by: Brian Schleckser
In recent years the presence and impact of wildfires (both man-made and natural) has grown in the public eye. This new focus results in some curious study, and follow-up questions. Focusing on the temperate and semi-arid U.S. forest regions, fire is a natural occurrence and important for biological cycles. Current weather trends (past few decades) have produced more el Niño seasons than in the past. This coupled with increased activity on the human/forest interface has resulted in increased intensity and frequency of fires. Fires occurring in long “managed” forests where few if any fires were allowed, are now fueled by decades of saved up fuel, resulting in extreme intensity. These fire dynamics endanger humans and their property living on or near the interface. Increasingly, these fires are occurring away from this area, in more populated areas (see California). This raises some important questions:
What role did recent human policies play in creating this situation?
Is it a useful utilization of taxpayer money to attempt to fight a beast we seem ill-equip to match?
Should we broadly readjust fire suppression strategy and take up alternative proven strategies such as controlled burns?
What rights does man have when living in or near a forest system with regard to fire suppression expectations? (And vise versa?!)
What responsibility does local government have to manage a process which is as natural as a hurricane or tornado?
Resources on fire dynamics, policy and management:
http://www.gac.ca/activities/abstracts/2009_Joint_Assembly/absbook/ja09_B12A.html, http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-05.pdf,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildfire
23 comments:
One of the reasons they occur in more populated areas, is simply because of arson.
It's strange to think, but heavier rains can actually cause more severe wildfires. This is because increased rainfall means increased plant growth, which, when dry, means more fuel to burn in wildfires. In the West, where intense storms can provide just enough for plants to grow bigger, before a hot, dry spell, this is a problem. I think one of the implications here is that global warming will make some areas wetter, and some drier. From what I hear, the American west will become drier. This may need more study, but as current trends progress, wildfires may become less and less of an issue to worry about in future decades, since longer droughts will mean there is less biomass fuel to burn.
I feel that the individuals that decide to build their house in overgrown, high-fire danger areas in the forest should bear the costs of fighting fires to save their homes. There should be a policy implemented to somehow internalize the costs of protecting homes in danger of forest fires. I was thinking maybe a fire risk scale for homes, and a corresponding tax scale for those individuals to pay to state taxes. This would mean less tax money spend from the average person to protect the few that have large mansions or homes in the forests. It just seems right to have the people that are fully aware of the dangers of forest fire, yet still build their homes in the forest, pay for the costs of protecting their homes.
Fire suppression is a difficult topic because those that can afford to protect their home will, but there are a lot of people who cannot afford to do that. It also seems that governments are more willing to protect these multi-million dollar houses over the low income communities.
yes there is a split in demographics between fire suppression. However, it is more important to look at the implications of suppressing fire on a big scale. It is not beneficial to the ecosystem as a whole. People should take more precautionary measures in deciding where to live and how to protect them and their families if a forest fire were to occur.
I agree, some ecosystems are made to burn, its how the land regenerates and if you buy a house in that area you should be aware of the associated costs and potentail damage. but cant controlled burns be a from of fire supression? One of the major factors in the massive austrialian bush fires was accumulated fuel on the ground because of no controlled burns.
precisely Lisa E., many ecosystems, including ones in the continental U.S., absolutely require burns on the 3 to 5,10,50, or 100 years to continue healthily. Once they are blocked from that cycle, they fall into disrepair, getting worse and worse over time. Species ratios and territories get disturbed. Human impact seems to have little to no benefit.
Im really glad you made an effort to illustrate how natural, important, and necessary fires are to an ecosystem. I think we see the destruction and power of fires and demonize them for burning our houses and property. We must accept the fact that if we live in a forrest with a history of fires that it will happen again and we might lose our house. Dont live in a forrest if you dont want the possibility of fire.
Fire suppression should be focused in areas where there is a high risk to people. Even though these fires may occur naturally they are still a huge risk to humans living in those areas. Not all fires should be suppressed but fires in lower montane areas should which are historically smaller fires that have grown due to past fire suppression.
I agree with Sarah and definitely think there is a socio-economic aspect to the willingness of a government to protect the homes of their citizens. Just look at how Hurricane Katrina (where many poor people live) was handled compared to this summers fires in Santa Barbara, California (where many rich people live).
This bog raised some good questions. I believe a change in policy to reduce the fuel load in forests will have a dramatic effect on the kinds of fires we are fighting. Because of the fuel buildup, the fires we see today are extremely hot, and fast moving crown fires which are very hard to fight. If we reduced the fuel load, the fires would go back to their original state, and be low temperature, slow moving, low to the ground fires that are much easier to control and prevent structure damage and protect human lives.
I think the best thing to do in populated areas is to make sure that homes are in a safe distance from any trees or underbrush that could start their home on fire. I think that ultimately it is up to the homeowner to protect their property from fire if the live in a fire prone area. As far as forest protection goes, I think the best thing to do would be to employ controlled burns in areas of thick underbrush and as well as do sectional controlled burns so that it is easy to cut off wildfires if they start in any given area. This is, however, one of the most uncontrollable natural disasters and is hard to prevent or contain if it happens. keyword "NATURAL".
Under the healthy forest restoration act, we've been thinning forests across the majority of the Westen U.S. even forests which have not been ecologically altered by our supression. Also the thinning thats going on aside from being costly doesn't acuratly emulate the distruction that occurs naturally from fires. Most of whats going on here is a huge waste of tax dollars.
One idea thats sounds kinda cool is removing fuel (smaller stuff for transport reasons) that has been accumulating on the forest floor, and burning it in generators to create electricity. Some would say this is "green" because the sticks would end up burning in forest fires anyway so no carbon is being added into the system artificially.
It's not that we are ill equip to match forest fire fighting, as we begin to understand forest fires more it becomes apparent that less is sometimes more. We need to let fires progress more naturally if possible and fire coat property with new fire suppression technology like that heat retardent foam that washes off with water.
This is an interesting question of what to do about forest fires. On one hand, we cannot practically let forest fires burn out of control when people's lives and homes are at risk. At the same time the overzealous fire suppression that is occurring is a losing proposition. Suppressing fires hurts the ecosystem at large and makes fighting fires more difficult when they do occur. I dont know what should be done about this issue, but it does seem as though people living in areas with high fire risks should be aware of these dangers and should bare a greater cost of suppressing fires and stopping them when they do flare up.
Many government funded organizations like FRCC have promoted heathy forest restoration by removing excess fuels in montane environments. The goal is to restore the forest to their historic range of variability (HRV), but what's interesting is that they don't use traditional methods of fire history like comparing fires scars to retrieve this data. Different elevational gradient react differently to fire, which is another factor, and the FRCC clumps many of the west together. I think this is an example of policy and science clashing in to achieve a collective action problem.
andrew sieving
Almost everything wrong with the planet is the fault of humans.
We cut all the trees down during the gold rush to build infrastructure.
What grew back were the fastest growing, most 'weed like' trees (I.e. lodgepole pines)
Add 100 years of fire suppression
= an overgrown/dense forest of lodgepole pine, almost all the same age and size.
Next, the pine beetles destroy the trees (because we inadvertently created the perfect crop for them, and warming has aided their spread)
After, we have dense standing dead trees that are very burn prone.
The same sequence happened in Yellowstone, followed by one of the largest fires in U.S. history.
I agree in the fact that wildfires do create an essential biological process for the rebuilding of a forest. Though, being from California and having been directly effected by these fires, when human harmis in the mix, there is no place for them. The Malibu and Arrowhead fires crept right into the cities destroying some houses and ruining some people's property. I think our firefighters are triained well enough to combat these natural forces when they hit home. I can agree that humans have been encroaching upon the natural environment for some time now and that we are receiving what we payed for, but I still believe that these should not happen within human environments.
It seems to me that many wildfires should be left to their own devices in some ways. One reason why many of these wildfires are growing out of control is because there is so much fuel for it to consume. I think this method should be reserved for less populated areas obviously since letting wildfires rage in urban communities would not sit well with the inhabitants
A natural fire regime is extremely crucial to a forest's health, and i do feel that it is worth the tax payer's money. However, I feel the emphasis is terribly misplaced. Instead of a reactionary force, our fire fighters should be a preemptive force. We need to implement an aggressive controlled burning campaign throughout the American west.
ROBERT SEADER
I think that 100% preventative efforts are flawed since their drawback, extremely intense gigantic fires, are so harsh for everyone and thing living in the area. In my uninformed opinion, it sounds like it would be a good idea to check out controlled burn tactics. Stopping the natural cycle of a natural system doesn't sound like a good idea at all.
I think people are moving into areas that were already at high risk for fires. Plus dry areas mixed with people starting camp fires, throwing cig buds, fire works etc is a major issue.
Post a Comment