Have we considered whether standard best-practice wilderness management, like controlled burns, can address issues like this, or is that still ignored/dismissed?
The Federal department executed the burn and it went wild, and is the largest fire in recorded history in that area now, taking out an entire town plus other structures and causing the evacuation of Los Alamos National Laboratories at the same time. you can find the details easily.. there is a 70 page "final report" from the agency perspective. This is reality.
Historical controlled burns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_use_of_fire_in...) worked because they happened frequently and kept fuel in check while encouraging trees that were resistant to or even dependent on low grade fires. Fuel loads are dramatically higher than historically however.
Now we've also got massive areas of forest dieback due to climate-driven bark beetle outbreaks. Trees that do survive burns but are stressed by them are more vulnerable to pests, just like drought stress. https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/bark-beetles-and-climate... So controlled burns even done effectively may still result in unwanted tree dieback.
A much safer potential cure here would be a massive increase in targeted grazing on federal land to reduce understory fuel loads, but this is also a nonstarter politically in many areas especially in National Parks. We are still maintaining this myth of virgin wilderness untouched by the hand of man.
State and federal government simply isn't competent enough to handle this given the political realities in a democratic system. Basically what's going to happen is that the most vulnerable communities will get scorched out of existence, and we're just going to have to live with the impact of more wildfires until nature sorts itself out. Americans just can’t psychologically accept being told they don’t get to develop anywhere they want.
Yup! I live in the Sierras. Everyone in this thread talking about controlled burns needs to say "California has just spent a century pursuing a policy of fire suppression" a few times.
The fuel loads are insane, these fires have been turning into giant firestorms with their own weather systems in a matter of 2 or 3 hours during the summer. I've watched it happen a few times, frightening. I suspect you can't solve this problem with fire because even if you are burning the brush wet there is still enough fuel to dry the forest out and burn it to ash.
I personally think the state should tell insurers that they only have to provide insurance in wildlands if the home/property meets stringent fire safety rules around defensible space. My house isn't even in the coniferous forest (I live in the chaparral) and it has set backs, greenzones, the works. I get so frustrated when I'm watching news coverage of the fires and the house is surrounded in pine duff and has giant pine trees right next to it.
> much safer potential cure here would be a massive increase in targeted grazing on federal land to reduce understory fuel loads
Yeah, my dad, a California native, who studied forestry at Davis always says that the solution in millions of goats. Ironically this spring the local Sacramento news reported that there was a shortage of goats to clear brush and that was just for commercial landscaping in the greater metro area. So not only is not feasible because of green hand wringing but also because we just don't have adequate goats.
Most ranchers who do brush control grazing get paid for doing so. This is the opposite of the federal policy today, where ranchers have to pay for grazing rights on BLM land. Not to mention the fact that some places we used to graze sheep on like Yosemite or Sequoia National Parks have a blanket ban on commercial grazing.
Instead, what we have is wildlife conservation groups killing bills to expand grazing in CA. https://mountainlion.org/2021/04/29/ab434-california-state-p...
that's not the start of a conversation that finds solutions. Obviously there is lot of hurt and urgency, also there have been a lot of bad bills, also there is a lot of private land grab on public property, also the existing policies have led us here.
AND.. when I read the actual research, there is far more already known, than anyone at the negotiating table seems to know.. so you get bullies and spies, angry side comments and behind-the-scenes demands..
far, far too late to just call the other side of the table uncomplimentary names, if you are serious about this.
There should be alignment of interests between environmental groups and rural people who don't want their communities destroyed by wildfire. Neither of them want the forests burned down. Instead, these groups pursue a singleminded focus on attacking anything that doesn’t comply with their dogmatic pursuit of wilderness untouched by anything other than recreation.
as i understand it, there's been a fair bit of progress in the last couple years regarding best practice for wildfire protection in populated areas. you can do a lot by removing underbrush and building firebreaks around a town, as well as relatively simple measures like disallowing cedar-shake roofs. there's probably a future where properties in towns that implement strong wildfire protection plans can continue to be insured, and towns that don't cease to exist. but that only solves the problem for towns, i don't see what can be done for properties in the woods outside a town's firebreak.
NorCal with the thick forests, you’d need to clear cut so much, you’d be irreversibly altering the landscape and will probably get other bad things for it, such as erosion and landslides. The vegetation will also try to grow back aggressively (NorCal is a lot wetter than SoCal). So you’d end up doing this over and over again. It’s unlikely to be economical.
Ah, I see you've never tried to do anything involving water or drainage in California
Firefighting resources are already stretched thin. Adding more bureaucracy on top of these tough logistics make any preventative burns impossible to plan since CARB can just deny it the last minute.
CARB performs a useful function (acid rain anyone?), but if you asked most people in CA, I suspect wildfires will come in a lot higher on the list than smog from occasional burns. With uncontrolled fires, even more smoke and who knows what else goes into the air already.
Nobody wants the LA smog of the 1970s back, but controlled burns are largely impossible much of the year due to their effects on air quality.
Wildland firefighters - of whom I count several among my cousins - are between a rock and a hard place on this issue. They spend more of each year in “fire season” in part because they cannot pollute the air during “not fire season” with controlled burns.
Hopefully one day we get a study that shows the fires end up spewing even more pollutants than any controlled burn, so the net effect of not doing these controlled burns is likely a lot worse.
Allowing new pollution spewing gas guzzlers to continue to be produced and sold until 2035 is absurd. They should ban production in 5 years and ban use by 2035.
For personal vehicles that would hit the sector of population least able to afford an EV. Incentives and cash for clunkers type programs work better than forcing a financial burden on folks.
The other problem is that we don’t yet have good alternative to heavy diesel trucks. Sweden is experimenting with some cool options and we need a similar infra investment: https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/05/09/sweden-is-building-... and https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a...
The problem is that the last article is from 2016. All the investment is still going to long battery ranges and such, when if we built infra like this, trucking companies would switch due to much lower costs.