Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Morgan
Most prevention measures in US forests have been abandoned along with many of the fire breaks that you mention.
Cattle grazing has also become a no no, meaning that more grass and underbrush adds fuel to the fire.
Gradiens super tenui glacie.
|
This may be accurate in the eastern U.S. forests, but not in the western forests. In fact, I was at a meeting with the Forest Service just last night to discuss this topic. Unfortunately, it’s become a hugely complex issue. You can’t just go do a clear cut, or “fuel reduction project” anymore. They’ve got to consider safety, property rights, air pollution, threatened or endangered species, water impacts, access limitations, soil impacts, recreation impacts, viewshed impacts, timber value, socio-economic impacts, wildlife impacts, grazing impacts, environmentalist objections, etc. etc. Therefore, it’s not uncommon for the planning for a fuels project to take 2-3 years. Then, if the project involves a controlled burn, you’ve got to wait for the right conditions, which could take several more years. Because of all this the projects seem to be smaller, but more scientifically based. The project we were discussing last night involved modeling burn patterns. With the model, the thought was that they could treat a small area that would essentially cut the “fuse” that would carry the fire, and stop the spread. It’s quite fascinating.
Also, grazing is very common. In our area, all public lands are open to grazing unless it is precluded for a specific reason. So most lands are grazed. Some areas have sensitive habitats that make it incompatible for grazing, and those are carefully identified.