Yeah, its hard not to be skeptical of “Starting forest fires prevents forest fires”. I assume there are good reasons for it but it really does sound counter productive and environmentally destructive.
I was talking to somebody that lives in an area prone to firea. They said decades ago the forest burned randomly without intervention, and it was less devastating because the next year if a fire started it had no travel path due to burned zones. They suggested that now (to protect homes being built) they do water bomobing on fires, so the fuel just accumulates year after year till a big fire starts and travels through all the fueled areas.
They need controlled burns again, or at least forest floor fuel removal.
It’s a proven strategy as far as I’m aware. I have heard experts say they deliberately start a fire to control a wild fire all the time.
All evidence proves that the indigenous people were using controlled, limited fires as forest management since a long time until they were told their land doesn’t belong to them anymore. In theory, it makes sense. Burn the undergrowth and brush so there’s less tinder for wildfires to spread. Mature, alive trees have much less chance of burning down if there’s minimum tinder around to keep the fires burning really hot.
I think it’s worth a shot. The only reason it wasn’t adopted as policy was because people in charge thought “these Indians couldn’t even invent the wheel on their own. What do they know about managing the King’s forests”.
Yeah, its hard not to be skeptical of “Starting forest fires prevents forest fires”. I assume there are good reasons for it but it really does sound counter productive and environmentally destructive.
I was talking to somebody that lives in an area prone to firea. They said decades ago the forest burned randomly without intervention, and it was less devastating because the next year if a fire started it had no travel path due to burned zones. They suggested that now (to protect homes being built) they do water bomobing on fires, so the fuel just accumulates year after year till a big fire starts and travels through all the fueled areas.
They need controlled burns again, or at least forest floor fuel removal.
It’s a proven strategy as far as I’m aware. I have heard experts say they deliberately start a fire to control a wild fire all the time.
All evidence proves that the indigenous people were using controlled, limited fires as forest management since a long time until they were told their land doesn’t belong to them anymore. In theory, it makes sense. Burn the undergrowth and brush so there’s less tinder for wildfires to spread. Mature, alive trees have much less chance of burning down if there’s minimum tinder around to keep the fires burning really hot.
I think it’s worth a shot. The only reason it wasn’t adopted as policy was because people in charge thought “these Indians couldn’t even invent the wheel on their own. What do they know about managing the King’s forests”.