What causes so many forest fires in British Columbia, Canada?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by pluto2, Jun 14, 2013.

  1. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    Aren't forest fires natural?

    Forest fires rarely move that fast, but can grow at speeds up to 1 or 2 miles an hour, nearly as fast as a man can walk. Typically, it takes hours to move firefighting assets into place, once a forest fire is spotted, and a forest fire might easily burn for hours before being spotted. Once the smoke plume starts pouring into the sky, the fire is already so "out of control" it will not easily be suppressed. By the time the first firefighters can get there, during times of high potential for wildfire growth, the fire may have spread over 100s of acres, and is already so large that a few firetrucks can't do much other than temporarily close an affected road. Many forest fires occur out in inaccessible terrain, or in places where natural firebreaks lack, and the forest goes on and on and on.

    This is some of the reasons, I think that more forest fires should be allowed to grow or fizzle naturally, without much if any fire suppression, out in areas sufficiently remote. One of the most obvious ways to reduce the high costs of fighting forest fires, is to fight fewer fires, and leave more wildfires to nature to manage.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2013
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Australia has been for years more attentive, rigorous, and prescriptive in its wildfire management than anywhere in the US. I don't know for sure about British Columbia, but I believe it's similar to the US in that regard.

    A couple of pages in a book written in the 1980s, "Playing God in Yellowstone", describes the reaction of an Australian wildfire professional visiting some semi-urban areas of SW US - he was actually frightened: he was looking at a potential holocaust (complete with fire-adapted eucalyptus from Australia, a common imported urban decorative tree in southern California). We didn't then, and still don't, have the kind of serious approach common in Australia.

    The lumber companies are missing from this thread - they have long supported excessive fire suppression, management of forests to produce large even-aged near-monocultural landscapes of flammable trees, and various practices that contribute to disease and pest outbreaks that increase fire vulnerability in the landscape. That may be more of a factor in British Columbia than in Australia?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    If more forest land was opened to logging, would that reduce the perceived need for excessive wildfire suppression? If more forest fires were allowed to spread naturally, until they burn out on their own, out in areas sufficiently remote, they could just log in other areas, and there would still be plenty of trees. And don't burned areas also have salvageable lumber, if it can harvested earlier enough without enviro-wackos monkey-wrenching and causing delays, before it all rots?
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2013
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.

Share This Page