Catastrophic Wildfires? Thank the Greenies and Forest Service

[ranger]

Here is a different look - mill closures. This data may help the conversation.

http://www.pprc.info/html/millclosures.htm

[Dog Guy]

Thanks for the kind words and support.

Just pushing contingency line yesterday, so no flames were seen by me or the equipment. Contingency line is a few steps or a few miles back from the fire in case the direct line doesn’t hold, hence contingency.

Terms of the general discussion on why fires are bigger and badder then they have been. We started removing fire from fire adapted landscapes back at 1900 or so, hardcore after 1910. The general idea was things burned was a waste of resources, timber, grazing, etc. So in a lot of places in the West we have fuel build up that is more extreme then ever. Studies show logging often increases the fuel loading unless you treat the slash, so logging alone is not the answer and it is not economical to log lots of ground, not accessible, equipment limitations, etc.

There are a bunch more parts to this. Enough for today, getting back out there

There used to be a site called wildlandfire.com. It was a great site for news and discussion of all things wild fire related. It shut down a year or so ago, which was a great loss to the fire community. There was thoughtful, well-informed give and take on all aspects of fire history, management, prescribed burning, logging, etc. and you could learn a ton if you paid attention. "There are a bunch more parts to this" are perhaps the truest words yet spoken on the subject, and it started long before 2012.

One change that I have noted over the last few years: Structure loss used to be mostly true urban/rural interface or intermix buildings, where they were scattered throughout the edge of the wildland but with wildland characteristics around them. The last few years have seen more destruction of actual urban subdivisions in actual cities on the edge of the wildland, but not intermixed with wildland fuels. A buddy who retired from Florida with a lot of wildland and USAR experience was doing insurance inspection work in the Santa Rosa area after last year's fires. He said that what he saw completely changed his idea of what was and wasn't safe from a wildland fire. It's not completely new phenomenon, but it seems to be getting worse.

[RevolverRob]

I concur that this is a mixture of sources. A century+ of forest mismanagement, suburban and urban developments which have caused radical changes to the landscape (e.g., when it does rain, where does the runoff go? Most runoff managements do not allow sufficient water to get back to the landscape, they funnel it down and out), climate change which is resulting in hotter and drier periods of time combined with less snowfall and rainfall, etc.

Some of the things that I've been seeing working with hydrologists in concert with studying animal and biome evolution have lead me to recognize that the axiom is true; it's death by a thousand cuts.

Some of the things that really need to be done could be done if a rational explanation and approach were provided. For instance, changing runoff infrastructure. Unfortunately, it's usually lunatic fringe environmentalists who scream for these changes and have the political tact of a sledgehammer. As a result there is always political pushback which limits the efficacy of any attempts made. Where a calm and rational proposal that recognizes the importance of politics might have more success. That's why you see these issues, which are manifold and complex, boiled down to political claims again and again.

[txdpd]

How did the forest survive all these millions of years without active human management? The article is more of a shill piece for logging industry than science. There's a serious push to reopen national forest to logging and there are hundreds of millions in prize money at stake. Expect to see the propaganda for the next several months.

People in places where there are regular naturally occurring fires are the problem, not fires in places where there are people.

[RevolverRob]

People in places where there are regular naturally occurring fires are the problem, not fires in places where there are people.

Careful man, you're going to get called an environmentalist whack job talking like that. Next you'll suggest that high-rise, multi-family, buildings are the best things for humanity and the environment, because they reduce the footprint on nature and allow the restoration of the "natural order" of things. Before you know it, you'll be driving a Tesla and chaining yourself to trees. (Kidding).

This is one argument in favor of logging. If you cut down all the trees, no worries about burns...just landslides, mudslides, drought caused by uncontrolled runoff, erosion caused by uncontrolled runoff. Of course, controlled and managed burns could have similar effects without the severe denuding of the landscape caused by logging, a management approach that is widely applied elsewhere in the U.S. and world to great effect and is interestingly absent from the article(s) linked above.

[PNWTO]

I'll echo and emphasize, without repeating, what @RevolverRob and @txdpd said.


That article definitely followed Town Hall form and is glorious crock of shit. The science, and our understanding of it, around land management is changing and is getting better. We are still learning our lessons and human impact and the sheer numbers of our species is a huge deal. It isn't an innate political issue, but unfortunately some people want to make it one.

I always suggest this video for a good intro to the subject.

https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_hessb...ce=tedcomshare

[Dog Guy]

I thought this was an interesting look at the very destructive Carr Fire in Redding, CA this Summer. Once the fire gets into structures with urban spacing, things get ugly pretty fast. https://wildfiretoday.com/2018/09/26...ng-california/

[Nephrology]

Here in CO we are experiencing record droughts that are directly responsible for the uptick in wildfires. I struggle to see how this is an issue of forest mismanagement, at least in my corner of the USA.

[Greg]

I didn't read the townhall article.

In Utah, and much of the West, 50% of the standing pine trees are dead thanks to the Pine Beetle. Besides ruining the looks of some of my favorite places, those dead trees are kindling waiting for ignition.

We're in for bad fires for a decade at least until those dead trees burn or hit the ground and rot.

[Drang]

For some reason I just came back to this thread today. (It was listed as "Content you haven't seen but not updated since your last visit", whatever that verbiage is.)

Like a lot of news reporting, the article is shallow, not fact based, and more wrong then right.

The increase in wildfire is a long 100+ year social, political, and environmental issue that we haven’t really truly dealt with in meaningful way..

This was common knowledge growing up in Michigan back in the 60s and 70s. Hell, the DNR back then and there admitted that our devotion to putting out fires as soon as they are spotted was resulting in fires that were not immediately extinguished being bigger and more dangerous. That is, smaller fires were being extinguished before they had a chance to burn up all the fuel, so when one got out of control, well, you can see the rest these days.

This is also a concern back there because Jack Pine needs fire to release the seeds.

I know that, driving through some parts of California, I see billboards urging folks to clear underbrush 100 feet or more away from their houses. I've heard on some areas that's not allowed, which seems... odd... but what do I know? I don't live in an area with CCRs -- thank God!

Today, I am in charge of dozers cutting fire line, we’ll get some rest come November maybe.

Be safe, bro. Which fire are/were you on? Looking at InciWeb, I see that there are three fires currently burning, and they are all three listed as 85% or more contained.