U.S. Forest Service policy responsible for wildfires - GoFuckYourself.com

JMM · 10-25-2007, 09:32 AM

Saw an interesting piece on TV last night regarding the wildlfires.

Apparently, the forest service policy of the last 100 years, putting out forest fires immediately, has created the conditions which are allowing the wildfires to thrive.

Not allowing past forest fires to burn out the underbrush has created a tremendous amount of fuel to drive these fires.

They now say this was a huge mistake, they should have let past forest fires burn for a while. They should have controlled them, not immediately extinguished them.

Rochard · 10-25-2007, 09:34 AM

This is not new. It's rather old, isn't it?

And isn't this more of a debate - with different people taking sides as to how this should be handled? When they do controled burns sometimes they get out of control... and then they get sued because someone's house burned down to the ground. It's sort of a "damed if you do / damned if you don't" kind of thing.

quantum-x · 10-25-2007, 09:35 AM

Same in australia. Aboriginies used to burn off the bush every year or so, which encouraged new growth.

There are actually plants / trees in australia that can't seed / spead until a fire passes [ black wattle ]

Just more evidence of people fucking shit up for nature ;)

JMM · 10-25-2007, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

This is not new. It's rather old, isn't it?

And isn't this more of a debate - with different people taking sides as to how this should be handled? When they do controled burns sometimes they get out of control... and then they get sued because someone's house burned down to the ground. It's sort of a "damed if you do / damned if you don't" kind of thing.

Well it's new to me.

As for houses burning down..I think that's the part where "control" comes in. Extinguish the fires that are threatening structures but let the more remote areas burn.

B_Maverick · 10-25-2007, 09:49 AM

We had a very similar situation here in Tucson. A number of years ago a policy was created that forced the forest service to A) stop doing controlled burns, and B) to not let fires burn themselves out.

As a result, for many years the undergrowth was left untouched. A couple of years ago a fire started in the mountains, and simply went on a rampage, fueled by all of the old undergrowth. An entire village was destroyed by the fire, along with thousands of acres.

So...bottom line...instead of letting nature take it's course every year...we ended up with an enormous burn that devastated the mountain.

10-25-2007, 09:32 AM	#1
JMM Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 1,755	U.S. Forest Service policy responsible for wildfires Saw an interesting piece on TV last night regarding the wildlfires. Apparently, the forest service policy of the last 100 years, putting out forest fires immediately, has created the conditions which are allowing the wildfires to thrive. Not allowing past forest fires to burn out the underbrush has created a tremendous amount of fuel to drive these fires. They now say this was a huge mistake, they should have let past forest fires burn for a while. They should have controlled them, not immediately extinguished them.

10-25-2007, 09:34 AM	#2
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 73,991	This is not new. It's rather old, isn't it? And isn't this more of a debate - with different people taking sides as to how this should be handled? When they do controled burns sometimes they get out of control... and then they get sued because someone's house burned down to the ground. It's sort of a "damed if you do / damned if you don't" kind of thing. __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

10-25-2007, 09:49 AM	#5
B_Maverick Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 447	We had a very similar situation here in Tucson. A number of years ago a policy was created that forced the forest service to A) stop doing controlled burns, and B) to not let fires burn themselves out. As a result, for many years the undergrowth was left untouched. A couple of years ago a fire started in the mountains, and simply went on a rampage, fueled by all of the old undergrowth. An entire village was destroyed by the fire, along with thousands of acres. So...bottom line...instead of letting nature take it's course every year...we ended up with an enormous burn that devastated the mountain. __________________ Sig too big http://www.gofuckyourself.com/gfy_faqs.html Want to use a large banner in your sig??? Contact Eric about getting on as an advertiser - eric AT adult.com

10-25-2007, 09:35 AM	#3
quantum-x Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: ICQ: 251425 Fr/Au/Ca Posts: 6,863	Same in australia. Aboriginies used to burn off the bush every year or so, which encouraged new growth. There are actually plants / trees in australia that can't seed / spead until a fire passes [ black wattle ] Just more evidence of people fucking shit up for nature ;)