7 ms·
To Help Prevent the Next Big Wildfire, Let the Forest Burn
- shower-curtain 8y agoWouldn't it be better to practice proper forestry and harvest the timber, rather than let it burn and release hundreds of kilotons more CO2 and pollutants into the atmosphere?
- fredley 8y agoOther than making sure forest fires pose minimal risks to man-made infrastructure, what is 'practicing proper forestry'? These forests existed for millions of years before humans started managing them.
- foxyv 8y agoMostly making forests friendlier to humans. In their natural state the forests were perpetually burning and a lot of plants depended on those burns. But when you build million dollar houses in the middle of the pretty forest that likes to burn every 5 years...
- fredley 8y agoThe blame here seems to be squarely on the system that allows expensive houses to be built in places that naturally need to burn every now and again.
- Rodneyj 8y agoSo you shouldn't be able to build a house in land you own if the government decides there may be a fire in the future?
- jbattle 8y agoIn large parts of north america, for thousands of years, humans intentionally set fires to manage the landscape. It isn't actually super clear what the "natural state of the forests" really looks like.
- werdnapk 8y agoIt's natural for forests to burn from time to time. Preventing such is actually much worse in the long run.
- shower-curtain 8y agoThe current frequency of major fires due to climate change is not natural, and we have to compensate.
- Rodneyj 8y agoYes, let's blame everything on climate change.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Ninjaneered 8y agoI don't think climate change is the dominating variable here, like the article describes, the devastating fires are a product of our encroachment into forests and aggressive firefighting practices. If you have some references though, I'd be very interested in learning more.
- clarkevans 8y agoStephen Pyne, an environmental historian who studies fire, emphasized that logging would not keep wildfires at bay. “Logging takes the big trunks and leaves the small stuff because there’s no market for it,” he said. “Fire burns the little and leaves the big.”
- shower-curtain 8y agoGreat quote, but that's just not true. I suggest you research modern logging practices.
- ceejayoz 8y agoSince you're the expert (contesting the named expert cited in the article), why don't you point us in the right direction? Googling "modern logging practices" brings up Wikipedia, some industry websites, and a variety of random articles.
- StephenConnell 8y agoNot the parent, but what I've recently seen in Northern California is all underbrush and low branches gone. They were specifically prepping the area to manage fire. Quincy area.
- io_io 8y agoThis would equate to forest management practices, not logging. They likely chipped or burned the underbrush and low branches after removing them from the forest, which wouldn't be a profitable business practice.
- StephenConnell 8y agoTrue, it was forest management, not just commercial logging.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- wyattpeak 8y agoOne of the goals stated in the article of proper forest management is returning of nutrients from the burned trees to the ground. That wouldn't be accomplished by harvesting the timber. Besides which, sustainable fires (i.e. ones which don't, in the long run, substantially change forest coverage or makeup) are by definition carbon neutral.
- shower-curtain 8y ago>Besides which, sustainable fires (i.e. ones which don't, in the long run, substantially change forest coverage or makeup) are by definition carbon neutral. Not when the rate of fires exceeds the rate of regrowth due to climate change.
- admax88q 8y agoThe burnt forest will regrow, absorbing that CO2 back out of the atmosphere.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoYeah, that's kind of the definition of "non-sustainable."
- neolefty 8y agoDoing that is part of the problem, as pointed out in the article. We harvest from those forests currently — the problem is we harvest the big healthy trees because their wood is the most desirable. They're also the most resistant to burning. The smaller, shade-tolerant trees that we leave behind are both less commercially valuable and more vulnerable to fire.
- ahmedalsudani 8y agoDoes not seem like a valid argument at this point. The latest big wildfire in California (Paradise) included portions of the forest that had burned a few years prior and were mostly grassy at the time of the fire. I can't find the source I had heard, but it was one of the firefighters giving an interview and talking about forest management... Maybe I should have taken what he said with a hint of salt though ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- plopz 8y agoHere's a 99 Percent Invisible podcast on the topic that goes against what you're suggesting. I thought it was pretty convincing but I haven't seen much argument for the current practices being helpful, so maybe those are also convincing. https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/built-to-burn/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/built-to-burn/
- neolefty 8y agoDid the fire gain intensity where there was a recent burn, or just happen to include that area? I'd like to know where the fire gained momentum, what areas were critical to it being a disaster rather than a nuisance.
- StephenConnell 8y agoIt started with momentum in an area that had recently burned and moved very quickly because of extremely low humidity and high winds. I live near by and have ridden dirt bikes all over the area it started. It's very inexesable. They could not get to it when it was small and it took off. Here is an amazing video that shows just how windy it was. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2208918639386879&id=100008062930271&ref=bookmarks https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2208918639386879...
- technotony 8y agoPresumably that could be caused by the intensity of the fire? I understand if you really do regularly burn the forests the fires become fast and light skipping the undergrowth rather than these intense conflagrations we see today?
- konschubert 8y agoIsn't the frequency of fires mostly caused by the drought, which in turn is caused by climate change? How do all of these policies matter of there is no more rain in California?
- zaroth 8y agoThere will never be “no more rain in California”. Also, fires are not becoming more frequent, but roughly the same number of fires are burning more acreage. Apparently any and all weather pattern changes are “caused by climate change” whether that be drought or monsoon, heat or cold spells, increased or decreased hurricanes, etc. And interestingly, no matter which direction the change is said to be occurring (e.g. more rain in the mid-west) it’s always predicted to lead to a catastrophic outcome.
- all2 8y agoThis sounds like Marxism. Every social phenomena can be explained by Marxism (ergo, it is not scientific). A proper scientific theory is disprovable.
- vixen99 8y agoHere's a Nature paper to set your mind at rest. "Little change in global drought over the past 60 years", Nature volume 491, pages 435–438 (15 November 2012) and no evidence of dramatic changes since 2012,
- all2 8y agoSmaller forest fires manage dead wood. If a forest burns on a regular basis, felled trees (naturally fallen, in this case) will burn more often and there will be less fuel for a bigger fire in the future. This is a big issue on forestry management across the entire United States (and probably elsewhere). [0] https://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=15218114 https://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=15218114
- Ninjaneered 8y agoFor reference, I was a seasonal firefighter with Cal Fire (CDF at the time) for 6 years. First off, if there is a fire burning on state land, federal land, BLM land, a national forest, a national park, etc. I'd call it a forest fire, it's just common parlance. To some that know better, I may use the term wildland fire. So, if it isn't a structure or vehicle fire, it's probably a forest fire. Specifically though, many of these fires are considered in the wildland–urban interface, that is where homes and wildlands meet or intermingle. There is a problem happening and I'm not sure how to solve it. The amount of wildland-urban interface land keeps increasing. This land is much more difficult to defend against fire; structure protection is much harder than straight wildland fire management. We've aggressively fought all forest fires (see above), especially when there is a threat of homes being destroyed (again this is increasing due to the wildland-urban interface increasing). Forest fires are natural and should happen on a regular basis, when they do, they clear fuel from the ground. Note, some trees require this for seed release (serotinous cones), resprouting, and germination (fire activated seeds). When fires don't burn and the fuel loading increases (due to aggressive firefighting), a catastrophic fire can burn, one we can't easily put out. These fires burn so hot, they can jump into the tree canopy (crowning fire) and kill the tree, they can completely burn fire activated seeds and make them nonviable, and they typically burn much larger sections of land. This is all bad. I'm really not sure how to deal with this. There are some steps homeowners in the wildland-urban interface (within 1/2-mile of the wildland) should do to protect their homes including defensible space, fire-resistant roofs and siding, enclosed eaves and vents, etc. These steps should be enforced through insurance company's policy (vastly reduced rates for "safer" homes, and no insurance or drastically higher for "unsafe" homes), keep in mind, these unsafe homes put firefighters at risk. Ideally we stop encroaching into the wildland, but I'm not sure how to stop that. But we do need to let forest fires burn more. We need to set more prescribed burns (controlled burns) We need to know that some will get out of control, but there shouldn't be any lawsuits for this, fighting fire is tough. (I previously posted this on a CleanTechnica discussion)
- deedubaya 8y agoForest fires (used) to be a natural occurrence which was healthy for forests. 70 years of "put every fire out" has resulted in forests with excess fuel. That coupled with dry spells and warmer temps = a powder keg instead of natural burns.
- moultano 8y agoThe places these fires are burning have no natural sources to start fires. California never gets lightning except in the Sierra's.
- mbrumlow 8y agoI am not sure you can say any region "never" gets anything. But even so, the region seems perfect for spontaneous combustion.
- decebalus1 8y ago> But even so, the region seems perfect for spontaneous combustion. Forests don't spontaneous combust. I don't believe there was any forest fire proven to have started via spontaneous combustion.
- JoeAltmaier 8y agohttp://www.borealforest.org/world/innova/forest_fire.htm http://www.borealforest.org/world/innova/forest_fire.htm It happens
- decebalus1 8y agothat's not proof of anything. https://www.nps.gov/articles/fire-prevention-52-spontaneous-combustion.htm https://www.nps.gov/articles/fire-prevention-52-spontaneous-... Forests don't spontaneously combust. Sawdust does, manure does, compost piles do but there's isn't near enough fuel in a forest without human intervention to cause spontaneous combustion.
- zaroth 8y agoHow realistic is it for vastly improved monitoring and rapid response to be able to snuff out a major fire before it develops? For example, what if you had the surveillance coverage to detect a fire before it covers, say, even 1 acre, and if you could respond with a tanker of Phos-Chek (or whatever) within some number of minutes? Aside from actually achieving the detection ability for alerting on a new fire, and having the equipment and personale distributed and on-call for rapid response, I am guessing the biggest challenge is “false positives” in the sense that you detect a real fire which is relatively tiny, but have no way to determine if it has the potential to develop into a catastrophic fire. In the long tail of forest fires there are perhaps 100,000 detectable fires, so that’s a lot of response. This goes against precisely the thesis of TFA and perhaps the counter-argument is that strictly controlling fires will just allow fuel to pile up to the point where it is no longer controllable — like a dam holding back the floodwaters until it is finally topped. The biggest problem I have with the “let it burn” argument is just the macro level stats. We have about the same number of fires, burning about 10x the acreage as they did in the past. We are already letting these fires, intentionally or not, burn a lot more acreage and the number of fires is roughly constant.
- yters 8y agoAren't forest fires necessary for the some trees' seeds to open? So if we were able to prevent all fires, then either a large portion of the forest would die off, or we'd have to engineer another huge intervention effort to repopulate the forest?
- zaroth 8y agoI think you’re right. It’s one of those “terrible ideas if it actually worked” kind of things. The best first-order defenses I’ve read about would be strict code for setbacks around houses to give a decent buffer between homes and forest, possibly some material requirements for roofs and siding, and generally making homes and communities more burn-proof. This obviously doesn’t help if there’s a raging inferno next door, but it shifts the curve. Second, is better warning and alerting systems, and better evacuation management systems to get people prepared to leave, aware of when they absolutely must leave, and able to leave quickly in the moment. These systems are severely lacking for any natural disaster response, not just forest fires, and I think we are long past due a complete rethinking of how our “911” services actually operate.
- bluGill 8y agoNote that the situation in California is VERY different from most of the US. In California (this probably only applies to parts of California - it is a big state) the trees are high oil and very flammable. When there is a fire after a drought (which is common) it will be big and hot. The only way to deal with it is to not build near these forests and let them burn naturally.
- dfsegoat 8y agoDo you have any links to support such a broad statement? I've lived in Northern CA almost my entire life, and I would not classify the Oaks etc. as "high oil" or any more flammable than trees in the rest of the continental united states. In fact, looking at this study utilizing GIS data - it looks to me like the SE US actually contains some of the largest concentrations of fuel / fire risk: https://eos.org/articles/assessing-u-s-fire-risks-using-soil-moisture-satellite-data https://eos.org/articles/assessing-u-s-fire-risks-using-soil...
- bluGill 8y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Control_of_Nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Control_of_Nature is where I read this. The types of timber in the area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Gabriel_Mountains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Gabriel_Mountains are known as high oil which means they burn hotter. Oaks are not high oil. Cedar and Pine are though. Note that current concentration of fuel/fire risk is NOT what I was talking about. There are big problems all over the US because of mis-management. Different areas need different management.
- almost_usual 8y agoThese fires are going to burn extensively no matter what at this point. California does not have the money or resources to control it, Mother Nature will run its course.
- bamboozled 8y agoSome might find reading about a an Indigenous Australian practice known as “fire stick farming” [1] to be relevant and interesting. TL;DR version is tha by intentionally burning areas of bushland, Aboriginals decreased the intensity of fires thus reducing damage to plant and animal life which worked to their advantage of course. I’ve personally witnessed this happening in North Western Australia where FSF is still practiced in a rather traditional way and the scrub land looked incredibly healthy It’s a place where I’ve never heard of out of control wildfires occurring. Since witnessing the practice I’ve always found it really fascinating. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-stick_farming https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-stick_farming
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- pvaldes 8y agoThere is a fact in wildfires that is often ignored. Often, (very often) this is not a case of bad luck or neglected nature, is just a problem of sabotage. A crime. Twenty five starting points in the same area the same night. People keep blaming nature instead. You can't stop criminals just removing combustible and cleaning. They can and will provide their own combustible. A few gallons of gasoline is all that they need. We would need something like the ink companies do since years. A way to put a fingerprint in the gasoline so, after a wildfire (or a home fire) some harmless chemical compound could remain in X concentration and point to the fuel station selling the combustible. Maybe a mix of several aditives in different concentrations and different times could provide enough variability to make a short code with station and month. Then you have the arsonists and their vehicles filmed in camera. Still a lot of people to check but, as many arsonists are recurrent, you can look for patterns. Could be silently implemented only for conflictive areas by the government and fine tune it to week or even day.