Robert_Actual t1_it0smck wrote
How about we just manage the existing forests that way when they do burn it's not years of unburned fuel and dead trees. This would be a great start...
True2this t1_it0x8fi wrote
Usually done with controlled burns.
Robert_Actual t1_it0xyx8 wrote
Agree 1000% but these are not done with the same frequency as even 10 years ago let alone 20 years ago. No one trims ladder fuels. Logging of dead trees is no longer allowed. No one clears the FS roads that serve as access and fire breaks.
Huge_Requirement9200 t1_it12go1 wrote
It is so counterproductive. We need active land management in our forests.Controlled burns in shoulder seasons, gladed logging, selecting for preservation of fire resistant old growth, logging dead trees, collection of underbrush.
There's a hundred years of dead fuel in so many of these forests of young, uniformly sized, touching trees.
Acres and acres of drought-dry fireplace, ready for some yayhoo to throw a butt out a window.
azdood85 t1_it4f0ld wrote
Amazing points and you would think our local government and leaders would follow that path but apparently they have other priorities.
azdood85 t1_it4etfu wrote
Controlled burns are planned to not smoke out a giant ass city.
wolf1moon t1_it1c77g wrote
Actually, we have been doing that. It was certainly a part of the problem historically, but we learned and fixed it. Now the big problem is our wet springs produce a massive amount of brush which then gets hit by extra dry summers that turns it all into fuel again and there's no chance to burn it in advance. Additionally, the winter is raining before freezes in the pass, weakening trees, which are then distressed and eaten by beetles. Unfortunately, beetles aren't tidy eaters, so the older trees become more susceptible to fire, the ones who typically survived small fires in the past. And there are more invasive creatures both from around the world and just expanding territory because it's less cold.
The only solution to forest fires is to cool the planet. Every aspect of these natural systems are interwoven such that it's like trying band aids against cancer. You might hide some discoloration, but the patient is still dying.
Except the dying is our habitat.
Edit, my bad, my understanding was from California, didn't realize since I think I read about it in Seattle times. Anyways cool article on it https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/why-isnt-california-using-more-prescribed-burns-to-reduce-fire-risk/
Washington has restarted burns though. I wish I could find the article on Washington forests and why prescribed fires are enough, but as much time as I'm willing to Google has already been done. I could swear it was in Seattle times though!
Robert_Actual t1_it1kwl5 wrote
Fire crews cannot access the areas needed with equipment/trucks. The Sustainable Roads Strategy looked at Mt Baker -Snoqualmie specifically where there is only funding to maintain 25% of existing roads. The USDA’s decision was to decommission 75% of all roads despite these being used for firefighting access. Go to a public meeting, firefighting access or lack thereof takes up the first half every time.
We have not been control burning the forests. On May 10, 2022 Hilary Franz, WA Commissioner of Pubic Lands, just restarted the control burn program after being shut down for the past 18 years. DNR stopped these burns in attempt to comply with the Clean Air Act.
wolf1moon t1_it4o60z wrote
I did not know about the roads. That's insane.
bloodfist t1_it3497b wrote
>we learned and fixed it.
No, we really didn't. We still don't do controlled burns, and we barely do any fuel reduction compared to what we should. You're absolutely right about those other factors, and climate change being the root of them. But we haven't fixed shit.
wolf1moon t1_it4o1uu wrote
Ah, my bad, California has been doing them but we only restarted recently (there's a website with the burns listed https://www.dnr.wa.gov/prescribedfire). For California, article https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/why-isnt-california-using-more-prescribed-burns-to-reduce-fire-risk/
bloodfist t1_it4vho1 wrote
Thanks for that link. I knew we'd restarted it, but hadn't seen that list of upcoming burns.
FYI that's for state-managed lands, federal is it's own program, and private is anyone's guess but the state assists usually.
The thing I've seen from CA and federal is that while there's a lot of good intentions at first, they often get canceled, cut short, underfunded, and/or underplanned. It ends up barely making a dent, and as soon as one gets out control - something we have to assume will happen sometimes, especially with poor planning and staffing - the next several get delayed indefinitely. It looks really bad for politicians to have a fire they "started" get out of control.
I don't want to badmouth WA's program because I don't know and it's still relatively young. It's a step in the right direction at least. But until I see some real successes I still hesitate to say we fixed anything. We're starting to try, but we probably need at least a decade of good successful prescribed burning to even come close to "fixed".
wolf1moon t1_it4ye8m wrote
If there's one thing I agree with local conservatives on, it's that the feds have no clue when it comes to our lands. I don't want them to stop being reserves, but man I wish they were under western control. I don't trust a New Yorker or Floridian to govern our land.
bloodfist t1_it50h4o wrote
Eh, it doesn't really work that way. My dad worked for the BLM for almost 30 years and I was on a wildland crew for them for a few years too. There are definitely high-level decisions coming from Washington but most of the people making day-to-day decisions are locals who really love that land.
It made me a big believer in our public lands, and I just don't know that I trust most states to do much better. Here, probably and a few others, but state land where I worked was a mess.
Not to say that federal agencies are doing a good job, but change happens slower at that level so it's a lot harder for a few corrupt individuals to open up mining, allow ATV use, sell off parcels, etc. The last administration did a lot of damage but it could be so much worse.
But it's definitely an interesting thing to consider. I'm happy with whoever makes sure we have trees in 100 years.
VaeVictis997 t1_it2v757 wrote
Then DNR needs a ton more money, which has to come from somewhere.
They’re managing a fire season which is two months longer, and over a much larger risk area, with basically the same budget they historically had.
Robert_Actual t1_it2xiu5 wrote
I think it's important to remember how DNR is set up: WA State Constitution set DNR up to manage timber sales with proceeds going directly to funding schools. But DNR is no longer harvesting like they were in the 60's and schools are SO much bigger today than 50 years ago. Having the two tied together pits them against a common good. DNR manages for a bottom dollar, not for the environmental good. It's not their fault, it's their fiduciary responsibility to do so. We just need to change this.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments