How Thinning Impacts Fuels
A few years ago, the Custer Gallatin National Forest thinned the area on Kirk Hill by Bozeman to reduce fuels.
As has been reported, one of the problems with any fuel reduction is that the probably that a fire will encounter it during the period when it’s potentially effective is very small–usually around 1%.
A second problem is that thinning often increases the abundance of “fine fuels’ like grasses, shrubs and small trees. Large trees are less likely to burn which is why we get snags. So removal of larger trees does not necesssarily result in less fire spread. It’s not the total biomass that determines fire spread, but the percentage of fine fuels like grasses.
Below is the Kirk Hill area immediately after thinning. Within two years, the area is now covered with dried grass–a highly flammable fuel. For the last picture I turned 180 degrees to photograph the same forest twenty feet from the previous photo but in forest that hasn’t been thinned. Note the fuel load is lower. The vegetation in the shade is still green–thus less flammable than the cured grass in the thinned area.

George Wuerthner
George Wuerthner is an ecologist and former hunting guide with a degree in wildlife biology
3 Responses to How Thinning Impacts Fuels
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 995 other subscribersRecent Posts
- Juniper and grasslands–How Cattle Grazing Impacts Ecosystems October 3, 2023
- Anthropocene Boosters: The Attack On Parks And Wilderness September 29, 2023
- Yellowstone Bison DEIS Comments September 20, 2023
- Logging Creates “Unhealthy” Forests With Less Resilence September 12, 2023
- How Thinning Impacts Fuels September 11, 2023
Recent Comments
- Ed Loosli on Juniper and grasslands–How Cattle Grazing Impacts Ecosystems
- Mike Higgins on Juniper and grasslands–How Cattle Grazing Impacts Ecosystems
- Maggie Frazier on Juniper and grasslands–How Cattle Grazing Impacts Ecosystems
- Jerry Thiessen on Anthropocene Boosters: The Attack On Parks And Wilderness
- Chris Zinda on Anthropocene Boosters: The Attack On Parks And Wilderness
- Chris Zinda on Anthropocene Boosters: The Attack On Parks And Wilderness
- Richard Halsey on Anthropocene Boosters: The Attack On Parks And Wilderness
- Chris Zinda on Anthropocene Boosters: The Attack On Parks And Wilderness
- Chris Zinda on Anthropocene Boosters: The Attack On Parks And Wilderness
- Ralph Duane Short on Anthropocene Boosters: The Attack On Parks And Wilderness
- Fred Koontz on Anthropocene Boosters: The Attack On Parks And Wilderness
- Ida Lupine on Anthropocene Boosters: The Attack On Parks And Wilderness
- Ida Lupine on Anthropocene Boosters: The Attack On Parks And Wilderness
- Maggie Frazier on Anthropocene Boosters: The Attack On Parks And Wilderness
- Bill Cunningham on Anthropocene Boosters: The Attack On Parks And Wilderness
Simple, elegant, and extremely clear. Thanks, George. Unfortunately, the financial incentive to log and clear habitat supersedes science and logic… and the preservation of the natural world.
Was the grass planted or natural? Was the grass native or alien? Grass fires in this ecological setting can yield far different results, even positive results, than cheat grass fires in sagebrush. We need to be clear about the message.
Here’s a more fundamental and better reason not to kill trees: It’s totally immoral to kill anything you don’t eat. Humans don’t eat trees, so they have no business killing them. PERIOD!!!