16 ms·
Wildfire restored a Yosemite watershed
- 1-6 5y agoWildfires are a bit like crop rotation in nature. I think we're returning to the idea that wildfires aren't a bad thing when done in a safe manner. Visiting Lassen National Park, there was a big area where it was nothing but blackened trees but an interesting caveat was that a lot of smaller trees were present in that same area.
- mulmen 5y agoAre we? Since the 1990s as a school child I thought we already came around on this. But in recent years I am hearing that is not the case, or that we are only now coming around. Did we do a 360?
- texuf 5y agoThe way I’ve heard it described is that other priorities that are also important, like spare the air days or budget concerns, kinda edged out control burns in the recent past.
- mulmen 5y agoYeah I have heard the same. And it makes sense with communities burning. They will always be the hardest places to coordinate controlled burns because of the concentration of interests. It would be interesting to correlate forestry management practices and population density.
- 1-6 5y agoPerhaps we just need constant awareness. Smokey Bear's website also includes a small section regarding the Benefits of Fire: https://smokeybear.com/en/about-wildland-fire/benefits-of-fire https://smokeybear.com/en/about-wildland-fire/benefits-of-fi... The Longleaf Pine episode on Smarter Every Day was also educational: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJWG7raBlT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJWG7raBlT8
- SubiculumCode 5y agoYeah I learned about this forever ago, but as usual, its money that talks. People don't like their houses burned, and so fire suppression policy is dominant. Only now that we are having super-fires that people are opening up to it.
- cf100clunk 5y agoWildfire management organizations' budgets have been so skewed to remedial action from preventative that indigenous "Cultural Burners" in British Columbia have complained that when they've sought agreement to do controlled burns in spring and autumn they are met with plans for batteries of firefighting equipment on standby. It is a colossal mismatch of scale, since the Cultural burners tend to limit their focus on their own local, ancestral territories. Thankfully the B.C. authorities are now doing a rethink in favour of the Cultural burner concept.
- TheCondor 5y agoI think the national park service fully accepted the idea that we should let fires burn around the lsat great Yellowstone fire, maybe 1990ish. I don't know that they speak for the US Forest Service though. Between the different national level parks and forest services and then the state level ones, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are still a lot in the active suppression camp. Then there are municipalities where people can basically live in the WUI and the idea of preserving only structures is further complicated.
- almost_usual 5y agoIt’s less about the US Forest Service and more about local jurisdictions and smoke from prescribed burns being a ‘nuisance’. This talk is by someone who works for the US Forest Service. https://youtu.be/O6Vayv9FCLM https://youtu.be/O6Vayv9FCLM
- tclancy 5y agoI think it varies by region at this point. https://www.outsideonline.com/podcast/future-fire/ https://www.outsideonline.com/podcast/future-fire/
- maxerickson 5y agoTraditional nature conservation came around years ago and hasn't changed. Popular conservation, which tends towards absolute preservation, has not come around.
- evilduck 5y agoCommunities living next to or within forests also tend to prefer we put fires out.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- maxerickson 5y agoYou can do smaller controlled burns in those areas instead of letting the fuel pile up into an emergency.
- lazide 5y agoSounds like work, it’s no surprise it doesn’t happen. A lot of these areas struggle to rub two nickels together to get safe water.
- maxerickson 5y agoAn awful lot of encroachment into forests is from high end subdivisions that should not have been built. When the state allows construction and utility connections and so forth, it should also take up responsibility for fire management.
- walkedaway 5y ago"Only you can prevent forest fires" lays the wrong mindset that humans are the only causes of forest fires. I grew up with that mindset, took some education to realize that nature (lightning) creates fires as well, and that fires have occurred throughout history for the benefit of the ecosystem.
- mulmen 5y agoExactly. Said another way, since fire is inevitable the ecosystem adapted to it, and the species that survived are those that actually benefit from it.
- ummonk 5y agoShould also be noted that much of the California natural landscape evolved for several centuries (if not millennia) under the influence of human-initiated burns by the native tribes.
- notatoad 5y agoWe've known since the 60s that letting forests burn is healthier for forest ecosystems. But we've known about a lot of good environmental practices since the 60s and just ignored them. All it takes is one person building a cabin in the middle of a forest, and all of a sudden it's a fire that threatens property and can't be allowed to burn. We can let remote areas of the national parks burn, but it's going to take a lot of political and social change before it becomes acceptable to let people's vacation properties burn, Or to prevent development of large regions of forest so it can be allowed to burn.
- spfzero 5y agoThere are a lot of small private holdings within public lands. They should receive some property tax relief, in exchange for understanding that the forest around them is going to be managed naturally. That doesn’t mean that their property won’t be defended as much as possible, just that stopping the entire fire itself won’t be the goal.
- ip26 5y agoNot just about safety but also intensity. Super-hot fires sterilize the soil, and total-destruction fires destabilize hillsides & dramatically change microclimate (no shade -> hot & dry). Both can delay recolonization decades or centuries.
- mandelbrotwurst 5y agoWhat is recolonization in this context? Does it just mean growth of a new forest?
- throaway3141593 5y agoPerhaps a new forest, but plants in general (current conditions may favor grassland, or something else). It's "re" because there was an ecosystem there before, and now it's returning. Contrast with, say, a brand new island that is the result of volcanic action. Then it'd be just plain old colonization by way of wind-blown seeds, or seeds that survived a bird's digestive tract.
- masklinn 5y agoWell yes and no. If the soil's been sterilised the entire thing needs to be rebuilt from the grasses upwards, forests don't spring up out of nowhere they build up from precursors.
- mandelbrotwurst 5y agoThanks, I was imagining the smaller stuff as being part of the forest but I suppose maybe the plants that arise first don’t necessarily stick around for the entirety of the forest lifecycle?
- masklinn 5y agoExactly. I don’t remember the exact cycle but basically you first get grass type colonisers, then you might get shrubs, then possibly trees densifying to a forest. Even the tree presence would change as the forest builds up as some essences don’t like being crowded (so won’t replace themselves once the forest densifies) while others prefer shade (so won’t appear until there’s a canopy proper).
- newbamboo 5y agoI worry that we may committing a historical fallacy. Fires were good, back when the climate was very different. Can we extrapolate that forward given rapid changes in climate. Maybe there are other ways to accomplish similar effects. Logging gets a bad name, but maybe in today’s ecosystem and the ecosystem as it will be in future years leaving it up to fire to do naturally is longer optimal. We are no longer in the garden of eden. Some things do change.
- antisthenes 5y agoWell, our current choices may be between 2 fallacies. First one is the one you described, and the second one is that given the changes in climate that it's even possible to contain these wildfires using mechanical means, such as trenches and water drops. It may not be. The question then is which one is the lesser evil.
- maxerickson 5y agoLoggers make big waste piles and then burn them.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- almost_usual 5y agoThe fallacy is thinking humans can prevent fire in forests forever.
- bawolff 5y agoI don't see why climate change would affect the positive aspects of fire. Logging generally does not have the same effect (logging takes big trees and leave small stuff, fires leave big trees and kill small stuff. Also the heat from fire is important for the germination of some types of trees)
- chris_va 5y agoClimate change brings invasive species, so fire behavior can be very different (and regrowth post-fire can be very different).
- kzrdude 5y agoThe bigger wildfires are a sign of a changing equilibrium (for example hotter temperatures, no surprise).
- generalizations 5y agoOr forest mismanagement.
- truffdog 5y agoI was in a northern california campground a few years ago and was kind of blown away- great piles of dead trees and "no collecting firewood" signs.
- mfer 5y agoSmaller regular fires burn at lower temperatures and they clean up basic debris. If we fail to let the lower temp fires clean up debris the debris tends to grow. When there is more of that the fires burn at hotter temperatures and cause more damage. To avoid the hotter temperatures the debris needs regular cleaning. The natural method of that is fire. That's what numerous articles written on the topic from experts have said.
- phendrenad2 5y agoI'd love to see a future where we build houses with the expectation that wildfires will rage nearby. Put up some huge heat-resistant walls around civilization, let the fires burn next door. Wildfires feel like the last area where we feel entitled to destroy nature's evolved processes, just because humans want cheap land.
- Vax45 5y agoWe dabbled in heat-resistant walls with Asbestos and didn't turn out too well for our health.
- gordon_freeman 5y agoI remember one of the national parks I visited a while ago (I think it was Redwoods NPS in California but not sure) where the Ranger told me that one of the tough decisions sometimes they'd need to make when a wildfire is raging is to whether to put it out or just keep it spreading naturally to the benefit of health and biodiversity of the forest. In an extreme case, he mentioned that for a few occasions the Park Service even may need to ignite the wildfire and they have done it a few times before. This all was pretty surprising to me considering all these wildfires news I've been reading recently.
- Zenst 5y agoThere are plants (including tree's) that depend upon fire to propagate. Pyrophytic plants and some examples covered here: https://www.britannica.com/list/5-amazing-adaptations-of-pyrophytic-plants https://www.britannica.com/list/5-amazing-adaptations-of-pyr...
- pvaldes 5y agoAnd other plants that can't survive this conditions. If you want water you need to promote the second ones Why we should want water? because is a strong temperatures buffer, protecting people and providing a more stable local climate so we -should- aim to store as many water as possible in the forests. And because all our economy is centered in water supply. A few months without absolutely no water and our big cities would collapse and be quit in mass. And because putting the water in the ocean, and this is the main result of wildfires, will help to raise the sea level where the '90%' of the big cities are situated and would destroy zillions in people's property instead. We are risking more than a few forest cabins here. Some conifers need fire to multiply yes, but this technology is easy to provide so is not a big problem. And those conifers are also a symptom; they are survivors that live only where the other plants can't. If you have only a sea of pine trees it means that the soil is too poor or the climate is too cold or harsh for the other trees. To keep drying the area and destroying this soil is not always the better solution.
- agentultra 5y agoA now-rare ecosystem in Southern Ontario, Canada -- the oak savanna -- was the dominant ecosystem in the region until colonization started suppressing the cycle of wild-fires in the region. This enabled foreign invasive species to take hold and redefine the forest composition and character.
- hinkley 5y agoAlso can build up pathogens.
- aaaxyz 5y agoSouthern Ontario has forests?
- frosted-flakes 5y agoCertainly, but it's mostly farmland now.
- davidw 5y ago> For millennia, wildfires sparked by lightning, or lit by Native American tribes, regularly shaped the landscape of the western U.S. It'd be interesting to learn more about the differences between the two. There are places that don't get a lot of lightning and would probably not burn that regularly on their own. So in those places a truly 'natural' state would look different from a 'managed by native peoples' state.
- amacneil 5y agoYou might find this book interesting - Native American management of land via fire is a central theme: Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California's Natural Resources by M. Kat Anderson
- cf100clunk 5y agoThe topic of "cultural burning" is now being taken very seriously amongst non-indigenous wildfire response organizations worldwide: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28087406 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28087406 Smokey The Bear needs to be retired.
- tclancy 5y agoWell, I dunno about Smokey. Here's there to remind people drinking around a campfire to be careful about it. I can't imagine people sitting around a campfire drinking is a recipe for controlled, limited burns.
- cf100clunk 5y agoThis site offers a Global Lightning Map of events in progress: https://www.lightningmaps.org/?lang=en#m=oss;t=3;s=0;o=0;b=;ts=0;y=25.958;x=-11.2001;z=2;d=2;dl=2;dc=0; https://www.lightningmaps.org/?lang=en#m=oss;t=3;s=0;o=0;b=;... I don't know of a resource that overlays histories of such events with indigenous cultural burning activities, but maybe the data is out there somewhere.
- smallerfish 5y agoThe early european colonists & explorers reported vast pristine forests covering the land. There's some evidence to suggest that these were very recent second growth, the diseases from the europeans having wiped out 50-90% of the native american population, and having spread much faster through the continent than the europeans did. Without the native americans maintaining the land with controlled burns and rotations, forests quickly regrew over their pastures and plains. Of course, by the late 1700s, colonists were themselves clearing forests and converting them to farmland.
- HenryKissinger 5y agoI've always found that the concept of natural parks was turned on its head. We basically allow human economic activities everywhere it's physical possible, except in natural parks. It should be the opposite. All of the world's landmasses should be designated as natural parks, except for specially designated "human development areas". Let's stop trying to preserve patches of the natural world. Let's start constraining human development in space.
- iamstupidsimple 5y agoYour last point confuses me. The Earth is finite, and space is so big we don't even know if it is finite.
- HenryKissinger 5y agoBy space I mean terrestrial space, not outer space.
- ryanmcbride 5y agoIs that you Char Aznable?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ajmurmann 5y agoI wish some of the people who down vote this could explain more why. Is it just that they don't like the idea of valuing other life on this planet that highly or that it's not politically feasible because humans are so human-focused?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoWell, it's a nice vision. But we have 7 billion people now. How many of them fit into that vision? Sure, I know, we could fit them all in Texas, but could we also feed them? Provide them with computers? And everything else? So I think it's being downvoted because it would be anti-human in some concrete ways. I like nature, but how many people are we willing to let starve to preserve nature? How many are we willing to condemn to a life of no economic opportunity? The proposal sounds good, but the actual practicalities of it are going to cause a lot of human misery, and even death. Fine-sounding "let's do this" proposals that have high human costs tend to get downvotes, since the voters are humans.
- fsckboy 5y agoI wish the article was desensationalized a bit, but from what's written it's a pretty encouraging experiment. I think the most important part is the virutuous combination that comes from allowing regular small fires to burn to help remove the conditions and prevent the catastrophes of the huge fires we've seen that come about because of the buildup of fuel debris, while at the same time providing the different ecological niches to reoccur side-by-side, the grasslands, meadows, shrubs, etc. instead of just a forest canopy.
- frozenlettuce 5y agoI love the effort on spinning "wildfires" as a good thing - even calling them "wildfires" hides the human factor behind them. If a fire happens on North America on Europe, it's a "wildfire", if it happens on a developing country in the southern hemisphere, it's a reason for international intervention. (I'm not claming that the former form of fire is good, but the hipocrisy on this is huge)
- space_fountain 5y agoDifferent places have different expected rates of fire. Some fire is natural and expected in many ecosystems. This article is basically arguing that the ecosystems in the west would be healthier with more frequent smaller fires, that is dramatically different than the intentional burning to clear agricultural land that's happening in south america. No one's saying the massive hot fires happening in CA now are healthy and good
- mastax 5y agoAdditionally, there's a difference between a burned area being allowed to regrow, and a burned area being plowed and replaced with soybeans.
- eidyeydedieyude 5y agoThe vegetation native to the western portion of the north american continent is adapted to fire. It's a necessary part of the natural life-cycle of many plants. https://www.coastal.ca.gov/fire/ucsbfire.html https://www.coastal.ca.gov/fire/ucsbfire.html https://www.nps.gov/articles/wildland-fire-lodgepole-pine.htm https://www.nps.gov/articles/wildland-fire-lodgepole-pine.ht...
- lazyasciiart 5y agoThere is international intervention in wildfires in North America and Europe every year. You don't hear about it because it's boring that rich countries work together.
- systemvoltage 5y ago> “I think climate change is no more than 20 to 25% responsible for our current fire problems in the state, and most of it is due to the way our forests are,” Stephens said. Directly in contrast with Gavin Newsom vs. Trump argument last year. I’m not aligned with Trump at all, but I have qualms about how we as liberals are easily strapped down by the media. Trump said “Mostly due to forest mismanagement” while Newsom said “With all due respect, Climate Change is the fundamental reason for forest fires”. I clearly remember how the entire media pounced on Trump. Not good. We ought to isolate character from facts. If you challenged Newsom in any way last year, you would have been labeled a right-wing Trumper instantly.
- ceejayoz 5y agoIt gets a little more nuanced than that; if you want to blame forest management, you have to tackle the fact that the majority of California's forest is Federally owned. Quibbling over the degree of culpability and denying the existence of climate change entirely - remember, in that exchange, Trump said he thought it'd be getting cooler soon - are not the same, either.
- systemvoltage 5y agoI didn’t see this kind nuanced discussion last year - which is my point. Trump has said some of the most egregious things about climate change. I just see those orthogonal to this particular incident. I don’t think Trump was blaming California for it, he was blaming forest mismanagement whether federal or state. Anyhow, I’ve become extremely suspicious of any traditional media or social media driven story these days - the more people are aboard, the less I am inclined to believe because the machinery for argument no longer exists. Media has a conflict of interest with engagement metrics. Allow space for counter arguments and discussion.
- jeffbee 5y agoOh right, Trump was in no way trying to lay blame off on California. “Maybe we’re just going to have to make them pay for it because they don’t listen to us,” he added. "I’ve been telling them this now for three years, but they don’t want to listen,” Trump said on Thursday.
- almost_usual 5y agoRelevant talk by US Forest Service Researcher Paul Hessburg. https://youtu.be/O6Vayv9FCLM https://youtu.be/O6Vayv9FCLM https://www.fs.fed.us/research/people/profile.php?alias=phessburg https://www.fs.fed.us/research/people/profile.php?alias=phes...
- 50 5y agoOnly life is renewable, technology cannot and will not save us.
- jefftechentin 5y ago> the current fuel density in much of the Sierra, mixed with the hotter, drier conditions already triggered by climate change, has made managing wildfire even riskier than it was when forest managers started allowing fires to burn in Yosemite in 1972. So if fire fighters and politicians do not want to start a burn policy now that there is so much fuel, why not log an area for a while then start burning? Is there something I am missing about the nature of the problem?
- cf100clunk 5y agoLogging is only one tool in the big preventative wildfire kit, and is quite difficult if not impossible in many geographic areas.
- laurent92 5y agoAnd controlled burns, like the Aboriginals did in Australia until they were forbidden 10 years ago.
- cf100clunk 5y agoIndigenous cultural burning is now gaining a resurgence in Australia and Canada. It is about time.
- kaikai 5y agoLogging increases fire risk in the short term, because it leaves behind a lot of slash fuels and stimulated brushy undergrowth. It is not analogous to a burn.
- mwint 5y agoCould we place some requirements on the logging companies to leave the ground in a certain state? Or would hauling off the undesirable material make logging unprofitable?
- 5y ago
- peanut_worm 5y agoHere in Florida, prescribed burns are a common sight at the larger state parks. The burns are required to keep longleaf pine trees alive which support a lot of species of animals. Red-cockaded Woodpeckers in particular are very picky and prefer to live in these trees. The burns kill all the competing vegetation and burns up some of the fuel in the area to prevent larger fires.
- olivermarks 5y agoAcademic environmentalists have a lot to answer for imo 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...
- curuinor 5y agothe academic environmentalists have been advocating for the controlled burns for half a century now - the folks you wanna be pissed off at are the homeowners
- olivermarks 5y agoNot what I've experienced at all, in fact quite the opposite.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- 01100011 5y ago> "I think climate change is no more than 20 to 25% responsible for our current fire problems in the state, and most of it is due to the way our forests are,” It's refreshing to hear that. Human driven climate change is real and I'm not denying it, but we have to understand CA's climate for what it is. CA plants are uniquely adapted to fire and they serve as a testament to the history of fires in CA. Las Pilitas Nursery, which specializes in CA natives, has a nice writeup here: https://www.laspilitas.com/advanced/advecology.htm https://www.laspilitas.com/advanced/advecology.htm I find it especially interesting how the droughts typically preceding a fire suppress herbivore levels so that post-fire seedlings are protected from predators. It's really amazing how our ecosystem has adapted to the challenges of our historical climate.
- CountDrewku 5y agoYep here in CO when I go hiking there are layers and layers of downed trees waiting to be lit up like a tinderbox. It WILL start on fire, this isn't going to be stopped. The trees aren't piling up from climate change, it's from years of stopping fires. Unfortunately, now there's going to be a massive fire at some point instead of small recurring fires like there should be.
- frankydp 5y agoJust a heads up you are double double shadow banned, even though the troll was the one in violation. Only down points count for you now. Keep up the fight. No sarcasm.
- sorethescore 5y ago20-25% is an awful lot of influence though. 6 of the last 7 largest fires in recorded California history have been in the last 2 years. That wouldn't be the case if fires were 20-25% smaller and less frequent.
- nutellatoast 5y agoThe policy of aggressive suppression and few prescribed burns started around a century ago in CA, allowing fuel to build up and fires to become that much less controllable. Addressed in more detail here: https://www.propublica.org/article/they-know-how-to-prevent-megafires-why-wont-anybody-listen https://www.propublica.org/article/they-know-how-to-prevent-...
- mbgerring 5y agoM. Kat Anderson's Tending The Wild details how the Yosemite indians warned Congress more than a century ago that it was a mistake to suppress fires in the national park and allow brush to build up on the forest floor. I can't find the exact passage, but the entire book is worth reading. https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520280434/tending-the-wild https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520280434/tending-the-wild
- DoreenMichele 5y agoFire is part of the natural world. Trying to eradicate all forest fires tends to harm ecosystems. Some trees can't reproduce without fires opening their pine cones. I'm really happy to see this research. I am aware that climate change is real, but "the news" tends to focus on bad things. It was predicted that the Kuwait oil well fires would burn for years and be a global environmental catastrophe. When crack teams converged on the area from around the world and put them out in just six months, we did not party in the streets over having averted a global catastrophe. That's part for the course. We routinely wring our hand about how bad we expect it to be, then take it for granted when emergency response exceeds our expectations and move on to whining about the next gloom and doom scenario. I'm fully well aware that the next gloom and doom scenario is likely all too real and not neurotic overactive imagination at work. But it just sucks the oxygen out of the conversation when people act like it's crazy talk if you aren't part of the "We're all gonna die!!" environmental belief cult. Me thinking there is still hope, we can still find solutions, we aren't all doomed is not evidence of insanity, stupidity, cluelessness or denial. I'm an environmental studies major. My father fought in WWII. The entire world was doomed then too and survived. I know we need to somehow get people to take things seriously and actually take action. I just don't think emphasizing how utterly doomed we are is the way to do that. For lots of people, that will make them go "Why bother? We're doomed anyway. Me being all self sacrificing won't fix it. I might as well enjoy myself a little before we all die and this world turns into a smoking husk."
- xpe 5y agoI agree with the spirit of large chunks of this comment. > ... Me being all self sacrificing won't fix it. I might as well enjoy myself a little before we all die and this world turns into a smoking husk." We won't get far enough with individuals making, for example, 1% changes in their consumption patterns. Rather than asking individuals "to do more", a better way forward is to emphasize systemic changes in policy. Policy includes a range of options: investment, taxation, and regulations. To quote a line from one of my favorite Despair posters: "None of us is as dumb as all of us." I mention this because, left to our own devices, each individual (more or less) tends to spend most of their attention, time, motivation, and money to address their most immediate needs. Our systems are quite efficient at converting these needs into resource-extracting economies, without paying attention to externalities (i.e. downstream costs that an extractor doesn't face). Long story short, it turns out a tribal species evolved to deal with scarcity isn't inherently driven to act in ways to ensure our long-term survival. That's a bug. Together, we have done an amazingly efficient job at throwing our planet off balance. This is why we need collective action. If the word 'collective' makes you uncomfortable, feel free to substitute in 'organized', 'coordinated', 'intelligent', or 'wise'. Whatever word you pick, we need the political will (or, in the case of some countries, the autocratic will) to drive changes to our systems.
- leafmeal 5y agoI watched a well-made documentary recently that talks about fire management and controlled burns in California. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in forest ecology, fire, etc. https://www.amazon.com/Not-If-But-When-Solutions/dp/B08FFDGJ1Y https://www.amazon.com/Not-If-But-When-Solutions/dp/B08FFDGJ...
- France_is_bacon 5y agoEveryone is noting that fire is good for California forests. Which is correct. Some trees actually depend on it, and seeds in the ground will wait for a fire before sprouting - I don't know, a temperature change makes it happen, not sure. But, what is happening is that there is SO much extra wood and flamable materials because of suppression, that it is actually TOO hot and the seeds get burned to ashes.
- allstunned 5y agoI don't think it is unreasonable for the state government to double the forest management/firefighting budget annually until this is fixed.
- WhompingWindows 5y agoAnd if it doesn't get fixed by sheer manpower? Within 10 years, you've 1024X'd the budget.