To Help Prevent the Next Big Wildfire, Let the Forest Burn • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by all2 » Tue, Dec 04, 2018, 5:18 PM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #34

konschubert wrote: post #19

Isn't the frequency of fires mostly caused by the drought, which in turn is caused by climate change? How do all of these policies matter of there is no more rain in California?

There will never be “no more rain in California”. Also, fires are not becoming more frequent, but roughly the same number of fires are burning more acreage. Apparently any and all weather pattern changes are “caused by climate change” whether that be drought or monsoon, heat or cold spells, increased or decreased hurricanes, etc. And interestingly, no matter which direction the change is said to be occurring (e.g. mo…

This sounds like Marxism. Every social phenomena can be explained by Marxism (ergo, it is not scientific).

A proper scientific theory is disprovable.

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

#62

Post by moultano » Tue, Dec 04, 2018, 5:27 PM UTC

SaintGhurka wrote: post #30

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 li…

>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.

That could just as easily be the result of climate change.

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

#63

Post by bluGill » Tue, Dec 04, 2018, 5:30 PM UTC

moultano wrote: post #59

bluGill wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't actually have good records for the number of fires in the past. As soon as white men came to North America they started putting out fires. The natives here before then didn't keep detailed written records, though the general verbal reports suggest they were actually lighting fires) Letting the fires burns clears out the fuel. IF we go in next year and light that area again there won't be much fuel, so the fi…

Given the rate at which these fires are happening and the size of the regions they are burning, I'm not sure how "let it burn" is materially different from what is currently happening, even with our best efforts to put them out.

Let it burn includes intentionally lighting fires as well.

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

#64

Post by moultano » Tue, Dec 04, 2018, 5:59 PM UTC

mannykannot wrote: post #49

moultano wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Rare, but it happens: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lightning-strik... The existence of adaptations to fire in the Californian ecology is good evidence for it being a significant factor (and if these were in response to human activity, then why not elsewhere?)

Native Americans had been setting fire to the whole landscape for 14 thousand years. That is not evidence for natural sources of fire.

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

#65

Post by AnimalMuppet » Tue, Dec 04, 2018, 6:23 PM UTC

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.

Yeah, that's kind of the definition of "non-sustainable."

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

#66

Post by StephenConnell » Tue, Dec 04, 2018, 8:46 PM UTC

io_io wrote: post #56

StephenConnell wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This would equate to forest management practices, not logging. They likely chipped or burned the underbrush and low branches after removing them from the forest, which wouldn't be a profitable business practice.

True, it was forest management, not just commercial logging.

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

#67

Post by Ninjaneered » Tue, Dec 04, 2018, 10:28 PM UTC

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.

I don't think climate change is the dominating variable here, like the article describes, the devastating fires are a product of our encroachment into forests and aggressive firefighting practices. If you have some references though, I'd be very interested in learning more.

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

#68

Post by Ninjaneered » Tue, Dec 04, 2018, 10:33 PM UTC

konschubert wrote: post #19

Isn't the frequency of fires mostly caused by the drought, which in turn is caused by climate change? How do all of these policies matter of there is no more rain in California?

For reference, I was a seasonal firefighter with Cal Fire (CDF at the time) for 6 years.

First off, if there is a fire burning on state land, federal land, BLM land, a national forest, a national park, etc. I'd call it a forest fire, it's just common parlance. To some that know better, I may use the term wildland fire. So, if it isn't a structure or vehicle fire, it's probably a forest fire. Specifically though, many of these fires are considered in the wildland–urban interface, that is where homes and wildlands meet or intermingle.

There is a problem happening and I'm not sure how to solve it. The amount of wildland-urban interface land keeps increasing. This land is much more difficult to defend against fire; structure protection is much harder than straight wildland fire management. We've aggressively fought all forest fires (see above), especially when there is a threat of homes being destroyed (again this is increasing due to the wildland-urban interface increasing). Forest fires are natural and should happen on a regular basis, when they do, they clear fuel from the ground. Note, some trees require this for seed release (serotinous cones), resprouting, and germination (fire activated seeds). When fires don't burn and the fuel loading increases (due to aggressive firefighting), a catastrophic fire can burn, one we can't easily put out. These fires burn so hot, they can jump into the tree canopy (crowning fire) and kill the tree, they can completely burn fire activated seeds and make them nonviable, and they typically burn much larger sections of land. This is all bad.

I'm really not sure how to deal with this. There are some steps homeowners in the wildland-urban interface (within 1/2-mile of the wildland) should do to protect their homes including defensible space, fire-resistant roofs and siding, enclosed eaves and vents, etc. These steps should be enforced through insurance company's policy (vastly reduced rates for "safer" homes, and no insurance or drastically higher for "unsafe" homes), keep in mind, these unsafe homes put firefighters at risk. Ideally we stop encroaching into the wildland, but I'm not sure how to stop that. But we do need to let forest fires burn more. We need to set more prescribed burns (controlled burns) We need to know that some will get out of control, but there shouldn't be any lawsuits for this, fighting fire is tough.

(I previously posted this on a CleanTechnica discussion)

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

#69

Post by mbrumlow » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 1:47 AM UTC

decebalus1 wrote: post #58

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.borealforest.org/world/innova/forest_fire.htm It happens

that's not proof of anything. https://www.nps.gov/articles/fire-prevention-52-spontaneous-... Forests don't spontaneously combust. Sawdust does, manure does, compost piles do but there's isn't near enough fuel in a forest without human intervention to cause spontaneous combustion.