowstone lodgepole pine recovery?? even though by my eyes - the pacific NW is in serious long term trouble maintaining forests as is.
