Few forest fires

Every Spring in the dry season there are some spectacular forest fires in the mountains above the Lake but I have not seen one this year. What has changed?

The 3 days of rain in early May slowed some of the action down. Wet don´t burn well.

CanuckBob wrote:Ive only seen a few mountain fires in my 8 years here. I wouldn't say every spring but maybe I don't notice.

I had panoramic views of the mountains and for the last 11 years there have been spectacular (at night) views of many (dozens) fires. Some of them were much too close to the Raquet Club.

slainte39 wrote:The 3 days of rain in early May slowed some of the action down. Wet don´t burn well.

The rainfall for May of this year was only a bit above normal. The amount of rainfall for April was below normal. But fires were away below normal. It was an annual event to sit outside at night in previous years and watch and wonder about the mountain forest fires. For those who don't have a view of the mountains to the north and south of the lake you probably would not be aware of most of the fires in previous years. There have been fewer forest fires in the Guadalajara area also according to my forestry guy.

About 6 months ago, I read in Semanario Laguna, I believe, that a directive from Chapala banned field burning after all the close calls last season. Could be one of the reasons. Although there have been a couple of fires on both sides of the lake this season.

I've seen several this year but they are fairly brief. Maybe 4 - 6 hours normally early morning before sunrise. All seem to have bee fairly contained. But they've been happening.

donenrique wrote:About 6 months ago, I read in Semanario Laguna, I believe, that a directive from Chapala banned field burning after all the close calls last season.  Could be one of the reasons.  Although there have been a couple of fires on both sides of the lake this season.  

That could be the reason and maybe they have improved their firefighting techniques as I know that they have been working on that. Most of us with mountain views have been commenting of the paucity of fires as it is so different from previous years.

Also due to Covid19, there are less people going up the mountains for whatever reason and accidentally starting fires.

Any way us firewatchers seem to have been waiting in vain.

cypress wrote:Any way us firewatchers seem to have been waiting in vain.

Look at it this way to ease the pain….

Less erosion, less fill going into the lake, more habitat for wildlife, greening of the mountains sooner, less smoke in someone´s lungs, less expense for the firefighting departments.
You can practically make a case for no fires.

slainte39 wrote:

cypress wrote:Any way us firewatchers seem to have been waiting in vain.

Look at it this way to ease the pain….

Less erosion, less fill going into the lake, more habitat for wildlife, greening of the mountains sooner, less smoke in someone´s lungs, less expense for the firefighting departments.
You can practically make a case for no fires.

But fires are needed to rejuvenate the forest. From hiking various places I've seen that it is a pretty scrubby forest-all the good wood was removed years ago. What is left is usually pretty thorny as cattle don't like it.

cypress wrote:

slainte39 wrote:

cypress wrote:Any way us firewatchers seem to have been waiting in vain.

Look at it this way to ease the pain….

Less erosion, less fill going into the lake, more habitat for wildlife, greening of the mountains sooner, less smoke in someone´s lungs, less expense for the firefighting departments.
You can practically make a case for no fires.

But fires are needed to rejuvenate the forest. From hiking various places I've seen that it is a pretty scrubby forest-all the good wood was removed years ago. What is left is usually pretty thorny as cattle don't like it.

Then the bomberos should be starting fires instead of putting them out. If what you say is true, do the forests need to be rejuvenated every year?  Cattle don´t eat wood but the grass that comes back every year, they do, and it doesn´t need rejuvenation, just rain.

For me, the beautiful green mountains are more appealing to look at than a fire burning up there, but you know what you like to look at.
I´m not that much into fires, in fact, not at all, except for the chimenea around Navidad.

slainte39 wrote:

cypress wrote:

slainte39 wrote:

cypress wrote:Any way us firewatchers seem to have been waiting in vain.

Look at it this way to ease the pain….

Less erosion, less fill going into the lake, more habitat for wildlife, greening of the mountains sooner, less smoke in someone´s lungs, less expense for the firefighting departments.
You can practically make a case for no fires.

But fires are needed to rejuvenate the forest. From hiking various places I've seen that it is a pretty scrubby forest-all the good wood was removed years ago. What is left is usually pretty thorny as cattle don't like it.

Then the bomberos should be starting fires instead of putting them out. If what you say is true, do the forests need to be rejuvenated every year?  Cattle don´t eat wood but the grass that comes back every year, they do, and it doesn´t need rejuvenation, just rain.

For me, the beautiful green mountains are more appealing to look at than a fire burning up there, but you know what you like to look at.
I´m not that much into fires, in fact, not at all, except for the chimenea around Navidad.

Of course the bomberos should be starting fires. They do so in many places including Mexico. The mountains would be much greener if they burnt a bit first. You make a poor case against fires. Fires discourage the growth of new young thorny trees and encourage the growth of grass. This is basic 101 forest management. What century are you living in?
Obviously you haven't looked at the forest and grass very closely. The green you see up on the mountains after the rainy season is not grass but leaves on mostly thorny trees. The cattle wandering up there are not a fat and sassy bunch from eating grass but are pretty scrawny looking for nutritious food. The owners of cattle often haul food up to them.

I am all for burning trees. As long as they are cypress.

cypress wrote:

slainte39 wrote:

cypress wrote:

slainte39 wrote:

cypress wrote:Any way us firewatchers seem to have been waiting in vain.

Look at it this way to ease the pain….

Less erosion, less fill going into the lake, more habitat for wildlife, greening of the mountains sooner, less smoke in someone´s lungs, less expense for the firefighting departments.
You can practically make a case for no fires.

But fires are needed to rejuvenate the forest. From hiking various places I've seen that it is a pretty scrubby forest-all the good wood was removed years ago. What is left is usually pretty thorny as cattle don't like it.

Then the bomberos should be starting fires instead of putting them out. If what you say is true, do the forests need to be rejuvenated every year?  Cattle don´t eat wood but the grass that comes back every year, they do, and it doesn´t need rejuvenation, just rain.

For me, the beautiful green mountains are more appealing to look at than a fire burning up there, but you know what you like to look at.
I´m not that much into fires, in fact, not at all, except for the chimenea around Navidad.

Of course the bomberos should be starting fires. They do so in many places including Mexico. The mountains would be much greener if they burnt a bit first. You make a poor case against fires. Fires discourage the growth of new young thorny trees and encourage the growth of grass. This is basic 101 forest management.  What century are you living in?
Obviously you haven't looked at the forest and grass very closely. The green you see up on the mountains after the rainy season is not grass but leaves on mostly thorny trees. The cattle wandering up there are not a fat and sassy bunch from eating grass but are pretty scrawny looking for nutritious food. The owners of cattle often haul food up to them.

First of all, I live in the 21st century, just like you do.

So you are educated in forest management, at least 101, I am not, just using my common sense.
If what you say is so, because of your educated knowledge, maybe you could volunteer to start fires, or at least campaign for the government to do so, as I have never heard of them setting the mountains ablaze in this area.
Do fires only discourage the growth of "thorny trees" but not the growth of non-thorny trees?
Sorry, to dispute you, but I have looked at the "forest" and grass closely, we are just seeing it differently. Can´t argue with you about fat and sassy cattle or nutritious food, as I don´t know, but I guess you are seeing a lot of cattle, not seeing nutritious food, from your viewing area and the transportation of cattle feed up the montain???

I know I made a poor case against against the fires on the mountains, so just go ahead and enjoy them when they happen, and keep promoting your cause.

They do prescribed burns in the Guadalaja basin according to the Guadalajara Reporter and my Forest Service guru-he has sent me videos of them doing it. They are controlled burns. They have trained in Alberta to do this. Forest fires discourage the growth of most trees, thorny or not but the thorny have taken over as cattle and other stock find them difficult to eat and local wood gathers prefer to cut the non thorny ones.There is a reason they call the forest around much of the lake Bosque Espinoso. I have seen locals hauling food to the cattle and other stock up in the mountains many times. There aren't a lot of wild grasses for herbivores more so there are herbaceous plants.
It is not so much my cause but the cause of a new generation of Mexicans. With global weather change the desertification of central and northern Mexico needs to be slowed as it produces land that is not very productive.

There is a large forest fire east of Mount Garcia now. Where is the rainy season?

Seems I remember a fire on Mt. Garcia that burned for months...maybe 9 or 10 years ago.

Smartalex wrote:Seems I remember a fire on Mt. Garcia that burned for months...maybe 9 or 10 years ago.

Yes, they often just let them burn but the Mexican forest service is changing their policy.

That fire east of Mount Garcia is still burning. You could not see flames last night as the fire is on the other side of the ridge.