3 ms·
I own roughly 40 acres of Douglas Fir forest in Northwest Oregon, and let me tell you — there’s no black and white answer to this. This is a long post, so buckl
by gdubs 6y ago
I own roughly 40 acres of Douglas Fir forest in Northwest Oregon, and let me tell you — there’s no black and white answer to this. This is a long post, so buckle up.
Start with invasive shrubs like blackberries. They spread wildly and require a ton of work to maintain. (And before people say “use goats”, know they are not a magic bullet.) Limbing trees, where you remove branches under 10’, can help prevent “ladder fires”, but it’s time consuming or costly if you need to hire someone to do it.
Forests need to be thinned, invasive species kept at bay, and fuel in general needs to be removed or burned. And this stuff is alive so it’s a perennial thing to deal with. Even with grants, profit from timber, etc, it’s a lot of work, time, and money.
In retrospect it’s easy to point fingers at the National Forest Service and criticize their policy of putting fires out. Imagine for a second the opposition they’d face had they just let fires burn for the past half century. Even if it’s the “right” thing to do, it would be a very hard sell. People generally want to see action, and have a hard time seeing inaction as “doing something.”
Similarly with controlled burns. I’d love to burn our land every year the way that Native Americans used to — but it’s not without risk. There’s simply too much fuel.
Up in Oregon things have historically been very wet. Comically so. The result is a lot of lush vegetation. Which dries out in a drought and becomes fuel. As these unprecedented burns happen more and more frequently, they push forests into new phases of succession, where a new cycle of shrub-drought-fire becomes the norm. These firestorms are a different breed from the mild creeping forest fires that are part of a natural forest ecosystem.
All of that said, forest management is incredibly important. We need a new approach, and I’d argue we need more grants for the landowners who can’t afford to do the work necessary to prepare their land for this new climate. We also need to take a serious look at all of the development in the wildland-urban-interface and figure out how we’re going to address it. And yes, to the chagrin of many here, we need to address Climate Change.
But, all of that said, none of that IMHO absolves PG&E from gross negligence in failing to properly maintain equipment in areas of known heightened risk.
- jdsully 6y agoThese forests managed themselves for thousands of years without us - including periods of invasive species (through geological rather than human means of transmission). I find it funny us humans seem to want to take responsibility for everything. That said I wouldn't want my house burned down from a forest fire either.
- gdubs 6y agoWell, while it might make a nice children’s book, there were no firefighting animals prior to humans. So, sure, the forests managed to maintain themselves because no one was around to stop the fires, which kept things in check. Animals would flee, but in general these fires would have been more frequent and as a consequence, less vicious. But in the past few thousand years, they were actively managed. Native American Indians burned countless acres annually to maintain a particular ecosystem. Oregon, known now for its Douglas Fir trees, was largely an oak savanna. Oaks are fire resistant and provide food for big game. The annual fires kept other vegetation in check. Humans have an outsized effect on the planet; I fail to see the humor in why we should recognize our impact, and our moral and ethical responsibilities to the web of life we’re both a part of and depend on.
- jdsully 6y agoBut you said it yourself, if we had not "managed" the forest we would likely have been in a better situation today with less severe fires. Humans have a huge bias to action, and aversion to change which isn't always for the best.
- gdubs 6y agoThere’s two different types of “management” being discussed. One being the modern approach of fire suppression. The other, the one taken by native Americans, involved annual burns which did not make the situation worse and in fact kept things in check.
- prennert 6y agoIt's the changing conditions that make it tricky and "unnatural" in the short term. Long-term, of course everything will be fine. Life survived a lot radical changes and following mass extinctions. But as far as I can tell, usually the dominant species after the event were not the same as the ones before the events.