Division of Forestry Strategic Direction
Statewide Forest Strategy 2010
Statewide Forest Assessment 2010
Forest Sustainability Framework
Statewide Forest Plan 2004
A13. Trend: Average acreage burned by forest fires has declined.
Comment #: 1
Fire charr on residual trees decrease their value greatly.
Comment #: 2
I agree that this issue should be looked at ? Contest of ole desirability to control fire to the extent we currently do.
Comment #: 3
What about people moving to rural areas?
Comment #: 4
That trend won't continue if we keep limiting access to our forest lands so we can't get fires.
Comment #: 5
CRP management mandates greatly encourage the possibility of forest fires. Dry conditions, strong winds and mandated non-cutting of late season vegetation is not only a fire threat but also extremely poor for wildlife management.
Comment #: 6
Would this be in context with the need for fire so we don't see here what has happened in the western states (summer 2000)
Comment #: 7
This is a good trend.
Comment #: 8
We have had very dry spells the last several years, with high fire risk. The timber industry let a great deal of "slash" on ground after early logging (1900-1920 or so), which accounted for the many fires afterward. Dad took me to see many huge charred stumps, from 1923 to 1929 or so. Remember the Peshtigo fire, called still "our nation's worst." The piles of debris - "slash," fueled it. All timber companies need to take away, for conversion into paper, finally, most of the debris they generate. If not doing so, please make and enforce laws to this effect. Then not so much poplar wood will be needed to be grown and used.
Comment #: 9
How would you address this issue in a state plan? Develop policy for handling naturally ocurring fies? Develop policy for controlled burns?
Comment #: 10
Ease up a bit with fire staffing and redirect this manpower on time into private forest management assistance.
Comment #: 11
We cannot change the weather. What is being asked?
Comment #: 12
AS in A10, you want to cut your budget, CUT IT HERE!!
Comment #: 13
Current DNR fire organization due to reorganization has set the program back 30 years.
Comment #: 14
The state forest lands are ripe for large scale fires with increased fuel loads. All we need is the "right" weather to have a catastrophe.
Comment #: 15
Is it still a significant issue?
Comment #: 16
Seems understood by most.
Comment #: 17
Selective cutting throughout the forst should be done to have a healthy forest
Comment #: 18
Maybe some fire to manage for jack pick and savanna.
Comment #: 19
Its my big worry with my 70 thousand pines and FOOL lumber
Comment #: 20
Unmanaged forests are more likely to have a build-up of flammable material.
Comment #: 21
We have something that works and we should continue and improve as we go along
Comment #: 22
Widespread prescribed burning not socially or economically acceptable
Comment #: 23
so what do you do?
Comment #: 24
Burning the forest wastes valuable resources. This trend is good.
Comment #: 25
Nothing we can do or should to change this
Comment #: 26
We can overdo fire protection - Fire is often good for the forest
Comment #: 27
Need more controlled fires
Comment #: 28
Keep controlling fire. Recreational use - education required.
Comment #: 29
Education of landowners since the '30's has helped in this regard.
Comment #: 30
Agree that great strides have been made, but disagree that it has been more than a decade since Wisconsin has experienced prolonged severe fire weather. Summer of 1998 was in drought conditions in the north. We were very "LUCKY" not to have a large fire.
Comment #: 31
Maybe in Wis but not other wester states
Comment #: 32
Let it burn except when private property is a factor.
Comment #: 33
We should have controlled burning - if we had some people willing to work we have the equipment
Comment #: 34
We need to educate more people with the need to allow prescribed burns.
Comment #: 35
We seem to have this fairly well solved - why make it an issue?
Comment #: 36
Is fire suppression cost-effective? In all places and all times? What would happen if forest fire suppression costs were removed from general tax revenues.
Comment #: 37
Fire can be good. Example Aspin reproduction over 300,000 ac's lost in past 20 years. Good habitation for birds and game needs fires to ?.
Comment #: 38
This is way all federal and state land all roads should be kept open at all times
Comment #: 39
Fire management needs to be return
Comment #: 40
If fire is part of the natural disturbance regime it should NOT be suppressed.
Comment #: 41
We would not tolerate the frequency and extent of the firest that occurred 70-80 yrs ago.
Comment #: 42
with controled burns on small areas
Comment #: 43
More information has to be made avialble for specific areas and the professionals have to concentrate on specific areas rather than addressing generalities.
Comment #: 44
Managed firee is better than none at all
Comment #: 45
Natural fires on politically impossible to allow - however, I advocate prescribed burns.
Comment #: 46
We are overdue for a BIG BURN! Let's prepare for it.
Comment #: 47
Fire is critical to some forest types, so "controlled" burn use must be considered
Comment #: 48
Surely some planning is already done since we do have five fighting coews, look-out towers etc.
Comment #: 49
Acknowledge this trend, but don't spend time worrying about it
Comment #: 50
Controlled burn should be considered in areas where it may be beneficial
Comment #: 51
Continue fire suppression. Encourage more burns on private forest lands. Provide assistance to these landowners.
Comment #: 52
Keep up the good public information work rangers are doing.
Comment #: 53
Because of statewide development, we can not afford to have forest firest any longer. Too costly and dangerous if left to burn out of control.
Comment #: 54
See A10.
Comment #: 55
Dry as it is here. But in the winter I have a place here in Florida and you should come and see what their controlled burns are doing ehre. There is a lot of forest near here and they did a controlled burn here and it is no longer a controled burn.
Comment #: 56
I also feel that forest that are managed correctly have a lessor chance of fire danger. (ex) Western fires of Summer of 2000.
Comment #: 57
We need to have more areas burn.
Comment #: 58
And that's why it will be difficult convincing the legislature and others that we should suddenly expand our use of fire. If we had one hot fire season in Wisconsin, all (political) hell would break loose.
Comment #: 59
This is an area where GIS could be used, to identify high priority areas (where fuel reduction needs to be addressed).
Comment #: 60
Fire is not bad for the forest. Bad for homes, yes. Let 'em burn wherever possible. Avoid a big fire by using controlled burns.
Comment #: 61
Protect what needs to be oprotected from fire, while letting fire-dependent habitats thrive to the maximum possible extent.
Comment #: 62
I am not convinced that fire should be suppressed farther.
Comment #: 63
Taking the Nat. Parks (Yellowstone) and Western Forests, where fire suppression has been practiced for many years, with the resulting accumulation of forest floor debris and consequently, hotter fires, more destrictive when fire does get going - Is this what we want for our forests in this State?
Comment #: 64
Allowing use and propagation of industrial hemp could alleviate need for fire and allow for introduction of another management tool via mechanical harvest and tillage of acreages, instead of fire. Hemp could supply much of our fiber needs.
Comment #: 65
Yes, forest fires have been reduced (to near 0) but, what are the befits. I don't know.
Comment #: 66
Some attempts for controlled burns are poorly planned - use common sense
Comment #: 67
Continue the trend. Controlled burns must be completely controlled.
Comment #: 68
A good forest needs fires, but no one likes fires, even me.
Comment #: 69
It's only a matter of time before fire is a catastrophic agent again. We should be planning for that not the short-term trend.
Comment #: 70
Need more burning.
Comment #: 71
Fire is a management tool - Oak, Jack Pine ecosystem evolved due to fire. Use the tool of fire where needed.
Comment #: 72
Some areas have been pretty bad in recent years.
Comment #: 73
Over forty years, three major fires, a wind storm even with fire lanes(?) maintained.
Comment #: 74
It is hard to let fires burn now that human habitation is moving into the woods. More, better, and improved volunteer fire department.
Comment #: 75
But not necessarily the way you want to - why "restore" unnatural fires in unnatural frequencies? A lot of the fires that burned before "Smoky the Bear" were not natural but were human-caused. I have no desire to return to that carelessness about nature (and human welfare).
Comment #: 76
Weather and risk factors control fire losses. We are still not able to contain crown fire! Just look at Montana's experience last year. We are just 1 fire away from disaster!
Comment #: 77
Should look at whether fire suppression is actually a good thing for forests liodiversity
Comment #: 78
This is what people wanted enjoy it
Comment #: 79
Suggest we look into and promote the controlled setting of "fires" to create fresh forestry and generate on a staggered but sequential basis setting a man-made burn-off by geographic regions on an annual basis.
Comment #: 80
The fuel loads in the "old forests" are going to provide a lot of fuel for these suspected sever fire weather. Timber harvest can be used to reduce these fuel loads.
Comment #: 81
Fire is an important tool in regeneration. Let man take the risks for living in old growth units but be careful in setting new fires.
Comment #: 82
After what happened in New Mexico and with the "explosion" in suburban/rural sprawl you can forget about using fire as a mangement tool. 3
Comment #: 83
If we continue with a NO NEW ROAD policy that limits access to our forests we might be faced with wide-spread loss that our wester (states) experienced this last summer.
Comment #: 84
I keep hearing that in some instances fire is a good thing for some forests - lets everything get a new start
Comment #: 85
We are spending much of our resource dollars on this now. We must start considering the cost benefit figures.
Comment #: 86
We need to allow more natural fires to burn!
Comment #: 87
I agree that burn acreage has dropped but the main reason is the logging procedures that keep the forest floor free from dead fallen timber
Comment #: 88
Relax the effort in lowerfire prone areas and apply the extra hours to private forestry assistance.
Comment #: 89
This is a positive trend and should be highlighted.
Comment #: 90
The weather will change at sometime. The western fires this year should be a reminder of the potential damage that could occur with more residences in forests, the danger is greatr than 70 years ago.
Comment #: 91
Some significant fires have occurred in my area in the last few years.
Comment #: 92
Forest fires are cerainly desireable from the natural perspective and even desireable; however this may be difficult from a practical standpoint.
Comment #: 93
We need to do more research on the role of fire in forest management, particularly its role in oak regeneration. I feel we have been way to aggressive in fire suppression.
Comment #: 94
But only as it comes to protecting private homes and lives.
Comment #: 95
This is not necessarily a good thing!!
Comment #: 96
The formation and development of many local municipal fire departments have been a huge factor in controlling forest fires.
Comment #: 97
The fire issues which need to be addressed are prescribed burning use/policies and funding for fire suppression. There is great concern on the local level at the increase in the urban/rural interface and the increasing difficulty of getting fire fighting volunteers in rural areas.
Comment #: 98
A good job is being done here
Comment #: 99
It is important to stress the effect of this decline on the five dependent ecosystems that are also declining.
Comment #: 100
I don't think that the "friendly" fires are a problem. There are some.
Comment #: 101
underlined: "a decade since Wisconsin has experienced prolonged"
Comment #: 102
People start nearly all fires, weather usually only effects the extent of fires.
Comment #: 103
I assume you're talking about 'wild' fires here. I would hope that the acreage of prescribed burns as a management tool has increased, though I don't know.
Comment #: 104
I'm not in fire control, but it seems to me we have had prolonged severe fire weather in the last couple of years. For one the year 2000 comes to mind.
Comment #: 105
It is only a matter of time before a large scale fire takes place. With the idea of global warming and in certain areas less management(ie Federal Lands) the threat of larger fires is very real.
Comment #: 106
Important to determine detrimental side of fre prevention in terms of species and ecosystem management
Comment #: 107
Addresse this in a manner that does not promote down sizing of Wisconsin's fire control program. There is still great forest fire potential in Wiscosnin especially with the increasing amount of urban / wildland interface.
Comment #: 108
You can forestall the inevitable, but eventually it will happen-drought and a lot of major fire activity.
Comment #: 109
THis is less an issue about forest and more an issue of protection of man-made structures due to the inherrebt value of this property.
Comment #: 110
I feel in parts of the state, especially the northwest, we over-staff for fire control. We gear up for fires that never happen and perhaps can't happen anymore due to loss or conversion of the contiguous conifer cover type. Meanwhile, lots of damage to the private forest lands is occurring due to lack of management, mismanagement, timber mining, and fragmentation. The "invisible flame"! Rome is burning while we stand by, hoping for the woods to catch fire! We should ease up a bit on fire control, and redirect some of their efforts into private lands forestry.
Comment #: 111
Fire suppression is a two-edged sword and should be seriously evaluated. Some fires should be permitted and monitored. THose we need to truly control are those that put people or their property at risk.
Comment #: 112
I think we need to look at fire more as a management tool. We spend so much time trying to suppress fires. We need to use fire even more as a management tool. It will help us to address some of the very issues we are concerned with above such as invasive species, savannas, etc.
Comment #: 113
Fire as a management tool has been used successfully before the DNR even entered the picture.
Comment #: 114
Social needs will continue to dominate fire supression management, and well they should. However, some consideration should be made on larger public lands for continued, and maybe expanded, prescribed burn and wild fires to promote fire obligate ecosystems. Obviously, the planning process provides the balancing process.
Comment #: 115
Again, education is required to let the public know that unless we manage timber and do some precautionary treatments, we could be setting ourselves up for a tragedy similar to what the western US experienced this year. This again will involve harvesting mature and insect or disease-stressed stands, and possibly some prescribed fire.
Comment #: 116
As eluded to any year could bring about severe fire conditions, therfore should be reveiwed each year.
Comment #: 117
This can be covered easily along with other issues A10 and A14.
Comment #: 118
This is just a point related to A14. It should be incorporated into the following issue.
Comment #: 119
With the number and value of homes within the forested rural areas, we can't stop fighting fires. This succes in fire suppression has severly altered the natural processes within the forest ecosystem. We need to address what we're going to do to preserve the species that need fire to rergenerate or maintain themselves.
Comment #: 120
Overly zealous fire suppression is a risky business. This issue needs much more research as we begin to think about how to recreate and manage for natural disturbance regimes.
Comment #: 121
The wildland-urban intermix needs to be addressed in order to plan for the protection of homes and cabins in areas that used to be undeveloped
Comment #: 122
The wildland-urban intermix needs to be addressed in order to plan for the protection of homes and cabins in areas that used to be undeveloped
Comment #: 123
Agree. Wildland FF should be called "Urban Interface FF" FF main duties at one time was to protect the resource. If we are not going to use the resource for our consumption why protect in from the natural fire system? Yes, we have to protect the homes (Life- property-resource) ....Urban interface firefighter.
Comment #: 124
I think we need to not control forest fires as much. It is important for them to rage, to clear the forest, to allow it space to regenerate. I think it would be good to see our annual acreage of fire burn go UP each year. I think education to the public about the value of fire is vital. Saving lives and property is all good, but why are we sacrificing the health of the forest we all love and enjoy (that is why we build our houses there) to save the house we built? We need to work WITH the cycles of nature rather than against it worried about our material goods we have placed there.
Comment #: 125
I would see this as note worthy but not in need of indepth discussion.
Comment #: 126
I would see this as note worthy but not in need of indepth discussion.
Comment #: 127
I'm not sure what addressing this "trend" would mean...
Comment #: 128
remember yellowstone???
Comment #: 129
Fire is often good.
Comment #: 130
Fires nowadays are considered a bad thing and make sensational media coverage
Comment #: 131
Fires nowadays are considered a bad thing and make sensational media coverage
Comment #: 132
change "fifires" to "fires".
What has been the impact on the health of of forests as a result of fire suppression? Any concerns of fuel buildup as there are out west?
Comment #: 133
What exactly do you think you can do about natures decisions
Comment #: 134
The controlling of forest fires should not be the number one priority in fire management. Fires should be allowed to burn, or even prescribed, where they can have beneficial impacts to the ecosystem.
Comment #: 135
Fire is not a bad process when harnessed and managed responsibily.
Comment #: 136
if this was not of importance we wouldn't need fire control personel throughout the state offices
Comment #: 137
We need to look at historical trends and determine what can be done in order to prevent catastrophic events from occuring today.
Comment #: 138
We need to look at historical trends and determine what can be done in order to prevent catastrophic events from occuring today.
Comment #: 139
I think fire should be looked at as a management tool and not as a problem.
Comment #: 140
You cannot avoid the unavoidable, nature will not be tamed and you cannot stop natural processes. You can just postpone them, which usually makes them worse in the long run.
Comment #: 141
Whether wild or contolled, fire is an important part of certain ecosystems.
This fact should be addressed.
Comment #: 142
I don't feel that fire is such a bad thing. It is sad when people's homes and businesses get burnt, but fire is very benefitial to the forests.
Comment #: 143
It is very important to the safety and welfare to those who recreate in our state forestland, however, by suppressing fires we have to realize that some types of forest succession are going to suffer as a result. We have to decide what is most important for the future of Wisconsin's biodiversity.
Comment #: 144
It is very important to the safety and welfare to those who recreate in our state forestland, however, by suppressing fires we have to realize that some types of forest succession are going to suffer as a result. We have to decide what is most important for the future of Wisconsin's biodiversity.
Comment #: 145
Fire is a natural part of many systems, but it wouldn't be good to have houses getting burned down...
Comment #: 146
This si a factiod.
Comment #: 147
Obviously a forest that is not impacted by fire is different than on that is. Fire is and should contiue to be considered in forest management.
Comment #: 148
Addressed earlier.
Comment #: 149
The current policy of fire suppresion seems to be working.
Comment #: 150
I think we can only solve this by working with insurance agencies to not insure people that choose to live outside of cities. That doesn't sound like an easy task.
Comment #: 151
Yes, good for public understanding if nothing else.
Comment #: 152
How can you not include it? Still, the
role of fires in forest ecology is not
conclusive. The impact of a large fire
on humans would probably be more directly
devestating than on the forests, considering
trend for rural development in several
counties of Wisconsin. You seem to be
in a "Catch-22" as to whether you prevent
fires, thus increasing the forest "fuel" or
allow controlled and smaller wildfires!
Comment #: 153
For forest ecology, fire is generally good. So this reduction is bad for healthy forests. The Smokey Bear mentality must change.
Comment #: 154
For forest ecology, fire is generally good. So this reduction is bad for healthy forests. The Smokey Bear mentality must change.
Comment #: 155
Part of this also pertains to A12.
Comment #: 156
If certain carefully defined areas were targeted for no fire supression, devlopment would slow due to high cost of insurance, etc; this should be a written policy issue approved at the top state level, reviewed at regular intervals, to protect against lawsuits. Some fire - in carefully defined areas- is a good management tool and favorable for certain ecological types.
Comment #: 157
If certain carefully defined areas were targeted for no fire supression, devlopment would slow due to high cost of insurance, etc; this should be a written policy issue approved at the top state level, reviewed at regular intervals, to protect against lawsuits. Some fire - in carefully defined areas- is a good management tool and favorable for certain ecological types.
Comment #: 158
If certain carefully defined areas were targeted for no fire supression, devlopment would slow due to high cost of insurance, etc; this should be a written policy issue approved at the top state level, reviewed at regular intervals, to protect against lawsuits. Some fire - in carefully defined areas- is a good management tool and favorable for certain ecological types.
Comment #: 159
Be prepared for increases.
Comment #: 160
Please help lay "Smokey" to rest and promote a better understanding of fire ecology.
Comment #: 161
We must allow forests to burn as they would otherwise naturally.
Comment #: 162
burning is good but is also bad
Comment #: 163
about 27 years ago, yellowstone national park burned thousands of acres. now this last year, yellowstone didnt eve burn off half of that.
Comment #: 164
I guess it all depends on where the fire happens.
Comment #: 165
Important to mention Wisconsin's fire suppression abilities.
Comment #: 166
Naturally occuring fires, unless a threat to personal safety or property, should be allowed to burn.See Audubon magazine, Jan-Feb. 2001.
Comment #: 167
Naturally occuring fires, unless a threat to personal safety or property, should be allowed to burn.See Audubon magazine, Jan-Feb. 2001.
Comment #: 168
How can forest plans effect average acres burned? I don't understand this. Isn't this more of a comment on weather and fire control measures than on forest planning? Or is this connected to the number of roads that are planned for fire control purposes? I'm confused.
Comment #: 169
I really don't think we can control Mother Nature as much as we would like otherwise.
Comment #: 170
I am concerned that we are removing fire as an ecological process in our forests. More areas need to burn, but in a controlled manner.
Comment #: 171
Fire can become the central issue of any season with a change in weather. We must be prepared to manage this issue when, not if, it becomes the major problem of the year.
Comment #: 172
see comment above
Last Revised: Monday July 30 2007
RSS