
US Forest Service Prevents Its Own Scientists from Talking About Study - throwaway_yy2Di
http://kvpr.org/post/us-forest-service-prevents-its-own-scientists-talking-about-study
======
roflchoppa
Man that's some crap right there. Science should be in the direct interest of
politics, esp. in the case of ecology, environmental studies.

What does it mean to be forbidden to speak, that's a load of shit, if there is
someone that's studying the field, allow them to present the facts of what
occurs, and whats the best way (saving lives of wildlife, cost effectiveness,
etc) to officials.

a load of bullshit its whats holding us back.

~~~
a3n
> What does it mean to be forbidden to speak

It means you'll lose your job if you speak.

~~~
roflchoppa
i do understand the implications, what i dont understand is the reasoning.

------
Hermel
Francis Fukuyama recently wrote an excellent article about the US Forest
Service in Foreign Affairs. Title: America in Decay

[https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-
states/2014-0...](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-
states/2014-08-18/america-decay)

~~~
jqm
"45 percent of recent new hires to the federal service are veterans, as
mandated by Congress"

This is disturbing if true. Certainly not a way to get the best quality work
force.

~~~
reitanqild
Not sure if I agree... 45% might be a too high percentage but hiring veterans?
Absolutely yes. Likely a win/win.

Federal services get provably dependable people and veterans get work.

~~~
jqm
Simply showing up doesn't make one "provably dependable". One needs to
actually carry out tasks, something the armed services are woefully inadequate
at. Which is of course why all the contractors.

It's a terrible idea to mandate this. Horrible.

~~~
reitanqild
Don't underestimate soldiers.

If doing what you are supposed to do again and again even when your life is at
risk isn't proof of being dependable I don't know what does.

Not saying this is the only thing Federal Services need but doubting their
_dependability_ seems unjusified.

Many contractors on the other hand seems to have their

------
throwaway_yy2Di
Here's the paper they're talking about:

[https://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6254/1280.summary](https://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6254/1280.summary)

Unfortunately only the abstract seems to be free.

~~~
toufka
Some non-paywalled resources for more information are cited directly from
within the paper:

"Although agencies are slow to reform internally, they may more rapidly
respond to local stakeholder pressure... This has begun to change as
communities increasingly threatened by large fires are urging land-management
agencies to accelerate fuel reduction efforts, including the use of managed
fire [1][2]."

[1]
[http://yosemitestanislaussolutions.com](http://yosemitestanislaussolutions.com)

[2] [http://4fri.org](http://4fri.org)

------
hownottowrite
There's a nifty disclaimer in the main text: "The content is solely the
responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official
views of the USFS."

In any case, here are few of the more interesting citations from the full
text.

"Globally, wildfire size, severity, and frequency have been increasing, as
have related fatalities and taxpayer-funded firefighting costs" CITATION:
[http://nature.berkeley.edu/stephenslab/wp-
content/uploads/20...](http://nature.berkeley.edu/stephenslab/wp-
content/uploads/2015/04/stephens-et-al-boreal-mega-fires.pdf)

"But the 2% of wildfires that escape containment often burn under extreme
weather conditions in fuel-loaded forests and account for 97% of fire-fighting
costs and total area burned" CITATION: [http://www.wildfire-
economics.org/Library/Calkin_et_al_2005....](http://www.wildfire-
economics.org/Library/Calkin_et_al_2005.pdf)

Bonus: Malcolm North on Climate Change and Wildfires -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9buMJNu6v4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9buMJNu6v4)

------
rsync
I've read this through a few times and have yet to see anything even remotely
controversial.

It's accepted, conventional wisdom - so deeply as to be cliche - everywhere in
the fire service that managed burning and moving away from the emphasis on
"stopping all burns no matter what" is the way to go.

I've never spoken to anyone that disagreed with this on any level other than
specific tactics...

~~~
neltnerb
This was certainly common enough knowledge that it was taught to me explicitly
in Boy Scouts back in 1997. Preventing all forest fires builds up undergrowth
so that the severity of eventual fires is much worse and they are less
controllable.

At the time, they were doing controlled burns of the Boy Scout camp (Philmont)
in Nevada to try to make up for decades of undergrowth buildup before they
knew better.

~~~
BuffaloBagel
Philmont is in New Mexico.

~~~
neltnerb
I learned my geography in Indiana!

...

------
nraynaud
Can anyone show some example maps of the proposed zoning? I have trouble
envisioning the proposed policy.

~~~
Sanddancer
It doesn't sound like there are example maps, as this is just a paper studying
what has happened, and one possible future mitigation. From what it sounds
like, if we use Los Padres National Forest as an example, [1] they'll let
areas near Alamo Mountain burn, but Pinon Pines Estates and Lake of the Woods
would get forces concentrated there, with preventative forestry work to thin
trees, etc to make things more manageable.

[1]
[https://www.google.com/maps/place/Los+Padres+National+Forest...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Los+Padres+National+Forest/@34.7086697,-119.1781503,11z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x80ec84fd38f0735f:0x445f88fa1ca91e6c)

~~~
nraynaud
how does propagation work? wouldn't a fire travel all the way from a inhabited
place to the habitations? do they have some kind of maximal propagation
distance?

~~~
Sanddancer
Short answer: it's complicated. It's possible, and near definite if they
started this policy without getting a forest close to natural, that letting
areas burn could burn from "wild" areas to inhabited areas. Normally, fires
would be stopped by natural firebreaks, like rainstorms, rivers and canyons,
or unnatural firebreaks, like fire roads. However, because fire policy has
been to put all fires out immediately, all of the dead brush, fallen branches,
etc, are left to litter the floor of the forest. This means that a fire, which
would normally just scorch the base of the living trees and ignite some of the
dead but standing trees, would have a very good chance to burn nice and hot
due to all the kindling in the form of dead brush and growth. This would in
turn end up igniting even trees that reproduce in the fire cycle, like pines
and sequoias, leaving the forest absolutely barren for miles and miles.

However, there are ways to get the land fairly close to natural so that fires
can stay relatively small. One of which is through prescribed burns, where the
forestry department will intentionally, and carefully, set an area on fire to
clear up all the brush and dead growth to act as an imitation of the natural
process. It would also mean doing things like carefully grooming the areas
around inhabited places to give even less fuel for any kind of fire.
Unfortunately, implementing such policy would be very difficult because it
would involve needing a lot of firefighters in the near term to manage
prescribed burns, and the powers that be are hesitant to give much money to
the forest service as it is.

------
contingencies
On Australian aboriginal peoples' burnoff traditions:
[http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2010/12/aborigin...](http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2010/12/aboriginal-
burn-off-theory-hosed-down/) and
[http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/management/fire/fire-and-the-
envir...](http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/management/fire/fire-and-the-
environment/41-traditional-aboriginal-burning)

------
CapitalistCartr
Way to promote the paper and make sure its gets plenty of news coverage. I
wish I could think they planned it that way, but I know better.

------
bro-stick
We own a rural residential property near Chico, CA on top of a mesa in a fire-
prone area, and the forest "management" is haphazard, combined with clueless
American neighbors whom the city has to force to mow their weeds and remove
fuel from their land, and you have a constant battle against stupid and/or
lazy people whom don't know how to mange their land and are liabilties to
everyone else. I'm often think about "accidentally" chucking a roadflare in
their yard to get them with the program.

IIRC forest management changed significantly under either Bush Sr. or Clinton.

------
rasz_pl
Dear scientist, please shut up, you are ruining our budget rise prospects.
Bigger the fires bigger the budget and elevated importance of management
positions.

~~~
raintrees
I read it more as "we have spent all of the prevention money on fighting."

Along the lines of the "when you are up to your ass in alligators, it may be
hard to remember that your original goal was to drain the swamp."

