4 ms·

Actively managed forests sound good, but be rational. Are you willing to risk several hundred years of the region's health on the government doing something rig

by trhr 4y ago

Actively managed forests sound good, but be rational. Are you willing to risk several hundred years of the region's health on the government doing something right? We know that natural fire works. It ain't pretty, and it can be dangerous, but at least it's more likely to resolve the problem than "40 years of failed management" is to not turn into another "40 years of failed management."

hcurtiss 4y ago
I live near the towns of Detroit and Gates in Oregon, both burned to the ground in the 2020 labor day fires. Many people died. Hundreds of homes destroyed. I think it's worth trying better management.
teslabox 4y ago
Natural fire is incompatible with houses built with sticks. Either you figure out how to build fireproof houses, or you manage the forests in the Wildland-urban interface [0]. [0] https://www.usfa.fema.gov/wui/ https://www.usfa.fema.gov/wui/ > Actively managed forests sound good, but be rational. It can work. The U.S. Forest Service does a pretty good job of managing the forests around my part of Northern Arizona. 20 years ago a fire got out of control and we lost a few homes, but they've been diligently mowing the underbrush ever since. ~5 years ago a fire started. I went to their briefing. They were honest: "this is a worst-case-scenario location for a fire", because it was burning in an area that hadn't been burned or treated in 40+ years. They contract for companies with brush mowers to shred the underbrush, and keep track of when each section of the forest gets mowed. No fires this summer, on account of a crazy amount of rain. It'll be 10 years before this summer's growth dies out and becomes a fire hazard.
- trhr 4y ago
  I just don't trust the assumption that the world's leading forestry science experts and a perfectly run government could manage a forest. There are unknown unknowns. It's an ecosystem that's way more complicated than we realized 40 years ago, so thinking "yeah we just do these 5 things and problem solved" is hubris that could end up be called mismanagement in 40 years, because it created an even bigger problem when we failed to consider an unknown. If people need to evacuate the area for a few decades, so be it. It sucks, but not as badly as another 100 years of dealing with problems.

by trhr 4y ago

hcurtiss 4y ago

I live near the towns of Detroit and Gates in Oregon, both burned to the ground in the 2020 labor day fires. Many people died. Hundreds of homes destroyed. I think it's worth trying better management.

teslabox 4y ago

Natural fire is incompatible with houses built with sticks. Either you figure out how to build fireproof houses, or you manage the forests in the Wildland-urban interface [0]. [0] https://www.usfa.fema.gov/wui/ https://www.usfa.fema.gov/wui/ > Actively managed forests sound good, but be rational. It can work. The U.S. Forest Service does a pretty good job of managing the forests around my part of Northern Arizona. 20 years ago a fire got out of control and we lost a few homes, but they've been diligently mowing the underbrush ever since. ~5 years ago a fire started. I went to their briefing. They were honest: "this is a worst-case-scenario location for a fire", because it was burning in an area that hadn't been burned or treated in 40+ years. They contract for companies with brush mowers to shred the underbrush, and keep track of when each section of the forest gets mowed. No fires this summer, on account of a crazy amount of rain. It'll be 10 years before this summer's growth dies out and becomes a fire hazard.

trhr 4y ago
I just don't trust the assumption that the world's leading forestry science experts and a perfectly run government could manage a forest. There are unknown unknowns. It's an ecosystem that's way more complicated than we realized 40 years ago, so thinking "yeah we just do these 5 things and problem solved" is hubris that could end up be called mismanagement in 40 years, because it created an even bigger problem when we failed to consider an unknown. If people need to evacuate the area for a few decades, so be it. It sucks, but not as badly as another 100 years of dealing with problems.