Might be good as the new grass shoots will be easier to find, but they have lost cover to hide in so it maybe a wash.

Birds of prey are going to hit the muskrats hard.

Keith

I don't think rats live in phrag much, not when there are catails available.

Long term one year of burning is far less damaging then a marsh filled with phragmites, maybe even short term.

Bryce

What are phragmites? up here in atlantic canada our DNR (department of natural resources) said muskrat population is down roughly 40% and they can't figure out why.

I Live near Ogden

Did you see them burning it?

I was camping near the Dunes this weekend

So the reeds are invasive? what is the problem with them, they choke out native cattails and stuff that muskrats would use?

Burning that stuff just makes it mad, it'll be back this year fertilized by the ashes....I thought everyone knew that.
Maybe if it's sprayed while coming back would be more effective....
the spray is probably worse than the fire

Short term loss for long term gain

what about climate change with all that smoke.


2 public land areas I hunt are 25 k acres each and all woods. The last few years they have done controled burns in Them.. In 100% sure it's good for the forest and reduces risk of out of controle wild fires in the future. I would love to know how they manage to keep then from geting out of control during the burn.

NC coastal area marshes are full of phragmites. Control burns every 2-3 years will not kill it. The roots are thick and deep.

Phragmtes came here the same time the muskrats plummeted. Now they're everywhere. Choked out the cattails. Spread by municipalities around here by cutting ditches. Now it's a lost cause

yes, this in a nutshell.
If burning gets rid of Phragmites then this is a good thing.

A lot of states with it, been burning it.
For decades...

If the forest your talking about is a typical eastern hardwood forest then the burns are very low intensity. Conditions have to be right to get it to burn. The leaf litter of all trees are not the same when it comes to flammability. Oaks burn best, maples and ironwood are some of the worst. As far as the dead wood on forest floor burning its not usually an issue. In fact a log fallen on the forest floor will stop a fire from burning further. Smaller branches and sticks might burn depending upon conditions, but usually not.
I suspect the reason they are doing burns in your area is not to primarily to control wildfires but to improve the quality of the forest. Fire in our area eliminates the eventual succession of a forest from Oak/Hickory to Maple/Beech. Oak forests are better than Maple forests for wildlife and increased diversity of habitat.

I burn several acres of typical eastern hardwoods every year. Spring and or fall. The vast majority of the time the fires are small, travel very slowly and easily controlled. You can walk around them and step over the slow traveling flames. I have trails that act as fire breaks, I can create a fire break using a leaf blower to clear to the soil a path that only needs to be about a ft to ft and half wide. Thats enough to stop a fire most times. A wind blowing in the forest helps the fire travel with the wind. Lighting the fire against the wind will travel very slowly, with the wind it travels much faster. You light a fire against the wind, let burn slowly till it creates a fire break behind it. Then you can let a fire that will travel with the wind. It'll hit the firebreak that was created with the first fire and poof, the fire dies out.
A quick simple explanation of how to do a controlled burn.

Historically fire was very common specifically in North American until Europeans put an end to it.

At least they're doing something here in mi, cattails and native reeds are overcome with pampas grass no food value and the stalks dont rot in a few years what was once a waterway is now a solid mat of stems no water no food value