|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 13, 2020 15:17:03 GMT
AS was found in Australia, if you let the fuel for fires build up by continually extinguishing small fires, eventually there is so much fuel that it exceeds the capability of the fire services to stop the fire. Then regardless of what is done the fires will burn until that is no longer the case. This turns what would have been a series of relatively small fires in a patchwork of old and new growth that wildlife can escape from, into a firestorm that kills all wildlife as it is along a fire front that is too long for them to escape. There should not be prescribed burns, natural fires should be allowed to burn out with fire suppression where it is needed to protect humans. Zoning could be set up where people can build but at their own risk as it is a no fire-suppression zone so don't expect anyone to come and save your property. Surely even Californian greens would be able to accept a system where 'natural' fires were allowed to burn?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 13, 2020 16:33:26 GMT
AS was found in Australia, if you let the fuel for fires build up by continually extinguishing small fires, eventually there is so much fuel that it exceeds the capability of the fire services to stop the fire. Then regardless of what is done the fires will burn until that is no longer the case. This turns what would have been a series of relatively small fires in a patchwork of old and new growth that wildlife can escape from, into a firestorm that kills all wildlife as it is along a fire front that is too long for them to escape. There should not be prescribed burns, natural fires should be allowed to burn out with fire suppression where it is needed to protect humans. Zoning could be set up where people can build but at their own risk as it is a no fire-suppression zone so don't expect anyone to come and save your property. Surely even Californian greens would be able to accept a system where 'natural' fires were allowed to burn? I suspect this is where the problem lies... "Maintenance, conservation and enhancement of ecosystem biodiversity" www.pefc.org/what-we-do/our-approach/what-is-sustainable-forest-managementProtecting ecosystems basically means leave alone. I think that if you leave a forest alone in US, you create fire hazards.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 13, 2020 17:11:17 GMT
AS was found in Australia, if you let the fuel for fires build up by continually extinguishing small fires, eventually there is so much fuel that it exceeds the capability of the fire services to stop the fire. Then regardless of what is done the fires will burn until that is no longer the case. This turns what would have been a series of relatively small fires in a patchwork of old and new growth that wildlife can escape from, into a firestorm that kills all wildlife as it is along a fire front that is too long for them to escape. There should not be prescribed burns, natural fires should be allowed to burn out with fire suppression where it is needed to protect humans. Zoning could be set up where people can build but at their own risk as it is a no fire-suppression zone so don't expect anyone to come and save your property. Surely even Californian greens would be able to accept a system where 'natural' fires were allowed to burn? I suspect this is where the problem lies... "Maintenance, conservation and enhancement of ecosystem biodiversity" www.pefc.org/what-we-do/our-approach/what-is-sustainable-forest-managementProtecting ecosystems basically means leave alone. I think that if you leave a forest alone in US, you create fire hazards. Forests burn and have done since there were forests. Stopping all burning is like damming all rain water - eventually you get the fire/flood and it is bigger than you can handle
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 13, 2020 17:32:08 GMT
AS was found in Australia, if you let the fuel for fires build up by continually extinguishing small fires, eventually there is so much fuel that it exceeds the capability of the fire services to stop the fire. Then regardless of what is done the fires will burn until that is no longer the case. This turns what would have been a series of relatively small fires in a patchwork of old and new growth that wildlife can escape from, into a firestorm that kills all wildlife as it is along a fire front that is too long for them to escape. There should not be prescribed burns, natural fires should be allowed to burn out with fire suppression where it is needed to protect humans. Zoning could be set up where people can build but at their own risk as it is a no fire-suppression zone so don't expect anyone to come and save your property. Surely even Californian greens would be able to accept a system where 'natural' fires were allowed to burn? I suspect this is where the problem lies... "Maintenance, conservation and enhancement of ecosystem biodiversity" www.pefc.org/what-we-do/our-approach/what-is-sustainable-forest-managementProtecting ecosystems basically means leave alone. I think that if you leave a forest alone in US, you create fire hazards. Growing back and intensively managing what your ancestors cut over before, is important in a small area like north Italy. We Americans have only recently exited(?) the cut-it-down-and-move-on phase of the eastern-robber-barons-raping-the-west. Fire "hazards" are very much a term defined by people moving into the forest and expecting the government to keep their dream dens from burning down. Very similar to the wealthy who build their pleasure dens amongst the dunes of a hurricane-prone coast and expect the government to subsidize their insurance rates. Don't know where the video's forest is located, but it looks very much like parts of extreme northwest Italy (Liguria) which we drove from San Remo to Apricale, to Bajardo, to Ceriana and back (note google clip). www.google.com/maps/place/Metropolitan+City+of+Genoa,+Italy/@43.8678608,7.6492476,16734m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x12d35bb149ff3e8b:0x305e67d473c7e00!8m2!3d44.4056493!4d8.9462564 These Med vegetative communities are very much modified by aspect. West to southwest slopes are much drier, with associated plant communities, than north to southeastern slopes, which are wetter and very lush (in a Med context). While man has modified, natural conditions control what will grow back.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 15, 2020 5:06:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 15, 2020 11:40:12 GMT
And here is the real problem. Natural fires need to be allowed to burn out. Like building in a flood plain, building in a forest should come with acceptance that you will NOT receive any fire department support to 'save your house'. Forests should be a patchwork of burned, new growth and old growth. That is their natural state and fires will be limited as they will get to new growth that doesn't burn. The continual extinguishing of fires allows plants like non-native grasses to invade making the problems worse.
|
|
|
Post by gridley on Sept 16, 2020 12:41:11 GMT
Surely even Californian greens would be able to accept a system where 'natural' fires were allowed to burn? I think you're expecting too much intelligence from California greens.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 16, 2020 12:50:58 GMT
Surely even Californian greens would be able to accept a system where 'natural' fires were allowed to burn? I think you're expecting too much intelligence from California ANY greens. Fixed it for you, Gridley.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 16, 2020 14:01:11 GMT
I think you're expecting too much intelligence from California ANY greens. Fixed it for you, Gridley. I like my greens "prost rate".
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 16, 2020 14:25:54 GMT
Fixed it for you, Gridley. I like my greens "prost rate". Gives a whole new meaning to blanching greens
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Sept 16, 2020 18:36:46 GMT
The greens are totally unfocused on the quality of the environment they view the fires as a vector to political change, its as well to be clear in thought.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 20, 2021 19:18:50 GMT
|
|