4 ms·

AFAIK, it's now long (40+ years) that (at least on the west coast) periodic small fires are not only beneficial, but necessary, and that the US policy of "stop

AFAIK, it's now long (40+ years) that (at least on the west coast) periodic small fires are not only beneficial, but necessary, and that the US policy of "stop ALL fires" has been long-term extremely problematic. Mostly the "knowing" of this was finally accepting that the ways of those who originally lived here (first nations / native americans) were, in fact, better, since such periodic burns were the practice of those people. AFAIK, the CA forest service have been trying to ramp up the number of small, controlled burns, but it's hard to not only get the funding to do it (in part because it's during the off-seasons) but because it's actually really hard to do because of the buildup up underbrush, which is the very problem the periodic burns address. It's like a tech debt situation. There's enough tech debt that it's making it harder to pay it down. I absolutely would not be surprised if forests on the east coast respond very differently to these kinds of burns.

lief79 5y ago
Depends on where. Much of the east coast is wet enough the fires aren't a regular occurrence, and the dead underbrush rots away. I recall one in SE Pennslyvania in the past 30 years. https://www.pottsmerc.com/2013/04/07/french-creek-state-park-forest-fire-was-longest-fire-fight-in-pa-history-2/ https://www.pottsmerc.com/2013/04/07/french-creek-state-park... Hmm, this makes me question my dismissal of the concerns, but still supports the idea that it's not a long term concern on the east coast.
labster 5y ago
This is only partially true, even in California. In Southern California, there is far less fuel than in prehistoric times, because there are more fires, and more high-severity fires from more ignition sources. In NorCal, the biggest blocker is often the local air quality district refusing permits for a controlled burn in the wildland, because it would cause unhealthful air. Which it would. So instead we wait for PG&E to accidentally a power line and make dangerous air quality. None of this invalidates your argument, but adds IC engines to the list of tech debt. Long unsolved policy problems are usually unsolved for a reason :frown:.

lief79 5y ago

Depends on where. Much of the east coast is wet enough the fires aren't a regular occurrence, and the dead underbrush rots away. I recall one in SE Pennslyvania in the past 30 years. https://www.pottsmerc.com/2013/04/07/french-creek-state-park-forest-fire-was-longest-fire-fight-in-pa-history-2/ https://www.pottsmerc.com/2013/04/07/french-creek-state-park... Hmm, this makes me question my dismissal of the concerns, but still supports the idea that it's not a long term concern on the east coast.

labster 5y ago

This is only partially true, even in California. In Southern California, there is far less fuel than in prehistoric times, because there are more fires, and more high-severity fires from more ignition sources. In NorCal, the biggest blocker is often the local air quality district refusing permits for a controlled burn in the wildland, because it would cause unhealthful air. Which it would. So instead we wait for PG&E to accidentally a power line and make dangerous air quality. None of this invalidates your argument, but adds IC engines to the list of tech debt. Long unsolved policy problems are usually unsolved for a reason :frown:.