3 ms·
I don't think "let wildfires burn" is an accepted strategy anywhere that those fires could be threatening homes. It's a policy for wilderness fires, where it t
by notatoad 9y ago
I don't think "let wildfires burn" is an accepted strategy anywhere that those fires could be threatening homes. It's a policy for wilderness fires, where it threatens a community it's not better in the long run for everyone involved. It would be disastrous to let a fire rip through a town just to reduce the fire hazard.
It's entirely possible to do proactive controlled burns and fuel reduction near towns, and let the fires burn when they aren't threatening a town. Letting fires burn and controlling, directing, and managing the fire are not mutually exclusive.
- VintageCool 9y agoSure, but people are building really nice homes deeper and deeper into the woods. The area that we would consider safe to 'let burn' keeps shrinking as people move in to those areas.
- jlarocco 9y agoI think the biggest problem with a "let wildfires burn" strategy is that most forests in the continental United States are too small (or too populated) to make it feasible. Any "large" fire will always be near a town or homes.
- maxerickson 9y agoA fair number of current active large fires aren't expected to be contained for weeks: https://fsapps.nwcg.gov/ https://fsapps.nwcg.gov/ (clicking the markers brings up an info window with expected containment dates)