3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoWhy should the federal government be holding on to so much forestland? Private owners would be greatly incentivized to keep the forest productive.
- op00to 8y agoUh, because it’s owned by all of us, and cutting it down to make toilet paper is a fucking shame and a waste.