"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

[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.