by: Gavin Deehan
The Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic that is currently taking place is one of the biggest we have seen. There is much controversy over whether we should be using our resources and taking action to help prevent or at least slow down the current outbreak. It is a hard decision to make be because of course it is only natural to let it take place and let the forest fend for itself. But now we also have to think of all of the people that live in our Rocky Mountains and what we can do to keep it a safe area for them.
So is it better for us to keep the inhabited areas as safe as we can or to let nature take it’s course?
Here are some of the things that can be done to help battle the current outbreak. Spraying the trees properly will help protect them before they are attacked. If fully sprayed to the correct height this will help prevent the beetles from attacking the tree. Removal of dead trees will help protect the area from future fire outbreaks. Proper practice of silviculture to design land will prevent future problems, with trees properly spaced and healthy they will be less likely to be attacked. Also there are pheromones that can be applied to signal beetles that certain trees are already taken. All of these prevention techniques only work and help if put to use the right way.
Whether you think we should take action or we should stay out of it, should some of these techniques be put into place with some sort of enforcement?
30 comments:
Well, one of the main reasons this is happening now is because most of the pine trees in Rocky Mountain National Forest are reaching about 100 years old. With all the trees reaching the end of their lives, they are all more susceptible to pine beetle kill. I think there are actions we can take to prevent further damage, but it seems like such a big project. There are so many areas that are being affected. I think the main thing should be to address further problems like this. If we plant more trees of varying species, and at different times, we will have a healthier, more diverse forest that is better protected from the invasive pine beetle.
Their is also more contributing factors, with the biggest being a lack of moisture. This is causing stress on the trees and then allowing the beetle to enter the tree easier than normal. I think that nature should take its place but that we should not let everything die. It would be good if we could selectively spray trees so we will at least have some seed trees in-case the outbreak gets worse.
I think that nature should take its place. The beetles historically have had increases in previous years. The link to climate change is that even with the slightest increase in temperatures during the winter more of the beetles are able to survive the winters long enough to reproduce. If it is human caused do we have a responsibility to combat the beetle outbreak?
What are the major consequences if we let the pine beetles kill the trees as they have done in the past? Will this epidemic increase avalanche occurrence? Don't new successive species, like aspens, take over pretty quickly?
I feel like nature should run it's course. This may have been intensified by human causes, but if so maybe the forest needs to adapt to these new changes. This is a natural forest cycle, and with every natural cycle there will be succession and re-growth. Why would we put so much effort towards saving trees that are already so close to the end of their life cycle anyways?
I agree with all of this and think that letting nature take its course is always a good way to go about things, but i also think that there are some things that we can be doing. Clearing of dead trees and some attempt to protect younger trees are things that could be done. Of course its not worth saving every old tree because they don't have much life left in them anyway. But we also have to think of all the people that now inhabit the area of this outbreak. If we do nothing and let nature fully take its course then another aspect of nature is wild fires. With a forest full of dead and weak trees a wild fire would rip through and everyone in the area are now in the middle of it.
I think nature should run its course, some of the alternatives just dont seem favorable. For example, we could introduce a new species to the area that would maybe eat the pine beetles but as seen in northern Australia, they brought the Cane toad over to try and manage the increasing population of the Cane beetle. This resulted in even bigger problems. The cane toad populations grow exponentially and they are large, loud, poisonous creatures. So ya, learn from past mistakes, dont introduce new species to the area.
We must be very careful when making policy for this issue. The mountain pine beetle has every right to live as you and me and implementing environmental policy to appease humans is not a valid reason. Maybe those who live in the forrest must embrace the pine beetle and what ever it brings because it is apart of nature. Just because it poses a threat to our enjoyments does not mean that is is a "problem" that requires our attention.
One of the key things to look at, as Kerstin J noted, are the impacts of pine beetle destruction. This includes forest fires (accumulations of dead, dry trees), stronger avalanches (dead trees, or the lack of trees, do not offer any barriers to slow down an avalanche once it has begun), and altered snow melt (dead trees have fewer pine needles, allowing a lot more incoming solar energy to melt snow), and loss of habitats. By first assessing the impacts, and doing so accurately, we can then begin to approach finding a solution. However, I feel that this process has already come so far that it would be very hard, if not futile, to prevent it entirely. Increasing the diversity of the trees is an interesting idea (and a hot topic of debate right now), but as someone mentioned, it is also very dangerous due to the unknown side effects. Perhaps increasing the amount of some already native species of trees that are not susceptible to the beetles would be a good place to start.
I agree that we should not introduce any more species and that nature should run its course. i'm sure something similar has happened to a species and they survived it. Intervening in nature doesnt seem to help us in any other aspect so why force it here?
As Kerstin said "What are the major consequences if we let the pine beetles kill the trees?" There are many different things in nature that cause species to die off and come back or be replaced in nature. For example forest fires happen natually and are impostant to the health of the forest by renourishing the soil with important nutrients for treegrowth. Whats to say the pine beatles disctruction will not have the same positive outcome? After the trees have been killed by the beatles they will begin to decompose and return their nutrients to the soil.
Most of the techniques that you spoke of are already being put in place in some areas. The problem is that there are so many effected trees in such a big area that it is nearly impossible to control or stop the problem. The man hours it would take to properly scrub the forests and try to put a hold on this problem would be outrageous and costly. The only way to put a hold on it is to get a ton of volunteers that love the forest to go out and employ all of these techniques to infected areas - but that is far from happening.
Seems like the answer here might be to take a role in the middle of the two extremes. What if we sprayed the phermone that repels the beetles on 1/4 or 1/2 of the trees? It seems like this would allow us to mimmick previous beetle outbreaks that were less serious. I'm usually against humans trying to alter nature like this but it seems like a comprimise like this might be beneficial.
David McKinley
I think that taking action soon would be a good option, for mitigating fire hazard, and mainly because assuming the affected area is increasing, it is a matter of time and would need to happen eventually. Also, if the age of the trees is a large cause then a lot of thought into differing trees would be a good idea.
I agree that there are a varity of mitigating factors against interfering in the natural process, however both promoting the survival of the living forest for both the natural beauty of the area, as well as its ecological benefits (oxygen production, wildlife habitats, etc.) is critical. In addition, the removal of these trees may be made more fiezable by accounting for the financial viability for the forest's resources. I think the best solution is to impliment intelligent public policy (legal restrictions and regulations) which will allow logging companies to harvest still useful lumber in the area, as well as demand intelligent replanting and reclamation processes by these private organizations.
From what i've heard the only wrong thing we've done about forest management was suppress forest fires. This causes the forests to be on average older and more prone to attack. Younger forests seem to have a better balance with the beetle. We shouldn't spray many forests, but discontinue as much forest fire suppression are possible.
While i dont like the idea of spraying a whole forest worth of trees with what i assume to be pesticides, the alternative of letting the trees succumb to pine beetles does not seem to be much more appealing. I know that introducing a new species into any environment can have adverse effects for an ecosystem, but i wonder whether there is any animal that naturally eats pine beetles and could be used to alleviate this problem without the use of pesticides or more extreme methods.
I think that it is impractical to try to treat millions of acres of trees with any approach. The forest will bounce back from this; it evolved with these beetles. The real problem is for us people since it poses a high fire danger. Ironically it was the fire suppression policy that lead to such homogenized forests for the beetles in the first place. I think the main issue should be to try to mitigate the huge forest fire threat that is sure to com eventually. Maybe a logging company will see the niche and step in.
This is definitely a big project to undertake. I have heard of a project that could be underway to use controlled wildfires to slow down the pine beetle. This could seve as a solution because it would kill the beetle in the process and rehabilitate the forest through the burning and reuse of organic matter. Though this might not be favorable to everyone, it is a possible solution.
I know if the temperature remains below of certain point for long enough, the pine beetles can't survive and die off. Does anyone know if this last week of extreme cold temperatures was long enough to reduce their numbers?
I think instead of turning the pine beetle problem into a negative, we should turn it around. One of the ways to help control pine beetle outbreak is to cut down trees. Well, there is actually a market for pine beetle wood! The blue fungus that inhabits the trees once they have been infected actually turns the wood blue, and it turns out this is desirable in the market! If this market was expanded, perhaps it would not be as expensive to cut down the dead trees, and maybe would even help the logging industry and stop the cutting of old growth forests and rain forests.
I think the mountain pine beetle has gotten to the point where it is a lost cause and we should give up trying to control it. The pine population in the rockies is part of a forest where forest fires are a natural process. The mountain pine beetle is like a forest fire because it will virtually destroy the pine population. This is a healthy process that will not have a negative long term affect on the forest.
Much of the mt beetle outbreak is due to warmer montane temperatures. Although federal management would work best, it's very hard to manage without the state's contribution.
andrew sieving
I don't see this as something that is a crisis because it is natural and doesn't have a huge impact on humans. we could alter this problem, but it is more likely that we will always have this problem.
I think it is important to let nature take its course and not interfere with the pine beetle 'epidemic.' I may be mistaken, but was under the impression that the heightened level of pine beetles in the rockies and elsewhere was a reoccurring cycle, and not particularly alarming if one looks at the history of pine beetles in the area. True, the current presence of these insects has caused aesthetically displeasing scenery in some areas, and may increase the risk of forest fire. I consider this to be a natural even, and perhaps the forest is due for a fire. This may seem unrealistic on population concentration grounds, but pine beetles were killing trees long before we decided to build our log cabins and ski resorts.
I hope this problem can be fixed, Driving along I-70 towards the mountains I always notice the hundreds of dead pine trees. Is there also something happening to the Aspen trees?
We got into this whole mess because we didnt let nature take it's course. The only way to regain a healthy ecosystem would be to let our forests return to their natural state. To do so, we must let all of the dead trees burn, and start anew.
This is going to have devastating effects the next time a forest fire comes through CO. Just recently I went out to Summit County, and the number of dead trees is staggering. Hopefully we can get this under control soon
ROBERT SEADER
I feel like some kind of action is better than none. Yes the pine beetles are doing what is natural to them, but they are also destroying etire forested areas. I wonder what kind of effect pulling out all the dead trees will have. I mean, I know that they are infected with the beetles, but aren't forest fires sometimes good for forests?
This is so sad and going up into the mountains really makes you realize the damage that has been done. It looks as though all the pine trees are dead.
Post a Comment