Forest Fire Suppression

It's natural for forests to burn from time to time. Preventing such is actually much worse in the long run.

I haven't been following this specific news story, but I remember from my environmental sociology class that fire prevention in forests eventually leads to unnatural states that are then prone to massive uncontainable fires. Have they been suppressing natural fire in this region for too long? If this fire is naturally burning, then isn't the best response to let it run its course unless human lives are threatened?

Forest fires are part of the natural life of forests, trying to stop them is counter productive, the more you delay them the more fuel there is to burn (accumulation of fuel: dead plants, dead trees, &c.)Not everything has to be fixed by technology and controlled by humans.https://www.accuweath

I don't know about Australia, but here in Northern California, that's not how it works. 500 years ago, forest fires were common, cool burning, and did more good than harm. Today, it's been so long since the previous fire that there's a huge amount of underbrush and dead material. When a fire comes through, it's so hot that it kills everything, including huge, old growth doug fir trees. However, it's not hot enough to actually incinerate the old growth trees, so you

There is a small but growing movement towards controlled burns of forests and such because not burning for long enough creates conditions that make wildfires even bigger and harder to stop. If you can rotate between enough zones over time the burned area can regrow fully. It has been said that part of the reason wildfires get so bad now is because we do not let them partake in their normal cycle of burning down occasionally.

Get over it, the forest needs to burn down occasionally.

Controlled burns are a thing for a reason.

There used to be redwoods all over california. Hardy fire resistant trees, now they are relatively scarce. Second,wood is heavy. The economics to remove dead trees is not there, does not get done for reasons. Next, the area of the land is immense. Cutting fird brakes through it us tens of millions of acres. Further, fire breaks do little in high wind situations. What does move the needle are forest fires. Letting them burn. We've been practicing industrial scale fire suppression since the 5

Probably that many places have pursued policies of preventing forest fires entirely when they are actually a natural part of ecological development. If you keep preventing forest fires, you end up with a lot more potential fuel buildup than if you let them burn once in a while.I'm sure someone will point out that CA does controlled burns on occasion, but it's not the same thing.Edit: here's some reading on the topic: <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/09&

Trees are supposed to burn but in patches and not en masse due to previous fires in adjoining areas. This is especially true in the area you left. The natural state of the area should be a variety of forest in different levels of maturity which helps contain the fires that do occur in the most mature and overgrown areas. The less mature forest or previous burn scars act as natural fire breaks.