Should we clear out dead trees and thin the forests to prevent the kind of fires we have now in California?

Question

If the dead trees and under-brush are cleared out, and the forests thinned some, fires won't spread as much. Would this be a good idea?

Answer 1

Forestry Management is not a new concept. Commercial operations have known for a long time how to reduce the risk of fires like the one now raging in California, and keep the forests healthy. They have the incentive to do so when the trees are regarded as a crop.

However, the Environmentalists pretty much went off the deep end, and it's pretty much illegal to clear the underbrush, thin the forest, or do controlled burns.

I wonder if anyone will listen to the people with degrees in Forestry now that their predictions have come true, or if we'll just blame it on Global Warming and keep on doing what got us here.

Answer 2

They are doing that already, but what is burning in CA are not lush forests. Most of these areas are very dry bushes and grass. These areas will be very pretty in January when the rains come and everything is green for a few months, but right now it is all dry cinders.

At the end of the summer these areas are very susceptible to fires and once a fire starts it can consume a large area in a very short time. In fact, it can be impossible to outrun a bruch fire and people, even experienced firefighters, die.

The hot, warm winds make firefighting very dangerous and often it is impossible to save an area at all. Typically firefighters try to clear out areas in front of the fire and set small fires to remove material that can burn in the main fire before it gets there.

The main reason for the loss of buildings are the development rules and building codes. People who build in the hills know about fire being a real danger and that they have to expect natural wildfires (the current ones might be arson, though).

But because land is expensive and everybody wants their dream home with a view, cities push the limits on what are places with acceptable fire risk. Home owners do themselves no favor by building stick-and-frame homes where fire-retardant concrete (can't build with brick in or near an earthquake zone!) would be called for.

Much of this is a man made problem. Nature needs and can survive these fires (which does not mean I am not hurting for all the small animals and plants which perish in them) and that is part of the natural cycle in these areas.

It is us invading these places what causes the real destruction in human terms.

Answer 3

The bottomline is fire is and always has been a vital part of nature. We have spent the last century under a phiosophy that man and fire are natural enimies. It turns out that fire is nature, so if we keep fire out of the picture, we are actually making enimies with nature. We need to start introducing more prescribed burning on our landscape, and try to bring it closer to how it once was. Native Americans understood that, and used fire a lot. Florida has a pretty good policy where they do that. They still have fires, but they are less frequent and intense.

Thinning does help, thinning mimics what fire does, in ways.

Also, you shouldn't build homes in some of the most flammable vegetation in the world. Just like you shouldn't build a city in a bowl that is subject to hurricanes, or build homes on sand or in a flood plain. If you choose to do that, or move to one of those said areas, it should be your responsibility to deal with the consequences.

Answer 4

Yes it is a good idea. The Forest Service and the state of California recommend it.

Answer 5

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Mother Nature is already taking care of this right now.

Answer 6

Maybe we should stop overbuilding in areas that are near this kind of danger.