6 ms·

The article doesn't mention it, but controlled burns are actually a regular occurrence in the east and southeast US. I always assumed it was some decision by th

The article doesn't mention it, but controlled burns are actually a regular occurrence in the east and southeast US. I always assumed it was some decision by the Californian state government to not do so. The rest of the country is not stuck in the mindset described in the article. Fires are necessary for ecological reasons. You can either start them on purpose and control them, or you can wait until they happen anyway and watch them get totally out of control. Exacerbating the situation, I heard on NPR this morning that some POAs in California forbid cutting down trees on your property. Something has to change. Even if you put a complete stop to human-caused fires somehow (not possible) and stop climate change tomorrow, you will still have fires from lightning strikes, etc. You can either thin forests and underbrush (incredibly labor intensive) or you can have controlled burns.

sgc 8y ago
I have not heard of extensive controlled burns in any western state. It is just too large and the forests here burn too hot and fast in terrain that is too rugged. Of course there are some controlled burns in California and other states, but the large scale burns required are not practical by any measure. California is considered to have one of the most advanced firefighting forces in the world. They inform the fire control decisions, and know the importance of controlled burns. Maybe it is just a tougher nut to crack rather than assumed incompetence?
- Amezarak 8y ago
  > I have not heard of extensive controlled burns in any western state. It is just too large and the forests here burn too hot and fast ...Because of the lack of controlled burns combined with weather conditions. California is not larger than the eastern US. We do very large controlled burns here in rugged terrain. As far as I can see, it's a lack of political will and funding, combined with the reality that it's gone so long that its much more difficult than it should be. There are a few prescribed burns done in California, they're just not anywhere near the necessary scale. California can either bite the bullet now and dramatically increase the number and area of controlled burns, or watch as things get worse and worse. There is no alternative. I'll repeat again: fires are a natural part of the ecology, with or without human intervention. You can either do it yourself and lessen the impact, or wait for nature to do it and have regular disasters. EDIT: Just to get a sense of scale, the southeast burns eight million acres in prescribed burns annually. The west burns about three million. California looks to be only in the tens of thousands. The Camp fire has burned approximately 138,000 acres at the last report I can find. http://www.stateforesters.org/sites/default/files/publication-documents/2015%20Prescribed%20Fire%20Use%20Survey%20Report.pdf http://www.stateforesters.org/sites/default/files/publicatio...
  - romed 8y ago
    Vast majority of California’s forests are fossils. If you burn them they don’t grow back, you get something else. Climate change is reducing the length of the rainy season, worsening summer droughts, expanding the range of bark beetles, and moving snow lines uphill. Under these conditions our existing forests can survive but not become established. You discuss this issue as if there is some steady-state solution that can be applied. This is not the case. The climate is in now in transition from one state to another, much warmer and drier state. Controlled burns are difficult or impossible to apply under such a transition, with the number of dead standing trees (hundreds of millions in California) and the unprecedented soil moisture levels and evaporative load.
    - Amezarak 8y ago
      First of all, California already expects to (insufficiently) increase their insufficiently small number of prescribed burns. https://www.arb.ca.gov/smp/progdev/pubeduc/pbfs.pdf https://www.arb.ca.gov/smp/progdev/pubeduc/pbfs.pdf Secondly, if that is what you believe, then the solution is to burn now, not later. You cannot save forests already damned by climate change, and the longer you wait, the worse it will be. > Vast majority of California’s forests are fossils. If you burn them they don’t grow back, you get something else. Then how did they get there in the first place? Human-started fires have been a normal and natural part of California's ecology for thousands of years. Waiting for the weather to get even warmer and drier will just result in more forest being destroyed, more homes being burned, more people dying, because there will be fires, no matter what you do. You can choose to limit their fuel now and save some forest, or you let natural fires have more fuel and burn even hotter and wider and lose all your forest.
      - danans 8y ago
        > Then how did they get there in the first place? Presumably they established themselves when climate conditions were different than today.
        Amezarak 8y ago
- ip26 8y ago
  Colorado does controlled burns in the prairie, and burns forest slash piles in winter.
- kyleblarson 8y ago
  I live in Mazama in the Methow Valley in North Central Washington and we have had fairly extensive thinning and prescribed burns in the last few years: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=021ff3371f584a54beb15cd481a8fbb5&extent=-13403406.695%2C6207099.4314%2C-13356550.7967%2C6227431.6809%2C102100 https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=021ff... edit: We also had a Firewise grant over the last few years to provide free thinning on private property.
kryogen1c 8y ago
> The article doesn't mention it, but controlled burns are actually a regular occurrence in the east and southeast US. I always assumed it was some decision by the Californian state government to not do so. Wait what? California doesn't do controlled burns? Mother of God: https://www.quora.com/Why-does-California-not-institute-a-controlled-burn-policy-to-minimize-forest-and-brush-fires https://www.quora.com/Why-does-California-not-institute-a-co... I find this _unfathomable_. I'm from a desert state where during dry times it was illegal to light fires and we absolutely did controlled burns. California's plan is to let everything burn down and then blame a utility (true or not is irrelevant) and try to collect $20B they definitely don't have? This is unbelievable.
- twtw 8y ago
  > I find this _unfathomable_. I'm from a desert state where during dry times it was illegal to light fires and we absolutely did controlled burns. Many of the answers on that quora link seem to indicate that ca does in fact do controlled burns?
  - kryogen1c 8y ago
    Some of the comments indicate they try to burn as much as they can. The ambivalent, uncertain language is a sign the game is already lost. If you ask you car mechanic if the lugs on your tire are tight, the answer is yes; the answer is not some lugs are federally owned so we did the best we could. This is a serious public safety issue which if left alone is guaranteed to end in widespread death and destruction.
    - Johnny555 8y ago
      I think it's more like if you ask your neighborhood mechanic to inspect the brake system, and he said "I inspected everything I could, but the master cylinder is leaking and sealed and only the dealer has the tools and knowledge to open it up" so you have to go to the dealer. California shouldn't be expected to maintain forests on someone else's property.
- sp332 8y ago
briandear 8y ago
> that some POAs in California forbid cutting down trees on your property. https://www.sonomacountygazette.com/cms/pages/sonoma-county-news-article-912.html https://www.sonomacountygazette.com/cms/pages/sonoma-county-... This article gives a sense of the actual nonsense a homeowner must endure to cut down a tree. It might sound good to some people on paper, but I can feel the frustration of following such an expensive, bureaucratic process just to cut a tree in your own land. That entire process sounds ridiculous when looking at the aftermath of one of these fires such as the Camp or Malibu fires. The environmentalists responsible for such tripe should be made to work with a fire crew for a single hour to see the consequences of their horrid, naïve and completely ignorant policies. Here is the money paragraph: “What does Cal-Fire consider to approve a plan? Basically, they want to make sure that trees are removed in a way that does the least amount of harm to wildlife habitat, that diversity of plant life is maintained, shade and sun balanced for a particular environment, and watersheds and watercourses are disturbed the least amount possible. For instance, if protected species are in the area, then either the work is not done, or it is postponed during mating and rearing stages. If trees are removed on a hillside, then potential erosion is part of what is considered, monitored and controlled. There are many factors, and they all need to be taken into consideration.” Sorry, but Cal-Fire should be concerned about preventing fires first. There are protected species everywhere; so delaying fire prevention forestry so some salamander can do whatever it is salamanders do; that’s just ridiculous. Over 17,000 acres of “protected” stuff just burned up in Paradise, California, so perhaps tripping over a dollar to pick up a nickel doesn’t make the best sense for either the environment or people.
- vkou 8y ago
  > If trees are removed on a hillside, then potential erosion is part of what is considered, monitored and controlled. There are many factors, and they all need to be taken into consideration.” > Sorry, but Cal-Fire should be concerned about preventing fires first. I'm sorry, but soil erosion is not some boogieman invented by pot-smoking hippies who live in a commune. It's a real and serious problem, and leads to landslides, wash-outs, loss of topsoil, loss of other trees (Which often act as windbreaks).
jartelt 8y ago
Many of forests in California are National Forest land controlled by the federal government. The Californian State Government is not able to go do prescribed burns in the National Forest. A lot of your beef should be with the National Forest Service. Also, the recent drought is really exacerbating things. A lot of the trees in the forests are dead now and are just waiting to burn. Yes, we should remove some of this dead wood and thin the forests, but this will be a huge task given the large amount of forest. As far as POAs and local laws... I am sure some of then are overreaching on things. But, some of them also protect areas from legitimate threats. Many people would gladly cut down all the trees on their property around Lake Tahoe so they can have an unobstructed view. Pretty soon we would have no trees around the lake and the landscape would be drastically changed. Some degree of protection is warranted in places.

sgc 8y ago

I have not heard of extensive controlled burns in any western state. It is just too large and the forests here burn too hot and fast in terrain that is too rugged. Of course there are some controlled burns in California and other states, but the large scale burns required are not practical by any measure. California is considered to have one of the most advanced firefighting forces in the world. They inform the fire control decisions, and know the importance of controlled burns. Maybe it is just a tougher nut to crack rather than assumed incompetence?

Amezarak 8y ago
> I have not heard of extensive controlled burns in any western state. It is just too large and the forests here burn too hot and fast ...Because of the lack of controlled burns combined with weather conditions. California is not larger than the eastern US. We do very large controlled burns here in rugged terrain. As far as I can see, it's a lack of political will and funding, combined with the reality that it's gone so long that its much more difficult than it should be. There are a few prescribed burns done in California, they're just not anywhere near the necessary scale. California can either bite the bullet now and dramatically increase the number and area of controlled burns, or watch as things get worse and worse. There is no alternative. I'll repeat again: fires are a natural part of the ecology, with or without human intervention. You can either do it yourself and lessen the impact, or wait for nature to do it and have regular disasters. EDIT: Just to get a sense of scale, the southeast burns eight million acres in prescribed burns annually. The west burns about three million. California looks to be only in the tens of thousands. The Camp fire has burned approximately 138,000 acres at the last report I can find. http://www.stateforesters.org/sites/default/files/publication-documents/2015%20Prescribed%20Fire%20Use%20Survey%20Report.pdf http://www.stateforesters.org/sites/default/files/publicatio...
- romed 8y ago
  Vast majority of California’s forests are fossils. If you burn them they don’t grow back, you get something else. Climate change is reducing the length of the rainy season, worsening summer droughts, expanding the range of bark beetles, and moving snow lines uphill. Under these conditions our existing forests can survive but not become established. You discuss this issue as if there is some steady-state solution that can be applied. This is not the case. The climate is in now in transition from one state to another, much warmer and drier state. Controlled burns are difficult or impossible to apply under such a transition, with the number of dead standing trees (hundreds of millions in California) and the unprecedented soil moisture levels and evaporative load.
  - Amezarak 8y ago
    First of all, California already expects to (insufficiently) increase their insufficiently small number of prescribed burns. https://www.arb.ca.gov/smp/progdev/pubeduc/pbfs.pdf https://www.arb.ca.gov/smp/progdev/pubeduc/pbfs.pdf Secondly, if that is what you believe, then the solution is to burn now, not later. You cannot save forests already damned by climate change, and the longer you wait, the worse it will be. > Vast majority of California’s forests are fossils. If you burn them they don’t grow back, you get something else. Then how did they get there in the first place? Human-started fires have been a normal and natural part of California's ecology for thousands of years. Waiting for the weather to get even warmer and drier will just result in more forest being destroyed, more homes being burned, more people dying, because there will be fires, no matter what you do. You can choose to limit their fuel now and save some forest, or you let natural fires have more fuel and burn even hotter and wider and lose all your forest.
    - danans 8y ago
      > Then how did they get there in the first place? Presumably they established themselves when climate conditions were different than today.
      - Amezarak 8y ago
ip26 8y ago
Colorado does controlled burns in the prairie, and burns forest slash piles in winter.
kyleblarson 8y ago
I live in Mazama in the Methow Valley in North Central Washington and we have had fairly extensive thinning and prescribed burns in the last few years: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=021ff3371f584a54beb15cd481a8fbb5&extent=-13403406.695%2C6207099.4314%2C-13356550.7967%2C6227431.6809%2C102100 https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=021ff... edit: We also had a Firewise grant over the last few years to provide free thinning on private property.

kryogen1c 8y ago

> The article doesn't mention it, but controlled burns are actually a regular occurrence in the east and southeast US. I always assumed it was some decision by the Californian state government to not do so. Wait what? California doesn't do controlled burns? Mother of God: https://www.quora.com/Why-does-California-not-institute-a-controlled-burn-policy-to-minimize-forest-and-brush-fires https://www.quora.com/Why-does-California-not-institute-a-co... I find this _unfathomable_. I'm from a desert state where during dry times it was illegal to light fires and we absolutely did controlled burns. California's plan is to let everything burn down and then blame a utility (true or not is irrelevant) and try to collect $20B they definitely don't have? This is unbelievable.

twtw 8y ago
> I find this _unfathomable_. I'm from a desert state where during dry times it was illegal to light fires and we absolutely did controlled burns. Many of the answers on that quora link seem to indicate that ca does in fact do controlled burns?
- kryogen1c 8y ago
  Some of the comments indicate they try to burn as much as they can. The ambivalent, uncertain language is a sign the game is already lost. If you ask you car mechanic if the lugs on your tire are tight, the answer is yes; the answer is not some lugs are federally owned so we did the best we could. This is a serious public safety issue which if left alone is guaranteed to end in widespread death and destruction.
  - Johnny555 8y ago
    I think it's more like if you ask your neighborhood mechanic to inspect the brake system, and he said "I inspected everything I could, but the master cylinder is leaking and sealed and only the dealer has the tools and knowledge to open it up" so you have to go to the dealer. California shouldn't be expected to maintain forests on someone else's property.
sp332 8y ago

briandear 8y ago

> that some POAs in California forbid cutting down trees on your property. https://www.sonomacountygazette.com/cms/pages/sonoma-county-news-article-912.html https://www.sonomacountygazette.com/cms/pages/sonoma-county-... This article gives a sense of the actual nonsense a homeowner must endure to cut down a tree. It might sound good to some people on paper, but I can feel the frustration of following such an expensive, bureaucratic process just to cut a tree in your own land. That entire process sounds ridiculous when looking at the aftermath of one of these fires such as the Camp or Malibu fires. The environmentalists responsible for such tripe should be made to work with a fire crew for a single hour to see the consequences of their horrid, naïve and completely ignorant policies. Here is the money paragraph: “What does Cal-Fire consider to approve a plan? Basically, they want to make sure that trees are removed in a way that does the least amount of harm to wildlife habitat, that diversity of plant life is maintained, shade and sun balanced for a particular environment, and watersheds and watercourses are disturbed the least amount possible. For instance, if protected species are in the area, then either the work is not done, or it is postponed during mating and rearing stages. If trees are removed on a hillside, then potential erosion is part of what is considered, monitored and controlled. There are many factors, and they all need to be taken into consideration.” Sorry, but Cal-Fire should be concerned about preventing fires first. There are protected species everywhere; so delaying fire prevention forestry so some salamander can do whatever it is salamanders do; that’s just ridiculous. Over 17,000 acres of “protected” stuff just burned up in Paradise, California, so perhaps tripping over a dollar to pick up a nickel doesn’t make the best sense for either the environment or people.

vkou 8y ago
> If trees are removed on a hillside, then potential erosion is part of what is considered, monitored and controlled. There are many factors, and they all need to be taken into consideration.” > Sorry, but Cal-Fire should be concerned about preventing fires first. I'm sorry, but soil erosion is not some boogieman invented by pot-smoking hippies who live in a commune. It's a real and serious problem, and leads to landslides, wash-outs, loss of topsoil, loss of other trees (Which often act as windbreaks).

jartelt 8y ago

Many of forests in California are National Forest land controlled by the federal government. The Californian State Government is not able to go do prescribed burns in the National Forest. A lot of your beef should be with the National Forest Service. Also, the recent drought is really exacerbating things. A lot of the trees in the forests are dead now and are just waiting to burn. Yes, we should remove some of this dead wood and thin the forests, but this will be a huge task given the large amount of forest. As far as POAs and local laws... I am sure some of then are overreaching on things. But, some of them also protect areas from legitimate threats. Many people would gladly cut down all the trees on their property around Lake Tahoe so they can have an unobstructed view. Pretty soon we would have no trees around the lake and the landscape would be drastically changed. Some degree of protection is warranted in places.