4 ms·
>One of the best examples I can give, though I have many, is this: my grandfather was a logger and firefighter in this forest in the 70s. During my lifetime tho
by pastor_elm 8y ago
>One of the best examples I can give, though I have many, is this: my grandfather was a logger and firefighter in this forest in the 70s. During my lifetime though, the PhD environmentalists came to dominate the forest service, and as logging waned they stopped listening to the old timers about how to take care of the forest. My grandfather would try to tell them they needed to let loggers thin the forest out, and to do more control burns and let them burn longer.
This is just flat out false, anti-science disinformation. Fire suppression as a policy started in the 1930s and actually reverted in the 60's and 70's.
>The first national fire policy came after several years of severe fires between 1910
and 1935. In the context of the ecological theory of the time, fire exclusion was
believed to promote ecological stability. In addition, fire exclusion could also reduce
commodity damages and economic losses. In 1935, the USDA Forest Service
instituted the “10 AM Policy,” wherein the objective was to prevent all human-caused
fires and contain any fire that started by 10 a.m. the following day.
By the 1960s, fire management costs were increasing exponentially. The 1964
Wilderness Act, Tall Timbers Research Conferences, and Southern Forest Fire Lab
research demonstrated the positive benefits derived from natural and prescribed fire.
As a result, national fire policy began to evolve to address both the economic and
ecological benefits of not aggressively controlling, and even using, fire. In February
1967, the USDA Forest Service permitted leeway for early- and late-season fires. In
1968, the National Park Service changed its policy to recognize the natural role of
fire, allow natural ignitions to run their course under prescribed conditions, and use
prescribed fires to meet management objectives. In 1971, the USDA Forest Service
10-Acre Policy was added, which set a pre-suppression objective of containing all
fires within 10 acres.
In 1977 a new fire policy was selected by the USDA Forest Service that replaced
both the 10 AM and 10-Acre policies. The new policy encouraged a pluralistic
approach — fire by prescription. Even for suppression, once initial attack failed,
alternatives to full suppression were to be considered. Fire suppression became fire
management.The 1994 fire season with its 34 fatalities (14 at South Canyon, Colorado)
precipitated the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy & Program
Review (1995 Report). This review again affirmed the positive benefits of fire. It
recognized that fire was part of a larger problem, one of several symptoms of
natural ecosystems becoming increasingly unstable due to altered ecological regimes.
It talked about the needs for landscape-level resource management, the integration
of fire into land management planning and implementation, and the involvement of
all affected landowners and stakeholders.[0]
[0]https://web.archive.org/web/20070810191055/http://www.nifc.gov/fire_policy/docs/chp1.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20070810191055/http://www.nifc.g...
- arminiusreturns 8y ago> This is just flat out false, anti-science disinformation. Fire suppression as a policy started in the 1930s and actually reverted in the 60's and 70's. No it's not. I didn't say fire suppression as a policy started then. I said they stopped listening to locals for advice about, primarily, the control burns, and the needs for forest thinning. You are attacking an argument I never made. Strawman fallacy.
- sharkmerry 8y agoBut they did allow controlled burns, thats what his link says. So you created a strawman in the scientists. The 1964 Wilderness Act, Tall Timbers Research Conferences, and Southern Forest Fire Lab research demonstrated the positive benefits derived from natural and prescribed fire. As a result, national fire policy began to evolve to address both the economic and ecological benefits of not aggressively controlling, and even using, fire. In February 1967, the USDA Forest Service permitted leeway for early- and late-season fires. In 1968, the National Park Service changed its policy to recognize the natural role of fire, allow natural ignitions to run their course under prescribed conditions, and use prescribed fires to meet management objectives.
- arminiusreturns 8y agoI never said they didn't allow control burns at all either. They were stopping them too soon, doing them too little, etc. Which is why I said they stopped listening to locals for input on those policies, not that they stopped them completely. So no, I did no such thing, and in fact, it is you who created the strawman. That seems to be the theme of the day today, because I'm starting to sound like a broken record.
- sharkmerry 8y agoYour comment above mine says this " I said they stopped listening to locals for advice about, primarily, the control burns, and the needs for forest thinning." It doesnt say the need for MORE forest thining. Its says needs for forest thinning, which implies it wasnt happening