Too bad we had to have those big fires. . .

huntr1

huntr1

.
It's not that the Govt. that had to wise up, it's that they had to stop being intimidated by the minority eco-terrorists in the Demorcap camp and finally do what needed to be done.
 
jlabsher

jlabsher

Sorry about that chief.
Actually, thinning doesn't prevent forest fires. I lived in the SW and Pac NW for a few years, even worked on a thinning crew. It can prevent some of the spread. The main problem is the rapid expansion of homes into the mountains/wooded areas throughout the west. We've had these big fires for years but they never threatened homes, now that everybody & their brother has a half million dollar home in the foothills you hear them sobbing when fire takes it.
 
huntr1

huntr1

.
But the thinning does remove the underbrush, which then helps to prevent the fires (which are not preventable) from getting so out of control & spreading so fast.
 
T

tlatchaw

Not dead yet.
If there is less fuel to burn, then perhaps the damage to the valuable "old growth" trees that everyone is concerned about will be less because the fires will not burn as hot or as long around the mature trees. Just a theory, but it may mean that the forest is saved.

Fire is not always a bad thing, I don't remember which species, but some pines actually need fire to open their cones so that the seeds can germinate and start the new forest.

You're probably right about the homes, Jlab, when 10,000 acres of forest burn you don't hear as much about as when you throw a few homes in there as well. I guess that's a hazard of the area, sort of like hurricanes on the east coast (still cleaning up from Isabelle at my place.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top