3 ms·

Take a lesson from the American Rockies, where forests are being decimated by a similar beetle blight: issue prescribed fires, institute managed but aggressiv

Take a lesson from the American Rockies, where forests are being decimated by a similar beetle blight: issue prescribed fires, institute managed but aggressive proactive logging on public lands, institute maintenance of fire roads, and spring cleanup of deadfall... _now_. Unfortunately, 'environmentalists' thumbed their nose to a lot of these practices and the result was half of Rocky Mountain National Park burning down.

mistrial9 3y ago
tragic opportunism to throw partisanship in with the upset "do something now" is fine to say but the Devil is in the details, as they say. Actions have re-actions and ripple effects. Wise management is what got "us" here today ? humble yourself then work with all your might, seems appropriate now
- swarfield 3y ago
  Just because we messed it up in the past doesn't mean we didn't learn from it and can't adapt our strategies in the future as new data comes in. Changing nothing is the most harmful strategy right now.
swarfield 3y ago
This really pissed me off. Half of the trees in RMNP were/are dead standing since the Park Service had put out all natural fires for a century and did not allow logging of the dead wood. We hit the point where the fuel situation is so bad that fires are no longer controllable, and the fires burn so much hotter that it permanently scars the land by burning seeds that usually would make it through just fine.
- e4e5 3y ago
  Couldn't they remove some of the underbrush?
  - brazzy 3y ago
    I think you underestimate the scale of the problem by a few orders of magnitude. That park is over a thousand square kilometers, mountainous, and with very few roads.
  - exabrial 3y ago
    This comment got downvoted but I think it's an important question. Answer is: probably not, for the other reason stated. But it is sort of the wrong question too. Is underbrush removal the problem? Not really. There are a lot of things fire removes, besides underbrush, and restores to a natural state. What we need to wrap our heads around is _fire is natural_; it's been here eons before humans walked the earth, and the native trees and forest have long evolved to take advantage of it. The question we might ask instead is: why are so we so opposed to a natural process? Fire is definitely bad inside things like cities. However, a prescribed burn has enormous benefits that have been detailed in science literature ever since we noticed a decline in forests.
    - e4e5 3y ago
      Yeah I get that. But removing underbrush (ignoring the impossibility of the scale of it) would make controlled burns again possible. Currently there's so much that any controlled burn would get out of control and turn into a real one. At least that's how I understood it
zackmorris 3y ago
I just want to say that I live in the northwest and disagree with your analysis. The problem today is mis-blaming the wrong cause. This is like victim blaming. So the real culprit here is a century of forest mismanagement and clearcutting which led to massive fires. Combined with global warming (warm winters which don't kill beetles) and free trade which allows pests free passage everywhere. But you blame environmentalists. Because of that, your prescription for more logging and thinning will likely have the opposite effect of what's intended. You'll apply a tech and market solution to a problem of natural collapse and human culture. Which will have unintended consequences and cause a further domino effect of negative impacts to the natural world. Note that this is why we will likely not solve global warming through technology, nor any of the 100+ other catastrophes comprising this Anthropocene extinction. The real answer is along the lines of changing our culture so that logging is no longer required. We could grow hemp or any number of better natural fibers. We could stop interfering with the food chain, for example by not endlessly fighting the reintroduction of wolves. But these types of answers are a lot of work and take decades and don't appeal to ego. We have to ask ourselves: if we're serious about preventing the loss of our forests, are we willing to leave the trees where they fall for no financial gain? Are we willing to leave oil in the ground to prevent global warming? Will we aid countries being assaulted who have nothing to pay us with? Will we help children to eat whose parents are on drugs? And so on. Or will we rationalize and whatabout and fail to do what's right for people we disagree with, and do just exactly the wrong thing. Our failure to act outside of ego is what will ultimately destroy the planet. For what it's worth, I don't entirely disagree with you, as I was just on a trip to Yellowstone for the first time in 25 years after the fires tore through in the 90s. The new 6 inch diameter trees are beautiful but packed too closely together and will need to be thinned. It will be interesting to see how that plays out (nature vs nurture), and it could provide a sustainable model for other forests.
- exabrial 3y ago
  I would suggest following the science then, if you think interrupting evolutionary natural events, such as fires, is a "good thing". > We have to ask ourselves: if we're serious about preventing the loss of our forests, are we willing to leave the trees where they fall for no financial gain? You need to ask yourself: Are you willing to let the forest burn, so natural events can take place?

mistrial9 3y ago

tragic opportunism to throw partisanship in with the upset "do something now" is fine to say but the Devil is in the details, as they say. Actions have re-actions and ripple effects. Wise management is what got "us" here today ? humble yourself then work with all your might, seems appropriate now

swarfield 3y ago
Just because we messed it up in the past doesn't mean we didn't learn from it and can't adapt our strategies in the future as new data comes in. Changing nothing is the most harmful strategy right now.

swarfield 3y ago

This really pissed me off. Half of the trees in RMNP were/are dead standing since the Park Service had put out all natural fires for a century and did not allow logging of the dead wood. We hit the point where the fuel situation is so bad that fires are no longer controllable, and the fires burn so much hotter that it permanently scars the land by burning seeds that usually would make it through just fine.

e4e5 3y ago
Couldn't they remove some of the underbrush?
- brazzy 3y ago
  I think you underestimate the scale of the problem by a few orders of magnitude. That park is over a thousand square kilometers, mountainous, and with very few roads.
- exabrial 3y ago
  This comment got downvoted but I think it's an important question. Answer is: probably not, for the other reason stated. But it is sort of the wrong question too. Is underbrush removal the problem? Not really. There are a lot of things fire removes, besides underbrush, and restores to a natural state. What we need to wrap our heads around is _fire is natural_; it's been here eons before humans walked the earth, and the native trees and forest have long evolved to take advantage of it. The question we might ask instead is: why are so we so opposed to a natural process? Fire is definitely bad inside things like cities. However, a prescribed burn has enormous benefits that have been detailed in science literature ever since we noticed a decline in forests.
  - e4e5 3y ago
    Yeah I get that. But removing underbrush (ignoring the impossibility of the scale of it) would make controlled burns again possible. Currently there's so much that any controlled burn would get out of control and turn into a real one. At least that's how I understood it

zackmorris 3y ago

I just want to say that I live in the northwest and disagree with your analysis. The problem today is mis-blaming the wrong cause. This is like victim blaming. So the real culprit here is a century of forest mismanagement and clearcutting which led to massive fires. Combined with global warming (warm winters which don't kill beetles) and free trade which allows pests free passage everywhere. But you blame environmentalists. Because of that, your prescription for more logging and thinning will likely have the opposite effect of what's intended. You'll apply a tech and market solution to a problem of natural collapse and human culture. Which will have unintended consequences and cause a further domino effect of negative impacts to the natural world. Note that this is why we will likely not solve global warming through technology, nor any of the 100+ other catastrophes comprising this Anthropocene extinction. The real answer is along the lines of changing our culture so that logging is no longer required. We could grow hemp or any number of better natural fibers. We could stop interfering with the food chain, for example by not endlessly fighting the reintroduction of wolves. But these types of answers are a lot of work and take decades and don't appeal to ego. We have to ask ourselves: if we're serious about preventing the loss of our forests, are we willing to leave the trees where they fall for no financial gain? Are we willing to leave oil in the ground to prevent global warming? Will we aid countries being assaulted who have nothing to pay us with? Will we help children to eat whose parents are on drugs? And so on. Or will we rationalize and whatabout and fail to do what's right for people we disagree with, and do just exactly the wrong thing. Our failure to act outside of ego is what will ultimately destroy the planet. For what it's worth, I don't entirely disagree with you, as I was just on a trip to Yellowstone for the first time in 25 years after the fires tore through in the 90s. The new 6 inch diameter trees are beautiful but packed too closely together and will need to be thinned. It will be interesting to see how that plays out (nature vs nurture), and it could provide a sustainable model for other forests.

exabrial 3y ago
I would suggest following the science then, if you think interrupting evolutionary natural events, such as fires, is a "good thing". > We have to ask ourselves: if we're serious about preventing the loss of our forests, are we willing to leave the trees where they fall for no financial gain? You need to ask yourself: Are you willing to let the forest burn, so natural events can take place?