Thread: although to me, this isn't an issue:

why is there a policy of stopping forest fires as soon as they start, in the US parks services?

Smaller fires, if controlled, clear away much of the underbrush that is providing the fuel for the megafire out west. If there is no underbrush, or less, there is not a big gigantic fire that consumes a billion dollars and thousands of homes.

Originally Posted by The_Bear

why is there a policy of stopping forest fires as soon as they start, in the US parks services?

Smaller fires, if controlled, clear away much of the underbrush that is providing the fuel for the megafire out west. If there is no underbrush, or less, there is not a big gigantic fire that consumes a billion dollars and thousands of homes.

I think that a lot of people don't realize fire is a naturally occuring event, and constantly putting out brush fires is only adding to the fuel load for a big fire.

Clearing underbrush is a good idea and can be controlled and in some cases is. In some parks such as Yellowstone there are controlled clearings by manual labor to even burns, however burns are much less desired.

The problem however isn't just underbursh, its how damned dry it is, everything is dry, not just underbrush. While it does help spread faster, with the dry air as bad as it is, underbrush isn't the only thing burning and in some cases isn't the fuel at all, air is.

Some things can't be controlled which is why I suggest not living in that path, but people got to live somewhere right?

This is what happens when the government owns 65% of the land west of the Rockies. It's the "tragedy of the commons." The government is simply the worst landlord imaginable.

Originally Posted by The_Bear

why is there a policy of stopping forest fires as soon as they start, in the US parks services?

Smaller fires, if controlled, clear away much of the underbrush that is providing the fuel for the megafire out west. If there is no underbrush, or less, there is not a big gigantic fire that consumes a billion dollars and thousands of homes.

We stop every fire because seasonally the park service and fire departments will have controlled burns that are supposed to eliminate the chances of out of control fires, everything is dry this time of the year this coupled with more people in the forests now (the weather is great) raises the risk of fires. Since small controlled fires burned the underbrush all thats left to burn are trees and houses and one castle. We can't even try to contain these fires because they burn hot and spread fast, especially with the Santa Anna winds coming through now.

In the end its because its fire and fire can't be trusted, it's too tricky.

Yeah you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. I've heard of more than one dangerous fire that bean as a 'controled' fire.

No links cause I don't care that much. If I'm wrong, tell me and I'll believe you. I live in a city built on a rain-forest. What the hell would I know?

Originally Posted by Libre

This is what happens when the government owns 65% of the land west of the Rockies. It's the "tragedy of the commons." The government is simply the worst landlord imaginable.

And you would suggest what, instead? Selling off everything except a handful of national parkland, firing all government-paid firefighters, and letting individual landowners fight fires on their own (or burn as God as intended)?

You'll forgive me for being a little tongue-in-cheek, I hope, but it's hard not to be a little flippant in response to a post that doesn't reach much beyond "OMG its the guv'ment".

Fighting fires is not trivial -- as mentioned, even controlled fires sometimes aren't. Allowing an uncontrolled fire to continue burning is even more potentially dangerous, unless you can quickly turn it into a controlled fire. Meanwhile, thinning of forests and brush has been underway for some time now (in some cases more thinning than some environmentalists would like).

So... if there is a specific government policy that is flawed, and a better alternative, I'd certainly like to hear them -- rather than an off-hand dismissal of the problem because the government is the one trying to manage it.