4 ms·

It would help people understand the misguided policies that have been in effect, which prevent any meaningful reduction in fuel via cutting or burning -- polici

It would help people understand the misguided policies that have been in effect, which prevent any meaningful reduction in fuel via cutting or burning -- policies meant to preserve the environment, but instead actually harm it.

dredmorbius 6y ago
"Preserving the environment" is rather a misdirection. Initially, fire suppression's "10 a.m. rule" was the result of forest industry advocacy. More recent burn opposition comes from real-estate interests --- homeowners, but also banks, mortgage holders, and insurance companies --- seeking to preserve asset values. Periods are roughly the 1930s for the first and 1970s/80s onward for the latter. Actual environmentalists (and many foresters) have advocated more though controlled and smaller burns for decades. I've travelled through the Western US numerous times over the past 30 years, and the role and scale of fire has long been evident. My trips have included travelling through recently-burnt landscapes, and several which burned within a few years of my passing through. I had a long conversation with a forester on a road trip in the mid-aughts that was particularly memorable, and on which I've had frequent cause to reflect on since.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  See, e.g., 'Fire is medicine': the tribes burning California forests to save them (2019) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/21/wildfire-prescribed-burns-california-native-americans https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/21/wildfire-pre... Barriers and enablers for prescribed burns for wildfire management in California https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0451-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0451-7