Hacker News Reader

Comment by jeifneioka | Hacker News Reader

Slight tangent, USFS has been using outdated models for their prescribed burns, and burned as late as July in my area, right at the beginning of fire season and months away from any expected precipitation. This turned into a big wildfire in my area and they spent ~$100m putting it out. You may have been able to get away with burning during the summer in the 90's here, but not anymore.

I'm not opposed to prescribed burns, either, I think they are totally necessary. But do them in the fall, when you've got nothing but rain and cool temperatures for the next 6 months, instead of weeks before the hottest and driest stretch of the year.

As to why they burn in early summer, they said at a community meeting it's because it requires fewer people to manage the fire.

View on HN

Prescribed burns do more than just burn up the dead wood to prevent forest fires. One of the other main goals is to kill invasive trees / plants while they are young. Doing burns in the fall after they have already spread their seeds for the next season would do nothing to prevent this. Another goal of spring burns is to stimulate the germination of specific tree species like the Giant Sequoia, Closed-cone coniferous, and some berry trees (maybe others). Most prescribed burns are done in early to late spring, not sure about summer burns.

If the only goal is to prevent forest fires, then in theory you could just send a hoard of people in to gather up all the dead wood at the end of each season, pile it up and have some nice fall bonfires, which might be fun. The main issue is the terrain harsh and would be very time-consuming.

To your last paragraph - it's not just dead wood that is the issue - right?

In CA, there is a lot of shrubbery that turns brown and grasses.

Second, (west coast) forests that have not burned in a while look like a big brick of plant matter. Mostly living, dense, from ground to 30 feet high of plant matter that will combust when it is dry, windy, and a fire that is plenty hot to even burn the roots several feet deep.

You are correct that there is typically more to wildfires than dead wood, as in they typically start with dry pine needles, leaves, tall dry grasses, and spread quickly via slightly taller vegetation up to the trees. There is a science to when a prescribed burn can happen, and there are seasons that will not be right for any given location, so the burn is a no go. The conditions need to be just right (wind so it does not cross a highway / blow into a farmer’s livestock, humidity, time since last rain fall. This has a lot to do with the rate at which the fuel will burn. Fuel less than 0.25 inches will burn within an hour of the last rain and may burn for an hour after igniting. 0.25 – 1 inch 10-hour, 1 - 3 inch 100-hour, 3 – 8 1,000 hour. So, the smaller stuff burns quickly but may or may not start a larger hour fuel. Once the larger fuel starts is when it becomes a serious problem since now it’s hotter and hotter and eventually starts the living trees on fire. If you were to manually remove the 100 – 1000 hour fuels, some of which are dead trees still standing or held up by living trees (unable to fall / stuck sideways). The risk of an all-out forest fire starting would go down, but still not be zero (like you say in a drought / super dry conditions). In the end you can only reduce the risk, never eliminate it (short of clear cutting).

> big brick of plant matter

as an avid outdoorsman, please explain this. I’ve never seen a “brick of plant matter”.

I have seen overgrown shrubs and grass, but I’ve never seen the forest form a compressed brick of plant matter.

Also if plants are living they have water in them.

Big brick is a metaphor. Not compressed, but solid. Essentially enough plant matter that you can't walk through it, plant matter that is "solid" from ground to the tree branches.

For example, on this site: http://willhiteweb.com/washington_fire_lookouts/miller_hill/...

This image: http://willhiteweb.com/washington_fire_lookouts/miller_hill/...

I've seen unburned forests where that undergrowth is more dense and taller. The more time, the more that underbrush thickens and grows. Eventually there is an old growth forest and that stuff is shaded out. AFAIK that process plays out o er centuries. We're typically in the first century of growth for west coast forests (few old growth forests remain)

Compare for example with these images of a post-burn forest: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/nyregion/nj-pine-barrens-...

ah yea i think we agree then.

Nature does what it does, we just live here. Burning only during certain times of the year would work if you stayed on top of it. But here we are. So now this situation will get worse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com