4 ms·

Ahh I see, that's unfortunate. Maybe we could do more controlled burns to clear the low-lying stuff but leave trees living?

ShakataGaNai 7y ago
Yes. That is what has started to happen. I live in Lake Tahoe for a number of years and you'd regularly see signs posted "Controlled Burn in progress, do not report" with smoke in the distance. The problem is that there isn't enough money for the man powered required to control burn everything. And 50 to 100 years of "don't let anything burn" has led to a LOT of areas with a lot of build up. Those areas require a lot of care to controlled burn correctly and are often way way WAY out there - making it harder/more expensive to control. There is also the problem of encroachment of civilization on the forests. At least in CA there are houses basically built into the forrest, or right up to the edge. How do you burn those areas assuring the residence 100% safety?
vkou 7y ago
We could, but we don't do enough of it because of liability risks. Imagine if the controlled burn goes out of control, and burns down <someone's lakehouse/dacha/cabin/dog/three month old baby>. People will be in the streets, crying for blood, and won't give up until the Department of Controlled Forest Burns is dissolved, and its executives are sleeping in the Bay, wearing cement overshoes. Yes, you can buy insurance for this sort of thing, but no, money doesn't grow on trees, and insuring your controlled burn program is not going to come cheap.
- tsomctl 7y ago
  Not sure where you are, but controlled burns are common in California. And it's expected that a small portion of them get out of control. Source: my neighbor, who's a retired wildland firefighter.
zmmmmm 7y ago
That has been practised for a long time in Australia. Ironically and sadly the authorities responsible are now reducing their controlled burning because they say there are too few days in the year when it is safe to do so due to climate change.

ShakataGaNai 7y ago

Yes. That is what has started to happen. I live in Lake Tahoe for a number of years and you'd regularly see signs posted "Controlled Burn in progress, do not report" with smoke in the distance. The problem is that there isn't enough money for the man powered required to control burn everything. And 50 to 100 years of "don't let anything burn" has led to a LOT of areas with a lot of build up. Those areas require a lot of care to controlled burn correctly and are often way way WAY out there - making it harder/more expensive to control. There is also the problem of encroachment of civilization on the forests. At least in CA there are houses basically built into the forrest, or right up to the edge. How do you burn those areas assuring the residence 100% safety?

vkou 7y ago

We could, but we don't do enough of it because of liability risks. Imagine if the controlled burn goes out of control, and burns down <someone's lakehouse/dacha/cabin/dog/three month old baby>. People will be in the streets, crying for blood, and won't give up until the Department of Controlled Forest Burns is dissolved, and its executives are sleeping in the Bay, wearing cement overshoes. Yes, you can buy insurance for this sort of thing, but no, money doesn't grow on trees, and insuring your controlled burn program is not going to come cheap.

tsomctl 7y ago
Not sure where you are, but controlled burns are common in California. And it's expected that a small portion of them get out of control. Source: my neighbor, who's a retired wildland firefighter.

zmmmmm 7y ago

That has been practised for a long time in Australia. Ironically and sadly the authorities responsible are now reducing their controlled burning because they say there are too few days in the year when it is safe to do so due to climate change.