4 ms·

South Dakota ranks pretty low on the list of US states by forest cover %, but the Black Hills is still a pretty significantly forested area, and South Dakota is

South Dakota ranks pretty low on the list of US states by forest cover %, but the Black Hills is still a pretty significantly forested area, and South Dakota is a pretty large state—Montana is similar. I guess we're just lucky that our forests aren't burning, and it's just Canada that's having all the trouble.

nucleardog 3y ago
South Dakota is 77,000 square miles with about 3,000 square miles of forest. (~4% forested) British Columbia is 364,000 square miles. Bigger than France and Germany put together. It has around 235,000 square miles of forest. (~65% forested, 78x as much as SD... or approximately "one France of forest") Quebec is nearly 600,000 square miles with about 350,000 square miles of forest. (~60% forested, 117x as much as SD... or approximately "one Venezuela of forest") Not to leave all the other provinces that are on fire out… Overall, Canada has nearly 1,500,000 square miles of forest (500x as much as SD... or about "one half of an Australia of forest"). About 10% of all the world’s forest, and third most behind only Russia and Brazil. Given most places the majority of wildfires start by what is effectively random chance (I.e., lightning), you’re basically pondering “why does it seem like people in California and Florida win the lottery more than South Dakota?”. And that's without even getting in to how remote an inaccessible most of it is up here. Fires have a _much_ greater opportunity to start and grow before they're even detected, and even once they're detected it's not like you can just drive out there and put water on them... they might only be accessible by plane and hours away from the nearest airport. This is approximately where one of the major fires is right now: https://goo.gl/maps/Gmiqa8kKwUva14obA https://goo.gl/maps/Gmiqa8kKwUva14obA Definitely suggest zooming out and looking around. If you take a look at a fire map approximately _all_ of the NWT + Yukon are on fire. Combined they're about 2.5x the size of Texas with a population of around 80,000 people.

nucleardog 3y ago

South Dakota is 77,000 square miles with about 3,000 square miles of forest. (~4% forested) British Columbia is 364,000 square miles. Bigger than France and Germany put together. It has around 235,000 square miles of forest. (~65% forested, 78x as much as SD... or approximately "one France of forest") Quebec is nearly 600,000 square miles with about 350,000 square miles of forest. (~60% forested, 117x as much as SD... or approximately "one Venezuela of forest") Not to leave all the other provinces that are on fire out… Overall, Canada has nearly 1,500,000 square miles of forest (500x as much as SD... or about "one half of an Australia of forest"). About 10% of all the world’s forest, and third most behind only Russia and Brazil. Given most places the majority of wildfires start by what is effectively random chance (I.e., lightning), you’re basically pondering “why does it seem like people in California and Florida win the lottery more than South Dakota?”. And that's without even getting in to how remote an inaccessible most of it is up here. Fires have a _much_ greater opportunity to start and grow before they're even detected, and even once they're detected it's not like you can just drive out there and put water on them... they might only be accessible by plane and hours away from the nearest airport. This is approximately where one of the major fires is right now: https://goo.gl/maps/Gmiqa8kKwUva14obA https://goo.gl/maps/Gmiqa8kKwUva14obA Definitely suggest zooming out and looking around. If you take a look at a fire map approximately _all_ of the NWT + Yukon are on fire. Combined they're about 2.5x the size of Texas with a population of around 80,000 people.