4 ms·

This is exactly right. Especially the part about how this phenomenon is not new. I seem to remember an article for grade school kids in a scholastic magazine fr

This is exactly right. Especially the part about how this phenomenon is not new. I seem to remember an article for grade school kids in a scholastic magazine from the late 90s that mentioned this. Documentaries about Yellowstone at the time mentioned the importance of fired in the germination of new trees. Of course, policy has not effectively reacted to well known science. Sigh.

brianwawok 5y ago
No one likes their house burned down. I think building lots of houses in forests, is a similar problem as when people build lots of houses in flood plains. In both cases, we sneak in some houses during a "good" year, and then we get to spend all the future years trying to defeat nature.
- bishoprook2 5y ago
  >I think building lots of houses in forests, is a similar problem as when people build lots of houses in flood plains. So is the Bay Area a good place to build houses? Santa Rosa, CA?
  - 34679 5y ago
    The cost for permission from Sonoma County to build a family home in Santa Rosa can approach $60k.
    - chokeartist 5y ago
      Which is an absolute rent-seeking shakedown.
    - bishoprook2 5y ago
      I was being facetious. The previous poster was comparing building California homes near trees to the folks who build on flood plains. A natural expansion of that tells you that you can't build in Santa Rosa (Tubbs Fire), Oakland hills (more fires), the Bay Area (earthquakes, someday the Hayward Fault will let loose), or really much of anywhere near the coast (rising sea levels, California Coastal Commission has decided that protecting your property with water barriers is no bueno).
      - lumost 5y ago
        The unfortunate reality is that some of this may be true. Building in danger zones where the home will need to be replaced in 10-20 years is an awful investment on a 30 year mortgage. If the property is untenable after 20 years then the owner is out a good chunk of money. This isn’t a big deal when property is cheap and can be paid off within 5-10 years, and rebuilt. But housing has become dramatically more expensive relative to cash flow than it has been historically.
        bishoprook2 5y ago
        > Building in danger zones where the home will need to be replaced in 10-20 years is an awful investment on a 30 year mortgage. With a cheap enough house, it's just the thing. Spend all of your money on land. Maybe the future is in RVs. If they let me get away with it, I can see scraping a parking pad in Big Sur and sticking a motorhome on it. Relatively earthquake-proof. Fire? Simply drive away. Vacations to the desert can be slept in your own bed. Want to live the classic life? Buy a GMC Motorhome. Maybe those behemoths make sense. Live the Jim Rockford lifestyle.
- Arrath 5y ago
  Near me is a very picturesque mountain town, I would love to live there. However the houses are just woven into the forest, its only a matter of time until the entire place goes up in flame. Yes, it is a beautiful way to build. It's also completely indefensible in event of a wildfire.
- abakker 5y ago
  This is also climate dependent, though. Most of CT, VT, MA, NY, PA, NH, ME are essentially tactless forests separated by small meadows. Where I grew up in CT, if we did not prune the forest, it would encroach about 5-10ft/year into our lawns. if you truly didn't mow, it might have been twice or three times that. Also when I grew up we'd make burn piles once a year to burn all the deadwood that came down around the property. It was often impossible to light those piles of wood without kerosene since everything was so wet. I think a lot of the forest living is inspired by places like VT and CT where building in a forest is fine and safe. In the middle of a pine forest in northern CA is a totally different ecosystem and can't be treated the same.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > No one likes their house burned down. Then trim vegetation from your house at least 30'/10m, and keep things tidy out to at least 100'/30m: * https://www.readyforwildfire.org/prepare-for-wildfire/get-ready/defensible-space/ https://www.readyforwildfire.org/prepare-for-wildfire/get-re... * https://www.nfpa.org/Public-Education/Fire-causes-and-risks/Wildfire/Preparing-homes-for-wildfire https://www.nfpa.org/Public-Education/Fire-causes-and-risks/... Make sure there are no dries leaves or pine needles gathered in places, ensure that your attic vent is properly screened from embers, that flammable furniture (e.g., cushions) is not laying about too close to the house. Lots of simple, preventative measures that people can do to increase their odds.
  - Retric 5y ago
    That’s really not enough, forest fires are basically distributed denial of service attack. A tiny spark which wouldn’t be a significant issue on it’s own can destroy a house when nobody is there actively protecting it. Clearing vegetation and material selection can make a huge difference, just don’t expect a normal house to be ok anywhere near a fire.
    - throw0101a 5y ago
      Embers are actually the things that cause the most damage: * https://www.intermap.com/risks-of-hazard-blog/2015/03/does-your-wildfire-model-include-ember-zones https://www.intermap.com/risks-of-hazard-blog/2015/03/does-y... * https://ibhs.org/ibhs-news-releases/embers-cause-up-to-90-of-home-business-ignitions-during-wildfire-events/ https://ibhs.org/ibhs-news-releases/embers-cause-up-to-90-of... It seems that by dealing with anything on/near your structure that can be ignited by them can reduce risk by quite a lot.
  - lazide 5y ago
    A big enough fire, which is what you get with tall, overcrowded trees, will set many houses on fire from hundreds of yards away - even if no embers or anything else land on the house. It is really amazing the amount of heat released, and how quickly, in one of these fires.
thaumasiotes 5y ago
Policy in Yellowstone did change. I would have thought that policy everywhere else changed at the same time.

brianwawok 5y ago

No one likes their house burned down. I think building lots of houses in forests, is a similar problem as when people build lots of houses in flood plains. In both cases, we sneak in some houses during a "good" year, and then we get to spend all the future years trying to defeat nature.

bishoprook2 5y ago
>I think building lots of houses in forests, is a similar problem as when people build lots of houses in flood plains. So is the Bay Area a good place to build houses? Santa Rosa, CA?
- 34679 5y ago
  The cost for permission from Sonoma County to build a family home in Santa Rosa can approach $60k.
  - chokeartist 5y ago
    Which is an absolute rent-seeking shakedown.
  - bishoprook2 5y ago
    I was being facetious. The previous poster was comparing building California homes near trees to the folks who build on flood plains. A natural expansion of that tells you that you can't build in Santa Rosa (Tubbs Fire), Oakland hills (more fires), the Bay Area (earthquakes, someday the Hayward Fault will let loose), or really much of anywhere near the coast (rising sea levels, California Coastal Commission has decided that protecting your property with water barriers is no bueno).
    - lumost 5y ago
      The unfortunate reality is that some of this may be true. Building in danger zones where the home will need to be replaced in 10-20 years is an awful investment on a 30 year mortgage. If the property is untenable after 20 years then the owner is out a good chunk of money. This isn’t a big deal when property is cheap and can be paid off within 5-10 years, and rebuilt. But housing has become dramatically more expensive relative to cash flow than it has been historically.
      - bishoprook2 5y ago
        > Building in danger zones where the home will need to be replaced in 10-20 years is an awful investment on a 30 year mortgage. With a cheap enough house, it's just the thing. Spend all of your money on land. Maybe the future is in RVs. If they let me get away with it, I can see scraping a parking pad in Big Sur and sticking a motorhome on it. Relatively earthquake-proof. Fire? Simply drive away. Vacations to the desert can be slept in your own bed. Want to live the classic life? Buy a GMC Motorhome. Maybe those behemoths make sense. Live the Jim Rockford lifestyle.
Arrath 5y ago
Near me is a very picturesque mountain town, I would love to live there. However the houses are just woven into the forest, its only a matter of time until the entire place goes up in flame. Yes, it is a beautiful way to build. It's also completely indefensible in event of a wildfire.
abakker 5y ago
This is also climate dependent, though. Most of CT, VT, MA, NY, PA, NH, ME are essentially tactless forests separated by small meadows. Where I grew up in CT, if we did not prune the forest, it would encroach about 5-10ft/year into our lawns. if you truly didn't mow, it might have been twice or three times that. Also when I grew up we'd make burn piles once a year to burn all the deadwood that came down around the property. It was often impossible to light those piles of wood without kerosene since everything was so wet. I think a lot of the forest living is inspired by places like VT and CT where building in a forest is fine and safe. In the middle of a pine forest in northern CA is a totally different ecosystem and can't be treated the same.
throw0101a 5y ago
> No one likes their house burned down. Then trim vegetation from your house at least 30'/10m, and keep things tidy out to at least 100'/30m: * https://www.readyforwildfire.org/prepare-for-wildfire/get-ready/defensible-space/ https://www.readyforwildfire.org/prepare-for-wildfire/get-re... * https://www.nfpa.org/Public-Education/Fire-causes-and-risks/Wildfire/Preparing-homes-for-wildfire https://www.nfpa.org/Public-Education/Fire-causes-and-risks/... Make sure there are no dries leaves or pine needles gathered in places, ensure that your attic vent is properly screened from embers, that flammable furniture (e.g., cushions) is not laying about too close to the house. Lots of simple, preventative measures that people can do to increase their odds.
- Retric 5y ago
  That’s really not enough, forest fires are basically distributed denial of service attack. A tiny spark which wouldn’t be a significant issue on it’s own can destroy a house when nobody is there actively protecting it. Clearing vegetation and material selection can make a huge difference, just don’t expect a normal house to be ok anywhere near a fire.
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    Embers are actually the things that cause the most damage: * https://www.intermap.com/risks-of-hazard-blog/2015/03/does-your-wildfire-model-include-ember-zones https://www.intermap.com/risks-of-hazard-blog/2015/03/does-y... * https://ibhs.org/ibhs-news-releases/embers-cause-up-to-90-of-home-business-ignitions-during-wildfire-events/ https://ibhs.org/ibhs-news-releases/embers-cause-up-to-90-of... It seems that by dealing with anything on/near your structure that can be ignited by them can reduce risk by quite a lot.
- lazide 5y ago
  A big enough fire, which is what you get with tall, overcrowded trees, will set many houses on fire from hundreds of yards away - even if no embers or anything else land on the house. It is really amazing the amount of heat released, and how quickly, in one of these fires.

thaumasiotes 5y ago

Policy in Yellowstone did change. I would have thought that policy everywhere else changed at the same time.