3 ms·

I have a stupid question about seasonal wildfires. I was under the impression that a lot of wildfires occurred because too much brush had built up and natural b

I have a stupid question about seasonal wildfires. I was under the impression that a lot of wildfires occurred because too much brush had built up and natural burns had been foolishly prevented by firefighters. However in the past 10 years, it seems that there are many, yearly, huge wildfires in the same areas. Why doesn't the brush get burned down? ie, why is there not a Canadian wildfire every 5-10 years? Why yearly? Is it different locations? Does dry bush just accumulate that quickly? I'm aware that global warming is a factor, but if there's less to burn I'd think that warmer temperatures eventually hit a wall.

rjrjrjrj 3mo ago
What do you mean by same area? Canada has millions of sq km of forest. Lytton is 700km west of Jasper, which is 2000km west of Thunder Bay.
pvaldes 3mo ago
> I was under the impression that a lot of wildfires occurred because too much brush had built up 1) People promoting the cattle invading natural areas as a solution, often omit that this means the slow death of the forest. When the cattle is allowed to enter in a forest, from this point on, no tree sapling will survive. The ecological regeneration is permanently damaged and the forest recedes and turns into an open area with a few isolated trees. With the climate change accelerating, and each new tree counting, this is bad news for us. 2) They also ignore that wild herbivores and insects also eat (a lot of) dry plants. Biologists have discovered than, under some circumstances, the role of ants in that sense can be more relevant than the role of deer. 3) They forget also that brush is removed by fungus all the time, turning woody stuff into a spongy matter that accumulates water. A healthy forest can sustain more Kg of soil roundworms than Kg of deer. Most people ignore this and follow only the loudest voices TV programs invariably, each single time, will show somebody bitterly claiming that "the evil ecologists don't allow locals to remove dead wood". This programs are basically justifying the arsonists. They feed on drama, and never, ever, no way, will interview anybody calmly explaining that there is a good reason for that: After a while, dead wood means fertile soil (= CO2 storage) and water storage. This protects us from both wildfires and climate change. Both problems should have priority over the desire of farmers to increase its patrimony in 50 sheep plus, by invading natural areas and stealing its plants. About the fires starting to burn yearly, take in mind that the use of the soil has changed. This is not a forest anymore. Farmers are known to use fire routinely to "regenerate" pastures. When they earn rights to manage new place as they please, the frequency of wildfires will typically increase, even if they are less serious. Is a vicious circle.

rjrjrjrj 3mo ago

What do you mean by same area? Canada has millions of sq km of forest. Lytton is 700km west of Jasper, which is 2000km west of Thunder Bay.

pvaldes 3mo ago

> I was under the impression that a lot of wildfires occurred because too much brush had built up 1) People promoting the cattle invading natural areas as a solution, often omit that this means the slow death of the forest. When the cattle is allowed to enter in a forest, from this point on, no tree sapling will survive. The ecological regeneration is permanently damaged and the forest recedes and turns into an open area with a few isolated trees. With the climate change accelerating, and each new tree counting, this is bad news for us. 2) They also ignore that wild herbivores and insects also eat (a lot of) dry plants. Biologists have discovered than, under some circumstances, the role of ants in that sense can be more relevant than the role of deer. 3) They forget also that brush is removed by fungus all the time, turning woody stuff into a spongy matter that accumulates water. A healthy forest can sustain more Kg of soil roundworms than Kg of deer. Most people ignore this and follow only the loudest voices TV programs invariably, each single time, will show somebody bitterly claiming that "the evil ecologists don't allow locals to remove dead wood". This programs are basically justifying the arsonists. They feed on drama, and never, ever, no way, will interview anybody calmly explaining that there is a good reason for that: After a while, dead wood means fertile soil (= CO2 storage) and water storage. This protects us from both wildfires and climate change. Both problems should have priority over the desire of farmers to increase its patrimony in 50 sheep plus, by invading natural areas and stealing its plants. About the fires starting to burn yearly, take in mind that the use of the soil has changed. This is not a forest anymore. Farmers are known to use fire routinely to "regenerate" pastures. When they earn rights to manage new place as they please, the frequency of wildfires will typically increase, even if they are less serious. Is a vicious circle.