4 ms·

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but why don't we just let forest fires burn? Isn't it a natural part of the ecosystem renewal process? We'd still want to pro

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but why don't we just let forest fires burn? Isn't it a natural part of the ecosystem renewal process? We'd still want to protect homes and people of course, but it seems like that would be easier if we didn't send fire fighters out to fight the remote fires.

foota 5y ago
I think that letting the fires burn inevitably leads to them becoming out of control, because they are burning nearby where there are people.
bpodgursky 5y ago
They've protected against forest fires for so long that the undergrowth has built up to dangerous levels, so any fire whatsoever ends up being a massive burn that kills everything in the forest.
- adamredwoods 5y ago
  Very debatable: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40725-015-0013-9 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40725-015-0013-9 >> Objectives for fuels management have not changed much over the years and generally aim to achieve the above-stated benefits at least cost. Even so, documentation is scant that specific payoffs are actually realized. Arguably, wildfire encounters with areas where fuels have been manipulated provide the best evidence of fuel treatment effectiveness, but limited information is available here as well.
TigeriusKirk 5y ago
The smoke itself covers large areas of the state and is a serious health hazard.
- ghaff 5y ago
  Wildfires are inevitable in a lot of the American West. It's a question of how you manage them--what you allow to burn and when, controlled burns, etc. "Not having wildfires" is not actually an option barring some specific fire causes like improperly maintained electrical equipment.
pandeiro 5y ago
Not a dumb question at all. Not a domain expert but an enthusiast so I'll take a crack at an answer: Maximal fire suppression strategies have been the most prevalent approach to avoiding property damage and loss of life caused by forest fires for most of the past century, despite the known harm to ecological systems that rely on periodic burning, because nature is difficult to control/predict and prescribed burns (an alternative or supplemental approach) are time and labor intensive.
- olivermarks 5y ago
  https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/good-fire-revival-how-controlled-burns-in-sonoma-county-aim-to-curb-risk/ https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/good-fire-revival... https://calpba.org/connect-ca-pba https://calpba.org/connect-ca-pba
makerofspoons 5y ago
These environments are getting so hot and dry that it's very possible the forest will not be renewed after a fire: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2196213-forests-are-becoming-less-able-to-bounce-back-from-wildfires/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2196213-forests-are-bec...
CalChris 5y ago
Forests are going to burn and anything we do only delays that. However, as you point out, people and structures are worth protecting.

foota 5y ago

I think that letting the fires burn inevitably leads to them becoming out of control, because they are burning nearby where there are people.

bpodgursky 5y ago

They've protected against forest fires for so long that the undergrowth has built up to dangerous levels, so any fire whatsoever ends up being a massive burn that kills everything in the forest.

adamredwoods 5y ago
Very debatable: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40725-015-0013-9 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40725-015-0013-9 >> Objectives for fuels management have not changed much over the years and generally aim to achieve the above-stated benefits at least cost. Even so, documentation is scant that specific payoffs are actually realized. Arguably, wildfire encounters with areas where fuels have been manipulated provide the best evidence of fuel treatment effectiveness, but limited information is available here as well.

TigeriusKirk 5y ago

The smoke itself covers large areas of the state and is a serious health hazard.

ghaff 5y ago
Wildfires are inevitable in a lot of the American West. It's a question of how you manage them--what you allow to burn and when, controlled burns, etc. "Not having wildfires" is not actually an option barring some specific fire causes like improperly maintained electrical equipment.

pandeiro 5y ago

Not a dumb question at all. Not a domain expert but an enthusiast so I'll take a crack at an answer: Maximal fire suppression strategies have been the most prevalent approach to avoiding property damage and loss of life caused by forest fires for most of the past century, despite the known harm to ecological systems that rely on periodic burning, because nature is difficult to control/predict and prescribed burns (an alternative or supplemental approach) are time and labor intensive.

olivermarks 5y ago
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/good-fire-revival-how-controlled-burns-in-sonoma-county-aim-to-curb-risk/ https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/good-fire-revival... https://calpba.org/connect-ca-pba https://calpba.org/connect-ca-pba

makerofspoons 5y ago

These environments are getting so hot and dry that it's very possible the forest will not be renewed after a fire: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2196213-forests-are-becoming-less-able-to-bounce-back-from-wildfires/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2196213-forests-are-bec...

CalChris 5y ago

Forests are going to burn and anything we do only delays that. However, as you point out, people and structures are worth protecting.