4 ms·

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 rugg

by 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
        The climate conditions of today are not dramatically different from those historically. There have been many, and much longer, dry periods throughout the past few thousand years. In fact, the past century has been unusually wet. > Stine, who has spent decades studying tree stumps in Mono Lake, Tenaya Lake, the Walker River and other parts of the Sierra Nevada, said that the past century has been among the wettest of the last 7,000 years. https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-pa... Fires have similarly been a natural part of the ecology for thousands of years. What's new is not very dry conditions or fires. What's new is the California fire management over the past century or so. The biggest different climate condition isn't the weather, it's the lack of regular fires burning up fuel. Now, tons of fire-fuel has accumulated and fires burn hotter than normal. But there is no way to solve this other than by ripping off the band-aid now. If you don't, things get worse.
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.

by sgc 8y ago

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
      The climate conditions of today are not dramatically different from those historically. There have been many, and much longer, dry periods throughout the past few thousand years. In fact, the past century has been unusually wet. > Stine, who has spent decades studying tree stumps in Mono Lake, Tenaya Lake, the Walker River and other parts of the Sierra Nevada, said that the past century has been among the wettest of the last 7,000 years. https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-pa... Fires have similarly been a natural part of the ecology for thousands of years. What's new is not very dry conditions or fires. What's new is the California fire management over the past century or so. The biggest different climate condition isn't the weather, it's the lack of regular fires burning up fuel. Now, tons of fire-fuel has accumulated and fires burn hotter than normal. But there is no way to solve this other than by ripping off the band-aid now. If you don't, things get worse.

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.