An interesting counterpoint is to look at a managed forest in the northwest to get a feel for what companies that harvest wood do to manage fire risk.
Of course that was one of FDR's most successful programs, and one which I feel could be applied here as well. The country needs both tradespeople and infrastructure maintenance in a big way and doing that by funding large engineering firms is extremely inefficient.
For some people just getting the experience of going to a job (as well as a resume line) would really help them, and... we need some stuff done for sure in the US.
There was humid areas with lakes and lots of animals in what is now the Prehistoric Sahara, burnt for pastures until desert
There was lots of extinct species in what is now Australia, and it was more humid in the past. Arid, subdesert, desert again.
Brazil has a huge stupidity problem, some new deserts ordered and in the way
Indonesia idem,
Russia has extensive wildfires in 2019, happily running towards the same path
We don't even understand well the dynamics and ecology of soil, and all that we can parrot again and again is lets burn more, lets burn more, that will solve it all... we are not burning enough fast.
We know that fallen trees are essential for many species of invertebrates and vertebrates, Not allowed anymore it seems. We must clean the area and turn nature into a cartoon.
Being an arsonist is not only the perfect crime, it seems that is even the fastest way to became a local hero. We are even justifying and giving reasons to them
No it’s not.
2) Forest fires have been controlled and contained for the last ~100 years on the west coast of America.
3) Forests are not being burned at anywhere close to the rate that they would naturally.
4) Fire is not the process by which these places became arid.
The problem is that we can't survive just with this technique anymore, because we desperately need more forests in a "safety level of rainforest" or close to it, to have any chance to heal the climate. Unless we create a CO2 extracting machine, trees, plants and algae are still our best bet.
This rhetoric of "lets manage ecosystems as they did in the roman empire", maybe could work 200 years ago but now we are in a different situation.
4) Places became arid in part because there is not topsoil anymore, so nobody can grow here enough fast, so there is not water storing creatures anymore. This happens often by past fires followed by rains that first mineralize the soil, then turn it into dust and then wash it down the streams in a mud flood.
Removing mechanically the dry weeds, would have the same effects but without the counterparts.
(...talking about lack of understanding, here comes the tunnel vision)
Hem, not. Obviously. Is several levels more complex than that. You forgot at least two really big factors here.
Any loss of plant life due to a forest fire is quickly replaced as new growth is able to take advantage of new light/water/nutrient resources.
But, it was a massive uncontrolled fire. A lower temperature controlled burn may (probably?) not have caused that. Also if it had not occurred on such steep slopes maybe erosion wouldn't have been such a problem.
And what of those ecosystems down stream that would have benefited from the influx in nutrients?
The erosion was quite heavy though as the fires were followed by very heavy (and unusual) torrential rains. You could see the deep channels in the slopes and the roads were also covered with sediment. They had to bring in heavy machinery for that as well.
The area is recovering nicely now, it's grass with small saplings and I was up there this year and didn't really see any new erosion at all.
But I remember reading (somewhere) part of the reason Australia became arid is repeated mass burning by Aboriginal people. Anyone know how true that really is (or is not)?
Misguided, fact-free views like yours cost lives and damage the planet.