woodstockguy

We are considering a trip to Colorado for 2 weeks in September, but we are curious about the extent of the damage to the forests due to the pine beetles and blue spruce fungus. We last visited southern Colorado (Mesa Verde, Durango, Silverton) about 20 years ago when we extensively toured New Mexico and thought we should finally return to the rest of Colorado to see Rocky Mountain National Park, Gunnison and other areas yet unvisited. However, I understand that great expanses of forested areas have died off and am trying to understand the extent of the damage before finalizing our plans. Will we see vast areas of dead forest?

If so, perhaps we will visit elsewhere in the western U.S. where damage is less foreboding. We live in the middle of the northeastern forest, where 10% of our trees died quickly due to emerald ash borers and the hemlocks are slowly dying from woolly adelgids. Our forests nevertheless still stand more intact than not, but I think traveling out west and seeing vast areas of dead forests would be depressing, in which case we would consider other destinations, maybe the Pacific coast or Utah, though we have already thoroughly visited and explored those areas.

I welcome any opinions and thoughts from my fellow fodorites

marvelousmouse

Judging by hotel prices in the RMNP and Gunnison areas, I really don't think there are these vast dead forests that you seem to be picturing...

marvelousmouse

That is not to say that it isn't a problem- I know that it is. It's a problem in a lot of the western states. But I don't think it's a reason to give Colorado a miss.

illininutt

If you are upset over pine beetles....go B&W in those areas!

michelhuebeli

Yes, there are sights of entire mountain sides that are brown where they should be green ("should" is a relative term - mother nature does those things like beetle infections, in contrast to man-made damage elsewhere).

But - no - there is no such devastation that you should avoid visiting Colorado, on balance there is much more beauty than you seem to fear, so come along and enjoy yourselves!

Nelson

The optimistic view is that it's a natural process and the forests will be healthier in the future for it. I subscribe to that, when you look closely you can see all kinds of new and varied life popping up in the dead areas. As another example, a 25-100 year old burn area can be really lush and healthy.

I'm sure I can easily find some photos I've taken in RMNP in recent years that show the damage. I can post some of you are interested.

In our lifetimes things appear to get worse before they get better. It can be depressing on first glance, but I agree with michel and it's no reason to alter your plans. Have a great trip.

fmpden

I do not know of any area where there is a 100% kill or even 90%. We do have some areas with the dead and living are standing size by size and the kill percentage could be 50% and it doesn't look good. And we have a lot of concerns about potential for forest fires and we have had a couple. The pine beetle primarily attacks the older trees and especially the lodge pole pines. Unfortunately our forest in central Colorado and some other parts are not very diverse and are all about the same age - around 100 to 125 years old and the prime age for the bug. One of the by-products of global warming. It has impacted our over all scenic beauty but hasn't destroyed it. I wouldn't skip the state because of it.

marvelousmouse

Would love it if you posted those photos, Nelson!

It's really interesting to me from an ecological standpoint. Increased risk of forest fires is mostly what I've heard from people I know in real life.

Also read an article a while back that pointed out that we somewhat created an all you can eat buffet for the bugs, because practicing fire suppression has made it so certain areas actually have a lot more trees that they would naturally.

Nelson

mouse, I made a small gallery with some beetle kill photos, all taken in RMNP:
http://nelsonchenkin.zenfolio.com/p320214364

The first two photos are the same tree taken six years apart, a large ponderosa pine on the Cub Lake trail. The first is from a scanned slide. This clearly shows fmpden's point that the larger trees are most susceptible. That tree is completely gone now, result of a 2012 fire.

The next two pictures are both Cub Lake, taken from opposite vantage points. In the 1998 shot (also a scanned slide) you can see the beetle kill starting to affect the slope on the left. The 2015 shot shows the same slope, now on the right. However this area was affected by the Fern Lake fire of Oct-Dec, 2012, so this is an exceptional scene with both beetles and fire at work.

As you noted, the severity of the beetle outbreak is partially due to 100 years of fire suppression. Then the beetle kill forests are primed for large hot fires. So a case can be made that this is all partially the result of misguided forest management. A forest service guy I know has told me this.

(Read the Big Burn by Timothy Egan for an exciting story and a layman's look at the complicated issues surrounding fires, and how the suppression got started).

The last three pictures are just scenes taken in recent years that show various levels of beetle kill trees in the forest. The Ypsilon Mountain photo is kind of typical, and the Kawuneeche Valley is more severe case.

I can easily find many pictures where there is no beetle kill evident at all, so back to the OP's question I wouldn't put off a trip due to this.

marvelousmouse

Thanks, Nelson! I've the seen the hillsides like that, but never something like those first two photos of the same tree. Sobering.

I've read Big Burn, thanks! It's what got me interested in fire ecology to begin with

Tabernash2

I agree with others who say it's not bad enough to skip Colorado.
We have a home in Winter Park, and it seems less brown to me than previous years. Could be that I've just gotten used to seeing some brown on the mountain sides.

Last time I drove up and down Berthoud Pass without snow on the trees, it didn't look that bad. Same for the Grand Lake area.

The good news is that the aspen are taking over where the pines have been cut down. We had to clear 3 acres of beetle-kill pines, and it's very nice to see how the aspen are filling in.

Tabernash2

PS This just occurred to me, and I'm wondering if it's correct.

It seems that during the beginning and the height of the pine beetle infestation here, it became very visible, because the trees' needles all totally turned a rusty brown color. That was frighteningly ugly, in contrast to the lush green trees. This seemed to be kind of the first time everyone admitted we had a beetle problem in Grand County.

But, now, maybe those dead needles have dropped off, and the gray skeleton of the tree isn't so noticeable in the forest landscape, seen from a distance?

Also brings up the earlier point about fire danger with all the dead standing timber. Again, not really an issue for visitors.

Just another sign of climate change. Unfortunately.

Nelson

Tabernash, I agree, even the last two years seems to have made a difference. I've come to the same conclusions as you: they grey is less jarring than the brown, there's more growth popping up, and we are just used to it.

But I think the last reason is minor - in general, it seems to actually be looking better.

Also, 2013-2015 were pretty wet years for us, at least in the northern Front Range. Maybe that helped, so the living trees look healthier?

tomfuller

As a former forestry professional, I must say that the gray dead and down trees look a little better than recently dead Pines with brown/red needles. As a fire lookout, I know that the dead/down areas are more prone to fires whether caused by lightning or humans. The forest looks really bad when it is black.
If you are looking for a lush green forest, try the west side of the Cascades in Oregon where Firs (Douglas and others) are a prevalent species.

Tabernash2

tomfuller, I wouldn't trade the CO Rockies for anywhere else.

fmpden

But issue is that the infection is so recent that the vast majority of the dead trees are still standing like a match. In some areas the dead trees have been culled and this is a small industry of using the beetle kill for furniture other similar uses. The finished products have some very interesting colors and pattern because of the beetle kill. But it is going to be a long process - probably in the range fifty years or more before the forests return to a more normal state.

Tabernash2

I love the beetle kill wood products, with their blue veining. It makes beautiful cabinets, for instance. There's been such a glut of beetle-kill wood, free for the taking. I'm surprised it hasn't become more popular thus far.

marvelousmouse

Tabernash2- I didn't know that was a thing and had to look it up. I'm not sure I'd go with furniture made out of it, but the flooring is drop dead gorgeous

Tabernash2

It's pretty, isn't it? Not strong enough for structural uses. I love the look of the floors, but I wonder about pine being too soft to last for years?

We looked for wedding guest favors made from pine beetle kill wood, but they were rather expensive. Like 4 coasters for $40!

Funny, since we had to pay someone to haul off three acres' worth of beetle kill trees! I wished at the time that there was a market for the trees, but not when there were so many huge trees being piled up in places everywhere.