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

To Help Prevent the Next Big Wildfire, Let the Forest Burn

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 73 posts

Re: To Help Prevent the Next Big Wildfire, Let the Forest Burn

#11

Post by shower-curtain »

clarkevans wrote: post #6
shower-curtain wrote: post #2

Wouldn't it be better to practice proper forestry and harvest the timber, rather than let it burn and release hundreds of kilotons more CO2 and pollutants into the atmosphere?

Stephen Pyne, an environmental historian who studies fire, emphasized that logging would not keep wildfires at bay. “Logging takes the big trunks and leaves the small stuff because there’s no market for it,” he said. “Fire burns the little and leaves the big.”

Great quote, but that's just not true. I suggest you research modern logging practices.

Re: To Help Prevent the Next Big Wildfire, Let the Forest Burn

#12

Post by neolefty »

ahmedalsudani wrote: post #5

Does not seem like a valid argument at this point. The latest big wildfire in California (Paradise) included portions of the forest that had burned a few years prior and were mostly grassy at the time of the fire. I can't find the source I had heard, but it was one of the firefighters giving an interview and talking about forest management... Maybe I should have taken what he said with a hint of salt though ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Did the fire gain intensity where there was a recent burn, or just happen to include that area? I'd like to know where the fire gained momentum, what areas were critical to it being a disaster rather than a nuisance.

Re: To Help Prevent the Next Big Wildfire, Let the Forest Burn

#13

Post by shower-curtain »

werdnapk wrote: post #4
shower-curtain wrote: post #2

Wouldn't it be better to practice proper forestry and harvest the timber, rather than let it burn and release hundreds of kilotons more CO2 and pollutants into the atmosphere?

It's natural for forests to burn from time to time. Preventing such is actually much worse in the long run.

The current frequency of major fires due to climate change is not natural, and we have to compensate.

Re: To Help Prevent the Next Big Wildfire, Let the Forest Burn

#14

Post by neolefty »

shower-curtain wrote: post #2

Wouldn't it be better to practice proper forestry and harvest the timber, rather than let it burn and release hundreds of kilotons more CO2 and pollutants into the atmosphere?

Doing that is part of the problem, as pointed out in the article.

We harvest from those forests currently — the problem is we harvest the big healthy trees because their wood is the most desirable. They're also the most resistant to burning.

The smaller, shade-tolerant trees that we leave behind are both less commercially valuable and more vulnerable to fire.

Re: To Help Prevent the Next Big Wildfire, Let the Forest Burn

#15

Post by ceejayoz »

shower-curtain wrote: post #11
clarkevans wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stephen Pyne, an environmental historian who studies fire, emphasized that logging would not keep wildfires at bay. “Logging takes the big trunks and leaves the small stuff because there’s no market for it,” he said. “Fire burns the little and leaves the big.”

Great quote, but that's just not true. I suggest you research modern logging practices.

Since you're the expert (contesting the named expert cited in the article), why don't you point us in the right direction? Googling "modern logging practices" brings up Wikipedia, some industry websites, and a variety of random articles.

Re: To Help Prevent the Next Big Wildfire, Let the Forest Burn

#16

Post by shower-curtain »

wyattpeak wrote: post #8
shower-curtain wrote: post #2

Wouldn't it be better to practice proper forestry and harvest the timber, rather than let it burn and release hundreds of kilotons more CO2 and pollutants into the atmosphere?

One of the goals stated in the article of proper forest management is returning of nutrients from the burned trees to the ground. That wouldn't be accomplished by harvesting the timber. Besides which, sustainable fires (i.e. ones which don't, in the long run, substantially change forest coverage or makeup) are by definition carbon neutral.

>Besides which, sustainable fires (i.e. ones which don't, in the long run, substantially change forest coverage or makeup) are by definition carbon neutral.

Not when the rate of fires exceeds the rate of regrowth due to climate change.

Re: To Help Prevent the Next Big Wildfire, Let the Forest Burn

#17

Post by technotony »

ahmedalsudani wrote: post #5

Does not seem like a valid argument at this point. The latest big wildfire in California (Paradise) included portions of the forest that had burned a few years prior and were mostly grassy at the time of the fire. I can't find the source I had heard, but it was one of the firefighters giving an interview and talking about forest management... Maybe I should have taken what he said with a hint of salt though ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Presumably that could be caused by the intensity of the fire? I understand if you really do regularly burn the forests the fires become fast and light skipping the undergrowth rather than these intense conflagrations we see today?

Re: To Help Prevent the Next Big Wildfire, Let the Forest Burn

#18

Post by paganel »

ahmedalsudani wrote: post #5

Does not seem like a valid argument at this point. The latest big wildfire in California (Paradise) included portions of the forest that had burned a few years prior and were mostly grassy at the time of the fire. I can't find the source I had heard, but it was one of the firefighters giving an interview and talking about forest management... Maybe I should have taken what he said with a hint of salt though ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It would also help if the local authorities would not give people permits anymore to build houses close to forested areas. Instead more emphasis should be put on building taller houses/buildings which would accommodate more than one family.

Re: To Help Prevent the Next Big Wildfire, Let the Forest Burn

#20

Post by npongratz »

paganel wrote: post #18
ahmedalsudani wrote: post #5

Does not seem like a valid argument at this point. The latest big wildfire in California (Paradise) included portions of the forest that had burned a few years prior and were mostly grassy at the time of the fire. I can't find the source I had heard, but it was one of the firefighters giving an interview and talking about forest management... Maybe I should have taken what he said with a hint of salt though ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It would also help if the local authorities would not give people permits anymore to build houses close to forested areas. Instead more emphasis should be put on building taller houses/buildings which would accommodate more than one family.

If I own the forested land and I want to build there, I should be able to.

Or we should be honest about property ownership in the US: if I have to beg permission from someone calling themselves an "authority", I don't actually own it.

Post reply on HN