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

21–30 of 73 posts

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

#21

Post by deedubaya »

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)_/¯

When they say "let it burn" they don't mean wildly out of control like the Paradise fire. They're talking about letting it burn under optimal conditions, where crowing and running are less likely to happen, to consume fuel that could burn sub-optimal conditions where there is little chance of control.

Less fuel = less intense fire = more likely to control.

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

#23

Post by StephenConnell »

neolefty wrote: post #12
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.

It started with momentum in an area that had recently burned and moved very quickly because of extremely low humidity and high winds. I live near by and have ridden dirt bikes all over the area it started. It's very inexesable. They could not get to it when it was small and it took off.

Here is an amazing video that shows just how windy it was. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2208918639386879...

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

#24

Post by admax88q »

shower-curtain wrote: post #16
wyattpeak wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The burnt forest will regrow, absorbing that CO2 back out of the atmosphere.

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

#25

Post by Rodneyj »

shower-curtain wrote: post #13
werdnapk wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, let's blame everything on climate change.

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

#26

Post by zaroth »

How realistic is it for vastly improved monitoring and rapid response to be able to snuff out a major fire before it develops?

For example, what if you had the surveillance coverage to detect a fire before it covers, say, even 1 acre, and if you could respond with a tanker of Phos-Chek (or whatever) within some number of minutes?

Aside from actually achieving the detection ability for alerting on a new fire, and having the equipment and personale distributed and on-call for rapid response, I am guessing the biggest challenge is “false positives” in the sense that you detect a real fire which is relatively tiny, but have no way to determine if it has the potential to develop into a catastrophic fire. In the long tail of forest fires there are perhaps 100,000 detectable fires, so that’s a lot of response.

This goes against precisely the thesis of TFA and perhaps the counter-argument is that strictly controlling fires will just allow fuel to pile up to the point where it is no longer controllable — like a dam holding back the floodwaters until it is finally topped.

The biggest problem I have with the “let it burn” argument is just the macro level stats. We have about the same number of fires, burning about 10x the acreage as they did in the past. We are already letting these fires, intentionally or not, burn a lot more acreage and the number of fires is roughly constant.

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

#27

Post by Rodneyj »

fredley wrote: post #9
foxyv wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mostly making forests friendlier to humans. In their natural state the forests were perpetually burning and a lot of plants depended on those burns. But when you build million dollar houses in the middle of the pretty forest that likes to burn every 5 years...

The blame here seems to be squarely on the system that allows expensive houses to be built in places that naturally need to burn every now and again.

So you shouldn't be able to build a house in land you own if the government decides there may be a fire in the future?

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

#28

Post by moultano »

deedubaya wrote: post #22

Forest fires (used) to be a natural occurrence which was healthy for forests. 70 years of "put every fire out" has resulted in forests with excess fuel. That coupled with dry spells and warmer temps = a powder keg instead of natural burns.

The places these fires are burning have no natural sources to start fires. California never gets lightning except in the Sierra's.

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

#29

Post by StephenConnell »

ceejayoz wrote: post #15
shower-curtain wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not the parent, but what I've recently seen in Northern California is all underbrush and low branches gone. They were specifically prepping the area to manage fire. Quincy area.

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

#30

Post by SaintGhurka »

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)_/¯

I went through fire training for the CA Conservation Corps about 30 years ago and they brought up the let-it-burn theory in a class about forest management.

As support for the theory, they had a map showing recent wild land fire activity in California vs. Mexico. In CA the fires were growing larger over the decades while in Mexico they were not.

A quick search for updated data didn't yield anything for me. I would like to see if the comparison still holds up.

Post reply on HN