Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Let Forest Fires Burn

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 112 posts

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#81

Post by Gustomaximus »

warrenm wrote: post #2

There are trees that cannot reproduce unless their seed pods are baked open Animals coming back to scorched areas carry all kinds of seeds with them that love the mineral- and carbon-rich environment Some deer can grow beautiful atypical racks only when feeding in areas ravaged by fire And burning-out old growth and underbrush allows whole new generations of forest to start because their impediments to growth are gon…

There is middle ground here when you control combustible material around property and let the larger parts of the bush/forest do their thing in a fire.

Here is an example of this ongoing process/advise in Australia: https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/fire-information/hazard-reduction...

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#82

Post by xl »

nthcolumn wrote: post #61
falcolas wrote: post #21

Speaking as a Montanan here. The policy of "let some fires burn" has been in practice for a few decades now in our corner of the woods. Ever since the Yellowstone fire in the 80's, we've focused our efforts on containment instead of extinguishment (i.e. make a best effort to keep it away from human settlements); letting land lost to the fires just burn out naturally while stopping them from claiming too much land. Sh…

A huge problem in Australia as you probably know where we do get quite a few bush-fires is down to the huge build up in combustible materials. This'd be a fairly modern problem in that the indigenous peoples used to do a lot of the house-keeping by actually setting controlled fires and managing the bush in a sustainable way for themselves. Would that also have been the case for your own indigenous population? It's so…

I'very always wondered how you tease that apart from the native people simply not having the ability to combat naturally caused wildfires. When we suppress them, we employ a ton of technology (from chainsaws to C130s full of red dust) that weren't available back then.

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#83

Post by angerbot »

xl wrote: post #82
nthcolumn wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A huge problem in Australia as you probably know where we do get quite a few bush-fires is down to the huge build up in combustible materials. This'd be a fairly modern problem in that the indigenous peoples used to do a lot of the house-keeping by actually setting controlled fires and managing the bush in a sustainable way for themselves. Would that also have been the case for your own indigenous population? It's so…

I'very always wondered how you tease that apart from the native people simply not having the ability to combat naturally caused wildfires. When we suppress them, we employ a ton of technology (from chainsaws to C130s full of red dust) that weren't available back then.

First Nations in Western Canada would deliberately set fire to areas. There is a very old tradition of having "fire keepers" who were responsible for burning areas and ensuring that it was done safely. Traditional wisdom was that every part of the forest should be burned at least every hundred years. Here's[0] an interesting article from the CBC on the topic.

[0]: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/fire-fighting...

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#84

Post by cakedoggie »

davidbanham wrote: post #23

In Australia we do a lot of controlled burning through the winter. They're called "hazard reduction burns" and are carefully planned operations involving lots of firefighters and appliances. The aim is to burn the leaf litter and other fuels, but not let the fire get hot enough to kill established trees. You start to see signs of regrowth very quickly. HRs are usually done in the late winter. By mid spring the landsc…

Still, there are a far too many houses allowed to be built in fire zones.

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#86

Post by cakedoggie »

Gustomaximus wrote: post #78
cakedoggie wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rich, poor, farmers, ranchers, middle class; all kinds have property in forests. And none of them should.

Why? Have you spent time living outside a city?

Yes, but so? We shouldn't just be indiscriminately building anywhere we want, and risking lives.

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#87

Post by motowilliams »

falcolas wrote: post #21

Speaking as a Montanan here. The policy of "let some fires burn" has been in practice for a few decades now in our corner of the woods. Ever since the Yellowstone fire in the 80's, we've focused our efforts on containment instead of extinguishment (i.e. make a best effort to keep it away from human settlements); letting land lost to the fires just burn out naturally while stopping them from claiming too much land. Sh…

Another Montanan here as well.

As the Lolo Peak Fire burns 6 miles from my house it is frustrating to me that the DNRC's hands are tied by regulation that prevents them thinning and keep our forests healthy. It is both a revenue stream for our school system and an important role in keeping the woods healthy. Unfortunately both wildlife and habitat conservation has some aspects that are counter-intuitive to most folks when they ask why taking an animal or taking a tree actually helps in the long run. This isn't meant to be a pro/anti regulation stance but a call for balance.

There is also the most important factor in fighting these fires and currently that number is 2, as in we've lost 2 firefighters during this season's wild fires.

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#89

Post by zamalek »

I very much agree with this theory. The problem is that fire does not respect the anthropocene. We have changed the wilderness in nontrivial ways (e.g. forestry). Fuel is far more abundant and dense.

Every species (including plants) on the planet evolved to deal with a certain amount of fire - including the appropriate degree of propagation. We've unavoidably upset that balance and so a radically different solution is required. Although I don't know what that solution is, it looks nothing like what we are doing today.

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#90

Post by discodave »

wahern wrote: post #59
elihu wrote: post #14

I asked a firefighter what she thought about controlled burns awhile back. She said that one of the advantages of controlled burns is that you can set them when conditions are favorable so that they won't get out of control and burn areas they didn't want to burn just then. So, the "just let it burn" strategy when fires start might lead to a lot more property damage than a strategy of proactive burning. Also, from a…

So, the "just let it burn" strategy when fires start might lead to a lot more property damage than a strategy of proactive burning. The U.S. is _huge_. There's too much land to do controlled burning. And an intentionally set fire is morally perilous, so there are strong incentives to avoid burning except where it's easy and obvious; that is, _away_ from housing or in only very small patches to create fire breaks. Als…

The US is only 25% bigger than Australia and has more than 10x the population.... soo the argument that the US is too big doesn't really hold much water.

* 3.797 to 2.97 square miles

* 323 / 24 million

Post reply on HN