Let Forest Fires Burn • Hacker News Board

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#61

Post by nthcolumn » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 12:13 AM UTC

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 bloody dry and the bush is like a tinderbox, lightning strikes certain times of year now cause incredible destruction where years ago they'd have burnt out a few hundred acres and been done with, creating sort of natural corridors and that. I can certainly attest to the speed at which fires move having watched them leaping gorges and seeing sparks dance like sprites across the highway in front and back of my car from a fire a half mile away, fair near shat my pants I can tell you. The fire itself creates its own great wind - you can feel the heat in it. It drives itself along as fast as a car. Far as I know, native animals run towards the fire rather than away from it, and many if not most do escape out the back.

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#62

Post by acchow » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 12:16 AM UTC

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…

> focused our efforts on containment instead of extinguishment (i.e. make a best effort to keep it away from human settlements)

The line between extinguishment and containment blurs as human settlement expands.

Also, shouldn't humans just stop settling near forests altogether? Easy way to incentivize this - stop extinguishing the fires - they're supposed to burn anyway.

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#63

Post by branja » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 12:16 AM UTC

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…

The Native Americans of the Appalachians used to burn the brush down in the forests and otherwise cultivate the land, yes.

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#64

Post by Mz » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 12:17 AM UTC

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…

Some years back, the federal government in the US decided to get strict about protecting certain natural areas. This resulted in a build up of dry brush because people were not allowed to do things like collect firewood. The end result was some of the worst forest fires in US history.

Humans need to be good stewards to the land and stop framing themselves as somehow not a part of "nature."

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#65

Post by coryrc » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 12:19 AM UTC

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…

Firefighters are dying to protect the private property of people who live in the forests so they can save money not building a fire-safe house. We need regular burns to keep the brush down, but we can't because rich people's houses are in the path. The forest was there first; it's time to stop protecting people from financial loss because of their poor decisions.

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#66

Post by falcolas » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 12:32 AM UTC

coryrc wrote: post #65

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…

Firefighters are dying to protect the private property of people who live in the forests so they can save money not building a fire-safe house. We need regular burns to keep the brush down, but we can't because rich people's houses are in the path. The forest was there first; it's time to stop protecting people from financial loss because of their poor decisions.

Rich, poor, farmers, ranchers, middle class; all kinds have property in forests. And firefighters work to protect them all pretty much equally.

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#67

Post by sliverstorm » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 12:51 AM UTC

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…

But it's never so easy

Yeah, sure, there's problems. But mother nature cares not. The fuel load will continue to build until it burns, unless we remove it ourselves. That's the shortsightednes of "let fires burn but...", IMO. One day it will burn, whether you like it or not, unless you're willing to pay from now until kingdom come for manual fuel reduction. The only question is will it burn on our terms or hers?

In our area, there were a number of properties that were lost, because the owners did not follow the rules about fuel control around their property, allowing boughs onto their roof and not clearing back from the buildings. I pin a lot of the policy problems on those sorts of folks. They haven't realized we have to live with fire, like the pines around us. Stopping it is a losing game.

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#68

Post by waterphone » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 12:52 AM UTC

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…

Yes, the native populations often did the same in the Americas. But in the early 1900s, the U.S. decided its forests were an important resource—both as a source of timber for military use and to have timber sales to raise money, and declared war on wildfire with full suppression tactics universally applied. Now recognized as a mistake, tactics have changed, but we'll be suffering the consequences of 100 years of fire suppression for a long time.

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#69

Post by nnfy » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 12:58 AM UTC

coryrc wrote: post #65

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…

Firefighters are dying to protect the private property of people who live in the forests so they can save money not building a fire-safe house. We need regular burns to keep the brush down, but we can't because rich people's houses are in the path. The forest was there first; it's time to stop protecting people from financial loss because of their poor decisions.

This isn't a simple class thing. Rural areas aren't just populated by rich evil bankers with mountaintop villas; they're predominantly settled by poor rural whites who have owned land for generation and do not have the means to easily leave.

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#70

Post by King-Aaron » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 1:05 AM UTC

dmoy wrote: post #29

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…

The US does a lot of controlled burning as well.

We specifically call them 'hazard reductions' or 'prescribed burns' here now, because of the numerous times 'controlled' burns became rapidly uncontrolled... :P