Hacker News Reader

Comment by ahmedalsudani | Hacker News Reader

Does not seem like a valid argument at this point. The latest big wildfire in California (Paradise) included portions of the forest that had burned a few years prior and were mostly grassy at the time of the fire.

I can't find the source I had heard, but it was one of the firefighters giving an interview and talking about forest management... Maybe I should have taken what he said with a hint of salt though ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

View on HN

When they say "let it burn" they don't mean wildly out of control like the Paradise fire. They're talking about letting it burn under optimal conditions, where crowing and running are less likely to happen, to consume fuel that could burn sub-optimal conditions where there is little chance of control.

Less fuel = less intense fire = more likely to control.

I went through fire training for the CA Conservation Corps about 30 years ago and they brought up the let-it-burn theory in a class about forest management.

As support for the theory, they had a map showing recent wild land fire activity in California vs. Mexico. In CA the fires were growing larger over the decades while in Mexico they were not.

A quick search for updated data didn't yield anything for me. I would like to see if the comparison still holds up.

>As support for the theory, they had a map showing recent wild land fire activity in California vs. Mexico. In CA the fires were growing larger over the decades while in Mexico they were not.

That could just as easily be the result of climate change.

Here's a 99 Percent Invisible podcast on the topic that goes against what you're suggesting. I thought it was pretty convincing but I haven't seen much argument for the current practices being helpful, so maybe those are also convincing.

https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/built-to-burn/

Presumably that could be caused by the intensity of the fire? I understand if you really do regularly burn the forests the fires become fast and light skipping the undergrowth rather than these intense conflagrations we see today?

Did the fire gain intensity where there was a recent burn, or just happen to include that area? I'd like to know where the fire gained momentum, what areas were critical to it being a disaster rather than a nuisance.

It started with momentum in an area that had recently burned and moved very quickly because of extremely low humidity and high winds. I live near by and have ridden dirt bikes all over the area it started. It's very inexesable. They could not get to it when it was small and it took off.

Here is an amazing video that shows just how windy it was. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2208918639386879...

It would also help if the local authorities would not give people permits anymore to build houses close to forested areas. Instead more emphasis should be put on building taller houses/buildings which would accommodate more than one family.

If I own the forested land and I want to build there, I should be able to.

Or we should be honest about property ownership in the US: if I have to beg permission from someone calling themselves an "authority", I don't actually own it.

First you should have to sign something acknowledging that you know your house is going to burn and don't expect help, to be used against you if you ever do complain that the forest is on fire.

> If I own the forested land and I want to build there, I should be able to.

That's where we disagree, as I think that the greater societal good is to not let people build houses that might burn at a moment's notice because of forest fire (as was the case with the Paradise town in CA). This would be similar to how in my country you are not allowed to build an apartment building that doesn't respect some earthquake-resistance rules.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com