6 ms·

You can actually blame the "Smokey the Bear" policies of the last century instead of climate change. The complete prevention of forest fires have lead to heavy

You can actually blame the "Smokey the Bear" policies of the last century instead of climate change. The complete prevention of forest fires have lead to heavy fuel loads on the forest floor. Before this, fires were lower in intensity and actually cleaned out ll the debris. Also, many species of trees require fire to split open their cones (e.g., Lodge Pole Pines) and other species of plants need fire for germination (e.g. Manzanita). Ponderosa Pines have thick bark for the purpose of surviving fires -- now the fires are too hot. Look at forest pictures in Central Oregon from 120 years ago -- you could drive a car thru since there was not a lot of debris on the forest floor. Fires used to be a good thing. Native Americans would even manage fires with controlled burns. Now all fires are completely destructive! Source: Dad was a research scientist for US Forest Service.

cm2012 8y ago
The thing is...research scientists like your dad have known this for a long time. If this was preventable by allowing more fires, it would be done already.
- bluGill 8y ago
  Research scientists don't have much input to policy. Smokey the bear is cute and Bambi movies are each more powerful forces against doing controlled burns.
abalone 8y ago
This is overly simplistic. This fire was not just the result of an accumulation of “debris”. You’re leaving out two major factors: years of severe drought followed by a year with lots of rain. This both weakened older trees and produced a lot of young growth which acted as kindling. Conservatives like to pin the blame in forest management just as a desperate attempt to take the heat off climate change. But the extremes we experienced were the primary factors here, and that’s climate change.
- setr 8y ago
  >Conservatives like to pin the blame in forest management just as a desperate attempt to take the heat off climate change. Im pretty sure the primary appeal would be failure of widereaching goverment policy, versus climate change.
Apocryphon 8y ago
Controlled burns are one thing, allowing random campers to set fires wherever they please seems like a shortsighted policy.
- bluGill 8y ago
  Let me know when you can stop lightening from starting random fires. Until then campers starting random fires is not a problem as we have to be able to handle it anyway.
  - Apocryphon 8y ago
    If a lightning storm is going on there are probably less campers around to be caught up in a blaze, as opposed to during camping weather.
    - briffle 8y ago
      On the west coast, peak thunderstorm season is right in the middle of peak camping season. I have often sat at my site and watched the 'show'.
      - Apocryphon 8y ago
        Well, at least the storm will help put out the fires, so that people won’t get caught up in them
labster 8y ago
While true in the Paradise fire case, I just want to remind people that this doesn't apply to the Southern California fires. Here, fires are much more frequent and much larger, and thus fuel loads are less than in preindustrial times. Ignition sources are everywhere now, and Santa Ana wind events are more severe due to climate change. So the challenge in SoCal is keeping an ecosystem intact with such frequent burns. And that our current fire suppression ability is not nearly enough.
- bluGill 8y ago
  The issue in SoCol is fires are normal, but building and living arrangements can't deal with that. If you want to live in those areas you need to build from brick and carry your own protection so a fire won't harm you....
  - Sharlin 8y ago
    There appear to be several areas in the US whose settlement and continued habitation feel like a testament to human arrogance. Massive floods? Hurricanes? Tornados? Huge wildfires? Check, check, check, check.
    - sbov 8y ago
      I'm not sure if there are many places to build a city without potentially massive natural disasters.
      - Sharlin 8y ago
        Most of Europe is really tame in comparison. As are huge regions of North America, too.
creato 8y ago
Where I've lived (several places in the west), this is well understood and controlled burns/fuel reduction incentives have been long standing policies. I can't say that's the case everywhere, but it definitely is everywhere I've lived. My family used to go and collect wood from such an area: the policy was to pull all the downed trees and scrub into piles. The forest service allowed people to take wood for free from these piles. What was left was burned, after people took the good logs and it dried out. I still visit this place regularly, and the policy is still the same. It's become harder to do controlled burns, because in drought conditions, the season where it is safe to do so has become short to non-existent. I think this argument is popular because it is a way to blame "liberal" environmental policy for the fires.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  I don't think that was liberal environmental policy, though. Smokey was created back in the 40s. I doubt it was understood back then what the effects of their fire suppression policies would be longer term.
- someguydave 8y ago
  Why should the federal government be holding on to so much forestland? Private owners would be greatly incentivized to keep the forest productive.
  - op00to 8y ago
    Uh, because it’s owned by all of us, and cutting it down to make toilet paper is a fucking shame and a waste.
briffle 8y ago
that covers the fuel portion of it, but there are also other problems as well. If I remember right, Paradise is one of the towns that prevents you from pruning 'wildlife' near your home, and many neighborhoods and ordinances don't allow certain kinds of fireproof siding/roofing, because they 'ruin the look of the neighborhood'. I kind of actually feel a bit for PGE here, while they are definitely wrong, it was not their choice to not follow guidelines on 'defensible space' for the town, and its roads.. The main roads out of town had vegetation right up to the edges of the roads. how is that safe?
someguydave 8y ago
Indeed, the failed insulator on the transmission line which sparked the fire was sitting in the middle of Plumas National Forest. Yet, nobody seems to be holding the federal government accountable for the fire. If/when PG&E becomes part of the government you will get the same level of accountability.

cm2012 8y ago

The thing is...research scientists like your dad have known this for a long time. If this was preventable by allowing more fires, it would be done already.

bluGill 8y ago
Research scientists don't have much input to policy. Smokey the bear is cute and Bambi movies are each more powerful forces against doing controlled burns.

abalone 8y ago

This is overly simplistic. This fire was not just the result of an accumulation of “debris”. You’re leaving out two major factors: years of severe drought followed by a year with lots of rain. This both weakened older trees and produced a lot of young growth which acted as kindling. Conservatives like to pin the blame in forest management just as a desperate attempt to take the heat off climate change. But the extremes we experienced were the primary factors here, and that’s climate change.

setr 8y ago
>Conservatives like to pin the blame in forest management just as a desperate attempt to take the heat off climate change. Im pretty sure the primary appeal would be failure of widereaching goverment policy, versus climate change.

Apocryphon 8y ago

Controlled burns are one thing, allowing random campers to set fires wherever they please seems like a shortsighted policy.

bluGill 8y ago
Let me know when you can stop lightening from starting random fires. Until then campers starting random fires is not a problem as we have to be able to handle it anyway.
- Apocryphon 8y ago
  If a lightning storm is going on there are probably less campers around to be caught up in a blaze, as opposed to during camping weather.
  - briffle 8y ago
    On the west coast, peak thunderstorm season is right in the middle of peak camping season. I have often sat at my site and watched the 'show'.
    - Apocryphon 8y ago
      Well, at least the storm will help put out the fires, so that people won’t get caught up in them

labster 8y ago

While true in the Paradise fire case, I just want to remind people that this doesn't apply to the Southern California fires. Here, fires are much more frequent and much larger, and thus fuel loads are less than in preindustrial times. Ignition sources are everywhere now, and Santa Ana wind events are more severe due to climate change. So the challenge in SoCal is keeping an ecosystem intact with such frequent burns. And that our current fire suppression ability is not nearly enough.

bluGill 8y ago
The issue in SoCol is fires are normal, but building and living arrangements can't deal with that. If you want to live in those areas you need to build from brick and carry your own protection so a fire won't harm you....
- Sharlin 8y ago
  There appear to be several areas in the US whose settlement and continued habitation feel like a testament to human arrogance. Massive floods? Hurricanes? Tornados? Huge wildfires? Check, check, check, check.
  - sbov 8y ago
    I'm not sure if there are many places to build a city without potentially massive natural disasters.
    - Sharlin 8y ago
      Most of Europe is really tame in comparison. As are huge regions of North America, too.

creato 8y ago

Where I've lived (several places in the west), this is well understood and controlled burns/fuel reduction incentives have been long standing policies. I can't say that's the case everywhere, but it definitely is everywhere I've lived. My family used to go and collect wood from such an area: the policy was to pull all the downed trees and scrub into piles. The forest service allowed people to take wood for free from these piles. What was left was burned, after people took the good logs and it dried out. I still visit this place regularly, and the policy is still the same. It's become harder to do controlled burns, because in drought conditions, the season where it is safe to do so has become short to non-existent. I think this argument is popular because it is a way to blame "liberal" environmental policy for the fires.

amanaplanacanal 8y ago
I don't think that was liberal environmental policy, though. Smokey was created back in the 40s. I doubt it was understood back then what the effects of their fire suppression policies would be longer term.
someguydave 8y ago
Why should the federal government be holding on to so much forestland? Private owners would be greatly incentivized to keep the forest productive.
- op00to 8y ago
  Uh, because it’s owned by all of us, and cutting it down to make toilet paper is a fucking shame and a waste.

briffle 8y ago

that covers the fuel portion of it, but there are also other problems as well. If I remember right, Paradise is one of the towns that prevents you from pruning 'wildlife' near your home, and many neighborhoods and ordinances don't allow certain kinds of fireproof siding/roofing, because they 'ruin the look of the neighborhood'. I kind of actually feel a bit for PGE here, while they are definitely wrong, it was not their choice to not follow guidelines on 'defensible space' for the town, and its roads.. The main roads out of town had vegetation right up to the edges of the roads. how is that safe?

someguydave 8y ago

Indeed, the failed insulator on the transmission line which sparked the fire was sitting in the middle of Plumas National Forest. Yet, nobody seems to be holding the federal government accountable for the fire. If/when PG&E becomes part of the government you will get the same level of accountability.