"Managing" forests

[gridlore]

OK, I've seen this claim in the papers and on the net. Rather than reproduce reams of idiocy, I shall boil it down to one to sentence:

:We need to manage the forests or they'll all burn down."

To call this stupid is just the beginning. I really want to hunt these people down and ask them what they thought happened for the approximate 650 million years that the forests were around before we showed up? Go to Yellowstone. See where the devastating fires hit several years back. It's all regrowing.

Now, this debate has been pushed to the fore by the current late-season wildfires. Here is a clue for the ecologically impaired: California is supposed to burn. It is part of the ecosystem here. Regular fires help the soil, and encourage new growth. So, while I'm saddened at the loss of life and people's homes; if you built your house in the chaparral the damn thing had better be fireproof! Because when the winds hit 75mph, and the temperature spikes past the century mark, things will burn. It happens every year.

Also, don't use explosive plants as decoration in fire zones. Eucalyptus trees, for example. The bloody things go up like torches, and will explode when the sap boils. Juniper bushes. Cut into them, and they are dry as bone. Use native vegetation; you'll be giving yourself a chance. If you live on a large plot, clear away brush. Or hire someone to do it.

You would think people would figure this out.

Comments

[bunyip.livejournal.com]

The problem with eucalypts in California is not just that they are highly flammable, but rather the firemanagement techniques that have been developed in Australia to minimise the risk are ignored ... for example, in Australia, the leaf litter and fallen twigs from a gum tree is not left on the ground in massive piles near homes, it's removed.

[hlw.livejournal.com]

did you get my email??

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

Yeah, reply on the way.

[hlw.livejournal.com]

feh, email slower than molasses today, you up on AIM??

[aurictech.livejournal.com]

To play devil's advocate for a moment:

If we didn't fight forest fires at all, we likely wouldn't have the problems we're now seeing. However, since we're already disrupting the fire cycle by fighting fires in the first place, it makes sense to do something to replace the role that "small" forest fires used to play.

[cmdr-zoom.livejournal.com]

But this would require admitting that we do not have dominion over nature and all the beasts of the fields, etc. It's another, slightly subtler expression of the attitude behind all those grand engineering projects proposed back in the 50s to reshape the face of the planet, carve canals across entire continents with nukes, make the Sahara bloom, etc etc.

The thing about nature, of course, is that it doesn't care; it smites the arrogant and the meek equally. It's just that the arrogant are more likely to have placed themselves in harm's way.

[isomeme.livejournal.com]

AMEN!

The part that *really* pisses me off is that people who build and buy homes in high-risk areas are subsidized by the rest of us. If they had to pay for their fair share of insurance and emergency service costs, you wouldn't see nearly so many houses built along our natural fire paths.

I hate perverse incentives.

Mike Davis is a lying bastard, but you do have to give him full credit for the chapter in Ecology of Fear titled "The Case for Letting Malibu Burn".

[kengr]

You would think people would figure this out.

The same people (generic) that build houses on flood plains? Or buy a house near an airport or an industrial facility and then expect the "nuisance" to move?

Those people?