Live data from Hacker News

Controlled burns can prevent wildfires; regulations make them nearly impossible

boulderbeat.news

211–220 of 241 posts

Re: Controlled burns can prevent wildfires; regulations make them nearly impossible

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is that fires were suppressed for nearly 200 years and now turn into raging infernos. Fires were suppressed first for economic reasons, and then later for misguided Environmental reasons Forest fires of a historically typical magnitude would pose much less Danger to communities adjacent to wildlands. This is further complicated by the fact that any of these…

It depends how you want to put. Fire suppression is indeed the fundamental cause and the shape of development is the barrier to fixing it.

I don't think I agree that the distribution of development poses a significant challenge.

If that were the case, you would see at least some controlled Burns in undeveloped areas, but that is not the case. You might see more logging or a small low risk Burns near inhabitated areas.

The fact that we still see essentially no control burns is strong evidence that the barrier is Still what it has been for the last 100 years. Bad government policy informed by Environmental emotion instead of environmental science.

At the end of the day, the rationale is stupid but simple. People don't like the Aesthetics of a burn Forest for the smell of smoke in the air. Actual risk to life and property from controlled Burns can be effectively minimized. In some areas of the state they never existed in the first place and still don't exist

The solution isn't rocket science. You just start with small safe Burns adjacent to communities. Nobody wants to look at a burn scar for several years, so instead they roll the dice on their Community burning down

Re: Controlled burns can prevent wildfires; regulations make them nearly impossible

#212
post #202

The fundamental problem that controlled burns face today is that there has been a huge and irresponsible increase in development on "Urban-wildland border". Here in the California Sierras, you have a uniform peppering of (often luxury) houses outside of the various small urban areas. Those forests naturally burn on a regular basis but with this situation, any controlled burn is going to threaten some number of houses…

I just want to chime in not to disagree with anything you’re saying (for the record I think your post is thoughtful. I don’t know enough about the nuances to agree or disagree) and it isn’t even directed at you but to all of us and our discussion styles. I really hope that the collective We shift to saying something like “ One of the many complications…” rather than “The problem” or “The biggest problem”. When it com…

To your point, I wish there were diagrams "we'd" all use to illustrate any issue with complicated interwoven relationships that put the complexity into at least some degree of comparability. Ideally you'd be able to see how some relative amount of funding needs to support some physical effort required and in the context of some degree of regulatory scope.

A simple example is the two-factor, two-axis diminishing returns line graph. As cost goes up, returns decrease and we can point to a spot and discuss it.

I wish I could give you a good intuitive example of a far more complex (more factors), but if this were easy we'd all be doing it and we'd all be seeing such diagrams more frequently. So in the absence of simple and nuanced illustrations, we have lists and we necessarily fall back on language and our own biases like we do here. (Just humans being human, no judgement.)

One possibility I can imagine is a table with solutions on one axis and influencing dimensions on another. e.g., One axis is tech, funding, regulatory, etc. and the other is proposed solutions. In the table, the cross referenced cell might contain a number showing how much of some environmental dimension is needed for a given solution.

This example is crude at best because clearly we can debate what the cross-reference values assigned are, and whether or not they're correct, and even whether or not a dimension should be broken down further, but this technique's shortcomings are a compromise–the price paid for attempting to communicate the holistic understanding of an issue. One hopes that price is worth paying for greater appreciation of the issue's systemic complexities, and enabling others to see and evaluate factors they might not otherwise consider.

Re: Controlled burns can prevent wildfires; regulations make them nearly impossible

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly enough, a large water event before doesn't mean a mild fire season. In more northern areas, a lot of snow and water means a lot of grass, and that grass will dry out by August. It's not kindling, but it's the paper.

Just this week, there was a post here about an invasive plant in the Sonoma desert that has taken off this season because of the extra rain, and this is one of their concerns outside of it being invasive. It's just going to be fuel for any fires that might start.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35955089 for those who want to read it or the discussion.

Re: Controlled burns can prevent wildfires; regulations make them nearly impossible

#214

The only federal regulation I saw referenced in the article were clean air regulations. Otherwise, it appears states and their residents are imposing additional barriers. And public opinion is a local issue of course as well. I don't know if it's really possible to change public ignorance, particularly if the strong opinions are political, so this might be a case where it makes sense for the federal government to ste…

At least with the states imposing regulations it's limited to that state. I don't see how Colorado effects neighboring states that presumably are doing what they are supposed to do. If Wyoming is running controlled burns but Colorado is not, then (admittedly in this very simple thought) the fires will be more easily contained because they have done their diligence. The citizens of that state should step in and make t…

If CO continues on their path, their fires will go out of control and spread to other states. If they had a way to contain their fires within their state I’d agree to let them burn it down if that’s what they want to do, but I don’t see how that isn’t a major problem for all their neighboring states. Even if their neighbors are smart and doing prescribes burns as they should, it doesn’t mean they can’t suffer massive losses from a huge out of control fire started in another state.

Re: Controlled burns can prevent wildfires; regulations make them nearly impossible

#215

The fundamental problem that controlled burns face today is that there has been a huge and irresponsible increase in development on "Urban-wildland border". Here in the California Sierras, you have a uniform peppering of (often luxury) houses outside of the various small urban areas. Those forests naturally burn on a regular basis but with this situation, any controlled burn is going to threaten some number of houses…

I live in Tahoe and firefighters do controlled burns feet from houses all the time (in Nevada) without a problem. I see them rake the debris into piles and burn them.

… not that hard.

Re: Controlled burns can prevent wildfires; regulations make them nearly impossible

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least with the states imposing regulations it's limited to that state. I don't see how Colorado effects neighboring states that presumably are doing what they are supposed to do. If Wyoming is running controlled burns but Colorado is not, then (admittedly in this very simple thought) the fires will be more easily contained because they have done their diligence. The citizens of that state should step in and make t…

If CO continues on their path, their fires will go out of control and spread to other states. If they had a way to contain their fires within their state I’d agree to let them burn it down if that’s what they want to do, but I don’t see how that isn’t a major problem for all their neighboring states. Even if their neighbors are smart and doing prescribes burns as they should, it doesn’t mean they can’t suffer massive…

There isn't really much of anything around the Colorado borders to burn.

Re: Controlled burns can prevent wildfires; regulations make them nearly impossible

#217
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, but even where it's not, the biggest issue in doing controlled burns is simply funding . Controlled burns aren't just "light it up". You may need to create a firebreak. You may need to cull some trees as too many areas have lots of spindly, unhealthy trees that are going to make a controlled burn much harder to control. etc. All of this costs manpower which translates to money.

Controlled burns cost money, no doubt. But just an example, California's fire suppression complex is very well funded. California has a fleet of 747s and other huge aircraft, just for example. My guess is there's no funding where there's no people and where there are people, there's funding but the people's arrangement prevents controlled burns.

> California's fire suppression complex is very well funded

Perhaps very well funded for putting out an existing fire at a specific spot.

Controlled burns for prevention need to occur over VAST areas--it's an O(1) vs O(n^2) scaling problem.

Re: Controlled burns can prevent wildfires; regulations make them nearly impossible

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends how you want to put. Fire suppression is indeed the fundamental cause and the shape of development is the barrier to fixing it.

I don't think I agree that the distribution of development poses a significant challenge. If that were the case, you would see at least some controlled Burns in undeveloped areas, but that is not the case. You might see more logging or a small low risk Burns near inhabitated areas. The fact that we still see essentially no control burns is strong evidence that the barrier is Still what it has been for the last 100 ye…

It’s also dumb concern cargo-cutting in California. Even the limited number of burns that are authorized can be cancelled if the air quality that day is bad.

Re: Controlled burns can prevent wildfires; regulations make them nearly impossible

#219

A few years back CA had serious wild fire issues. PG&E was just the scapegoat. There are multiple factors but the main issue is that it's nearly impossible to get the environmental documentation (Environmental Impact Statements or EISs) prepared and approved for prescribed burns on federal land due to legal challenges from environmental groups that really have no idea what they are doing. The system is broken.

Do you have any sources for this? I am familiar with people who manage private properties on federal lands and nothing you said here passes the smell test to me. In particular, environmental groups have been loudly calling for better wildland management practices for at least the past decade, typically from the direction of considering and adopting indigenous land management practices such as prescribed burns.

It sounds like you're trying to scapegoat environmentalists when the recent tragedies were obviously the fault of PG&E mis-managing their assets and refusing to allocate more budget or personnel to manage what are obviously tinderbox scenarios.

Re: Controlled burns can prevent wildfires; regulations make them nearly impossible

#220
post #33

Try cutting down trees on your forested property in California. Environmental regulations can make that really tricky. California should have regular wildfires. It's part of the ecosystem. Government regulations that prevent fires have created the tinder box we have now.

Trees are not the problem, it's scrub and grasses. You're right, regulations are way out of step with current understanding.
Post reply on HN