4 ms·

> 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 r

> 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 ago
Logging is only one tool in the big preventative wildfire kit, and is quite difficult if not impossible in many geographic areas.
- laurent92 5y ago
  And controlled burns, like the Aboriginals did in Australia until they were forbidden 10 years ago.
  - cf100clunk 5y ago
    Indigenous cultural burning is now gaining a resurgence in Australia and Canada. It is about time.
kaikai 5y ago
Logging 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 ago
  Could 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?
  - salt-thrower 5y ago
    You'd likely run into the same problem of politicians and local companies lobbying against such a rule, in the name of "don't hurt businesses" etc.
    - pacifist 5y ago
      This needs to change.
fiftyfifty 5y ago
Prescribed burns are probably a better tool: https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/prescribed-fire https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/prescribed-fire Doing prescribed burns outside of the normal fire season allows them to reduce the fuel load and restore more natural conditions without the risk of creating giant runaway fires.
- geekles 5y ago
  They should have been doing this, but California is currently mis-governed.
  - aplummer 5y ago
    Seriously, California does this https://ssl.arb.ca.gov/pfirs/cb3/cb3.php?id=16 https://ssl.arb.ca.gov/pfirs/cb3/cb3.php?id=16 In the middle of a drought it’s mostly too dangerous even in winter. To an extent it’s also a pollution issue.
  - amalcon 5y ago
    California is not the problem here. A policy of controlled burns is not tenable anywhere in the United States right now, because we've spent so long fighting wildfires in order to protect the logging industry. The problem is that we've had almost eighty years of Smokey Bear telling people that wildfires are always bad. It took the catastrophic Yellowstone fires of 1988 to even make the current Yellowstone policy possible. That policy is to allow a naturally caused fire to continue until it threatens humans or buildings, but to stamp out human caused fires with extreme prejudice. This obviously makes no sense -- the forest does not care a bit whether the fire was started by a lightning strike or by a campfire -- but it's the only thing that is politically tenable. Yellowstone is mostly in Wyoming. It's not a California problem; the problem is a national population that's been misled about what constitutes good forest management. We need controlled burns, building bans in large areas of forest, and judicious use of eminent domain to purchase properties in forest areas so that they can be permitted to burn.
  - jartelt 5y ago
    Much of the forest in CA is managed by the US Forest Service, so you can't blame CA officials for everything. Plus, you can only safely do controlled burns in certain weather windows (not super hot, rain likely coming, etc.). Given we are in the middle of a historic drought, the dry fuel levels are likely much too high to safely start controlled burns.
spfzero 5y ago
Logging takes the healthiest and largest trees. The ones most likely to survive a fire. While leaving behind all of the fuel. Doesn’t seem like it would help much.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  I feel like in a better world we could log the bad ones and make paper or something, but everyone knows the logging would be 100% regulatorily-captured and so no one wants to go this route. :/

cf100clunk 5y ago

Logging is only one tool in the big preventative wildfire kit, and is quite difficult if not impossible in many geographic areas.

laurent92 5y ago
And controlled burns, like the Aboriginals did in Australia until they were forbidden 10 years ago.
- cf100clunk 5y ago
  Indigenous cultural burning is now gaining a resurgence in Australia and Canada. It is about time.

kaikai 5y ago

Logging 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 ago
Could 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?
- salt-thrower 5y ago
  You'd likely run into the same problem of politicians and local companies lobbying against such a rule, in the name of "don't hurt businesses" etc.
  - pacifist 5y ago
    This needs to change.

fiftyfifty 5y ago

Prescribed burns are probably a better tool: https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/prescribed-fire https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/prescribed-fire Doing prescribed burns outside of the normal fire season allows them to reduce the fuel load and restore more natural conditions without the risk of creating giant runaway fires.

geekles 5y ago
They should have been doing this, but California is currently mis-governed.
- aplummer 5y ago
  Seriously, California does this https://ssl.arb.ca.gov/pfirs/cb3/cb3.php?id=16 https://ssl.arb.ca.gov/pfirs/cb3/cb3.php?id=16 In the middle of a drought it’s mostly too dangerous even in winter. To an extent it’s also a pollution issue.
- amalcon 5y ago
  California is not the problem here. A policy of controlled burns is not tenable anywhere in the United States right now, because we've spent so long fighting wildfires in order to protect the logging industry. The problem is that we've had almost eighty years of Smokey Bear telling people that wildfires are always bad. It took the catastrophic Yellowstone fires of 1988 to even make the current Yellowstone policy possible. That policy is to allow a naturally caused fire to continue until it threatens humans or buildings, but to stamp out human caused fires with extreme prejudice. This obviously makes no sense -- the forest does not care a bit whether the fire was started by a lightning strike or by a campfire -- but it's the only thing that is politically tenable. Yellowstone is mostly in Wyoming. It's not a California problem; the problem is a national population that's been misled about what constitutes good forest management. We need controlled burns, building bans in large areas of forest, and judicious use of eminent domain to purchase properties in forest areas so that they can be permitted to burn.
- jartelt 5y ago
  Much of the forest in CA is managed by the US Forest Service, so you can't blame CA officials for everything. Plus, you can only safely do controlled burns in certain weather windows (not super hot, rain likely coming, etc.). Given we are in the middle of a historic drought, the dry fuel levels are likely much too high to safely start controlled burns.

spfzero 5y ago

Logging takes the healthiest and largest trees. The ones most likely to survive a fire. While leaving behind all of the fuel. Doesn’t seem like it would help much.

Ericson2314 5y ago
I feel like in a better world we could log the bad ones and make paper or something, but everyone knows the logging would be 100% regulatorily-captured and so no one wants to go this route. :/