Backdoc Posted August 4 Posted August 4 Thanks everyone. Good input. This all gives me some things to think about. If nothing else, I would bet Bigfoot could greatly outpace the best human wilderness explorer be they Bear Grylls, Survivor man, or Grisly Adams. So long as they can outpace a person, they are people safe from unwelcomed interaction with people.
VAfooter Posted August 4 Admin Posted August 4 Since Norse mentioned it: https://xcancel.com/FoxNews/status/2084638246978371709 Never been anywhere near a wildfire of that nature, and I never want to be either.
guyzonthropus Posted August 8 Posted August 8 How far did the big male carrying Albert Ostman go the night he made off with poor Albert? He mentioned a number of ups and downs through mountains but I don't recall how many nor for how long. But it did take him considerable time returning to that settlement/logging camp. That would give at least some indication of their potential range. These fires are simply horrific, with all the habitat getting destroyed in times already plagued with climatic stresses. Oddly enough, no major fires have occurred here in southern California so far this year, though we've have a rather mild summer. However there have been a few moist years lately so the San Gabriel mountains(the range behind my house) are getting covered with progressively more and more fuel for when it does burn. Its always a double edged sword, in that more rain keeps the hillsides greener for longer, it also results in further accumulation of fuels
norseman Posted August 13 Admin Author Posted August 13 On 8/7/2026 at 5:45 PM, guyzonthropus said: How far did the big male carrying Albert Ostman go the night he made off with poor Albert? He mentioned a number of ups and downs through mountains but I don't recall how many nor for how long. But it did take him considerable time returning to that settlement/logging camp. That would give at least some indication of their potential range. These fires are simply horrific, with all the habitat getting destroyed in times already plagued with climatic stresses. Oddly enough, no major fires have occurred here in southern California so far this year, though we've have a rather mild summer. However there have been a few moist years lately so the San Gabriel mountains(the range behind my house) are getting covered with progressively more and more fuel for when it does burn. Its always a double edged sword, in that more rain keeps the hillsides greener for longer, it also results in further accumulation of fuels It was around the Toba Inlet if memory serves… and he walked 10 miles to get out. But the Sasquatch did it packing HIM. I think it’s not much about climate and a whole lot about human management. I read that 6 million sheep were just in the state of Montana in 1900. Now there aren’t that many in the entire country. In my lifetime many mills have shut down. Just had this discussion in Libby Montana. Nary a log truck anywhere. Millions of acres of national forest. If we don’t manage it? Mother Nature will, and she doesn’t care about property lines, houses, livestock, pets, people, etc. And then on top of it? Several of these fires in the Spokane area were arson. People using red flag warning days to intentionally go start catastrophic fires. BTW, we didn’t go out on that fire. Because we were on the wrong list. 🙄 We are on the VEPR list and they needed EERA personnel. Even though the VEPR list is supposed to be dispatched before the Emergency list. Bureaucracy!
guyzonthropus Posted August 15 Posted August 15 Funny you mention the logging trucks! I remember as a kid my folks took us on summer trips in the 25' foot motor home in the late 60s/early 70s. Up through California, oregon, and Washington into BC and Alberta a couple times and there were always a ton of trucks hauling logs, crazy like! And speaking of arson, I heard just the other day that there's been people betting on brush fires, their occurrences, maybe durations, etc on those new "bet-on-anything" online gambling sites. Now that's just asking for arsonists! 1
norseman Posted Saturday at 09:25 PM Admin Author Posted Saturday at 09:25 PM We are on the Kaiser Canyon Fire. Doing reclaim. We came across the Keller Ferry. Staging at Keller Wa. 1
Backdoc Posted yesterday at 04:35 PM Posted yesterday at 04:35 PM Strange Q: I know all fires are not created equally, some wildfires can be seen as nature's way to do what nature does in a life death cycle. If an area is hit by devastating wildfires How Long does it take to rejuvenate the area where it mostly returns to 'normal' I realize the PGF area was wiped out by a flood a couple years before. Then we had the PGF. Then, 50 years later it's hard to find the spot. How long will it take for these areas to recover esp if mankind left it alone to grow back in its own?
MIB Posted 20 hours ago Admin Posted 20 hours ago 7 hours ago, Backdoc said: Strange Q: I know all fires are not created equally, some wildfires can be seen as nature's way to do what nature does in a life death cycle. If an area is hit by devastating wildfires How Long does it take to rejuvenate the area where it mostly returns to 'normal' I realize the PGF area was wiped out by a flood a couple years before. Then we had the PGF. Then, 50 years later it's hard to find the spot. How long will it take for these areas to recover esp if mankind left it alone to grow back in its own? I don't think that's automatically a strange question. It is something we should be thinking about .. society-wise, not just bigfooters. I think the best answer is "it depends." There are some really bad assumptions built into the question, assumptions that should be examined. First thing .. what we consider "normal" is not historical normal. (1) Transpiration creates a downwind moisture plume which allows forest to grow in places it naturally could not. Fire destroys not just what it burns, but the downwind moisture plume which "artificially" supports forest in places that would naturally be desert if there were no forest upwind to provide the atmospheric moisture. (2) We have 100 years and more of fire fighting / fire prevention which has altered the natural landscape. Though it is familiar to us, it is not the long term norm and it is not "natural." Complicating things further, the Native Americans / First Nations people deliberately altered the environment / landscape with large scale fire. Because they seem to have arrived before deglaciation, there probably has not been a "natural" environment, one not altered by human activity, since before the last glacial maximum. Data suggest we are in a period of rapid climate change. Second thing .. forest regrowth is though a progression of stages. Once forest is lost, we get grasslands / brush, smaller trees, etc before big trees return. This can take centuries, not decades, not years, and given changing climate conditions, I'm not sure we will have periods between fires long enough for the cycle to complete, we seem to be looking at forest -> burn -> brush -> burn -> brush -> burn -> brush .. etc. We .. in my area .. are getting much more frequent dry lighting and large fires than we have ever had in recorded history. The opportunities for mature forest to re-form under these conditions seem nil. In fact it seems the only chance of restoration is via human intervention, not via natural processes. This situation seems likely to last for centuries, maybe tens of centuries, and the new equilibrium, if there is one, won't be the one we're used to. I suspect much of North America, if humans just vanished, would turn into a land of brush and grasses with very little "reclamation" by forest as we know it because of the increased rate of lightning fires driven by global warming. Once turned to brush and grasses, it is very difficult to return to forest because conditions don't last enough years in a row for that to happen. IMHO of course! MIB 1
norseman Posted 2 hours ago Admin Author Posted 2 hours ago On 8/25/2026 at 9:35 AM, Backdoc said: Strange Q: I know all fires are not created equally, some wildfires can be seen as nature's way to do what nature does in a life death cycle. If an area is hit by devastating wildfires How Long does it take to rejuvenate the area where it mostly returns to 'normal' I realize the PGF area was wiped out by a flood a couple years before. Then we had the PGF. Then, 50 years later it's hard to find the spot. How long will it take for these areas to recover esp if mankind left it alone to grow back in its own? Grass comes back quick. With in a year. Brush comes back 3-5 years. Trees will take 5-10 years. For hunting a hot area in the west is typically 2-3 years after a fire. Ungulates love all the new foilage. But I own part of a burn that is still noticeable 50 years after the fire. Dead snags, shorter trees and lots of brush. It needs the brush sprayed and replanted.
MIB Posted 1 hour ago Admin Posted 1 hour ago For a concrete example, the area near Hobson's Horn, a mountain in SW Oregon, burned in 2002. Prior to that, part was still old growth forest. I hunted it in 2014 and got a deer. It had regrown to clumps of brush about chest height with gaps between. There were many fire-hardened snags fallen into the brush. It was easy to see the ground in the gaps and watch animals walk through them. It's 2026 now. I was back there in 2025. The brush has not grown significantly taller since 2014. The clear spaces have closed in some. Another part of the same ridge which connects Hobson's Horn and Silver Peak "hosts" the Silver Peak trail. This burned in 1987's "Silver Fire". It has grown back a little more but from a distance it is still fairly bare with clumpy brush because there is not much water for most of the year and, being in designated federal wilderness, there is no reforestation activity at all. I don't see any natural re-growth of pre-fire species .. douglas fir .. yet. I wouldn't expect to see much improvement for the next 150-200 years. USFS / contractors have done some replanting. These are monoculture "super trees" meant to put on the most cellulose in the least amount of time to prepare for logging and they are not doing well because it is truly too dry for them. They're stunted, some are dying because they are too weak from lack of water to out-run disease and pests. I think something will come back, some portion of them, in maybe 100-125 years, if there is no fire forcing a restart, but they will not be the original trees with the original genetics. Another location, across the main divide toward the Rogue, burned in .. I think it was 1970 or 1971. It has grown back to alder (not the original species there) and heavy brush. The alder is 30-50 feet high in places. There are some cedar / spruce and a very tiny smattering of douglas fir returning but they are 20 feet tall or less. It will be another 25 years, minimum, and more likely 50+, before they are tall enough to begin to choke out the alder and return to pre-burn forest conditions. As long as there isn't another fire, it'll be roughly 100 years between the last fire there and a return to similar-ish conditions. It doesn't mean those areas won't support wildlife. As Norseman points out, that early/middle age forest supports animals .. in fact, it may provide more edibles per acre than mature forest. Much of the old growth left where I grew up .. well, there are 2 kinds. The increase in humidity has allowed some younger trees to reach proportions you'd expect only of pretty ancient forest. Cores of those trees sometimes show growth rings approaching 1 inch across. THen there are the truly old trees, mostly found in sheltered canyons which were surrounded by very dry ridges in older times, and some of those can run 400 - 500 years old or more. If you think about it, even under the most ideal conditions .. no intervening "resets" from fire, etc .. if the original trees took 400-500 years to grow, then their replacements are also going to take 400-500 years to grow.
Recommended Posts