Welcome, guest [login | register]

Posted by Bill S on November 7, 2007 at 9:30:25 pm EST
In reply to Cali wildfires posted by MTB416 on October 27, 2007 at 11:40:17 am EDT

Actually, it is pretty obvious and has been known for a long time -
1. Given the existing houses, clear defensible spaces around them.
2. Restrict the further expansion into undeveloped areas
3. Provide adequate funding for increasing the number of trained fire fighters and equipment, including the improved distribution of fire stations
4. Controlled burns where possible, during low fire danger seasons (a major contributor to the extent and intensity was the extremely low humidity - in the sub 10 percent range, combined with the katabatic winds, known as Santa Ana winds in this area. Controlled burns have to be done during the rainy season).
5. Failing controlled burns (or letting naturally caused fires to continue to burn while only protecting existing structures), artificially remove the dead and fallen debris and thin the living plants (trees, manzanita and other chaparral, and bushy undergrowth).

The problem is that all of these are politically extremely controversial. Even after the South Tahoe fire, there has continued strong opposition to clearing brush and trees from around houses and businesses, while at the same time loud demands for the "authorities" to "do something" (just who the "authorities" are and the "something" is hotly argued). The Oakland Hills, scene of the disastrous fire of just a few years ago, have been rebuilt with just as many houses on the same narrow roads, with the vegetation back just as thick and as close to the houses as before the fire.

Restriction of expansion is viewed as an intrusion on property owners' rights to do with their property as they please.

Funding increased fire protection requires finding the sources of funding, something very difficult to do without raising taxes or cutting elsewhere in the budgets (schools? health? highway maintenance? somewhere else seen as vital?).

Controlled burns are widely seen as interfering with nature as well as creating large amounts of unhealthy smoke and creating ugly burn scars on the landscape, and when they sometimes get out of hand, the agency doing the controlled burns is excoriated for their carelessness.

Clearing undergrowth and thinning remove needed nutrients, destroy habitat for a wide variety of animals, and create a generally unhealthy ecosystem that is subject to a variety of plant and animal diseases, as well as producing a genetically limited landcover. This will eventually destroy the wilderness playground that a large portion of the population wants to have, and the very thing that people building and buying in the areas are seeking.

At this point in time, we are paying the price for practices of the past that have allowed unrestrained development, pushing the urban-wilderness further and further into the wilderness, vigorously suppressing wildfires (a term which in itself denotes the attitude that led to fire suppression being the standard mode of operation), and at the same time demanding the preservation of the wilderness as a playground.

So even though the answer is obvious and has been known for a long time, the price and restrictions are considered to be unacceptable. What will it take to provide the motivation to make the necessary moves? I have no answer for that.

Replies

View: flat | threaded

There have been no replies

Post a Reply

Before replying, please read the complete thread.