
To manage wildfire, California looks to what tribes have known all along - jweir
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/24/899422710/to-manage-wildfire-california-looks-to-what-tribes-have-known-all-along
======
white-flame
The US and state governments have long done controlled burns as well; this
isn't some lost native american art. It's just that in more recent years,
homeowners and tourism boards and the like really, really didn't want any
fires at all, no matter the consequence.

~~~
dfsegoat
Sonoma County, CA here. Can confirm it’s not some lost art and controlled
burns were common.

From the time I was a child to now, controlled burns have basically vanished.
It correlated with people moving here.

Propublica recently confirmed this anecdote:

[https://www.propublica.org/article/they-know-how-to-
prevent-...](https://www.propublica.org/article/they-know-how-to-prevent-
megafires-why-wont-anybody-listen)

~~~
krn
What a great read. Thank you.

> We live in a Mediterranean climate that’s designed to burn, and we’ve
> prevented it from burning anywhere close to enough for well over a hundred
> years. Now climate change has made it hotter and drier than ever before, and
> the fire we’ve been forestalling is going to happen, fast, whether we plan
> for it or not.

> Megafires, like the ones that have ripped this week through 1 million acres
> (so far), will continue to erupt until we’ve flared off our stockpiled
> fuels. No way around that.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Would controlled burns still be useful at this stage, or is _flaring off_ in
megafires the only way forward now?

I'm from South Australia, so raging fatal bushfires were a part of my
childhood.

~~~
Andrew_nenakhov
Yes, controlled burns are useful at any stage. It's not like current climate
is the hottest ever for this planet. In fact, it's one of the more cold ones:
glaciation still exists!

~~~
vikramkr
by the point we leave the ice age, there's no guarantee that there'll be
anything left to burn - the whole place could undergo desertification well
before the ice caps melt.

~~~
Andrew_nenakhov
It is extremely unlikely. Go to google maps, somewhere near perm and zoom to a
level where you can see individual buildings. Then try scrolling east to
Vladivostok, and notice how long it will take and how many trees are there.

~~~
akiselev
It happens slowly, then all at once...

Worst case predictions for complete loss of the ice sheets is 500 years [1]
while the desertification of Mesopotamia only took a few hundred years of pre-
Common era agriculture. Russia's forests are vast but we're on an industrial
speed run and I've seen how fast the populations can collapse here in
California thanks to some beetles and a single extended drought. Every time I
visit my hometown I see the same thing happening in Russia in an ecosystem and
society that are, like California and its chaparrals, completely unprepared
for increasingly hostile weather.

[1] [https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/will-
antarctica...](https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/will-antarctica-
melt)

------
babesh
In the 80’s, there was a fight won by the left to stop logging especially of
old growth. I think that they were right to prevent the wholesale cutting down
of trees but they went too far. They also prevented culling of trees and
controlled burns. They argued that culling would just be an excuse to continue
logging. They also argued that controlled burns would incentivize logging. The
prevention of culling and controlled burns caused underbrush to grow and grow.
The side effect of massive fires was known even then and was ignored by the
left.

Now we are suffering from that ideological purity stupidity. The forests were
just a bomb waiting to go off and at least in the Bay Area were triggered by
the massive number of lightning strikes.

Some additional points.

This isn’t due to urban encroachment. Just look at the number and extent of
the forest fires. They are basically everywhere including areas with very few
people.

Forest fires are a natural occurrence but our actions tilted it toward massive
fires and massive numbers of simultaneous fires.

Must we again suffer from ideological purity stupidity? This isn’t directly
caused by global warming.

Edit: people who downvote because this strikes too close to home are sad

------
Zippogriff
_1491_ covers "Indian fire" quite a bit. Seems that much of North America was
under some form of active management by native peoples before Europeans
arrived, and one of the main ways, and probably _the_ main way, by area, was
very frequent fire-setting. The book even suggests that might be why there
_is_ a "Great Plains", in the nearly-treeless form European settlers found it,
while in the East early European accounts tell of huge forest "wildernesses"
so universally free of undergrowth one could easily ride a horse through them,
which would become impassably full of low growth by a couple hundred years
later as the burning stopped.

~~~
WalterBright
I live next to a greenbelt. It is pretty much impossible to push your way
through the undergrowth. I'm aware that if it ever catches on fire my house is
toast.

~~~
rasz
You just need a bigger boat
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYkW6k5gUlw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYkW6k5gUlw)

------
TheRealPomax
More like "literally everyone remotely working in wildfire management", but
government refuses to actually enact it on the scale necessary.

------
jekdoce
Since burning releases CO2 into the atmosphere, are there alternatives to
burning? Maybe it's difficult to do something with the vast amount of dry
wood/plants, even if one manages to collect them?

~~~
Pfhreak
This is a totally valid question that is getting down votes it shouldn't. And
the answer is yes, there are alternatives to burning.

Burning will return what the tree pulled out of the atmosphere, so it's
already carbon neutral.

Decomposition and fertilization (eg hugelkulture) will also release greenhouse
gases. So, again, carbon neutral.

Pyrolysis allows you to produce synthetic gas, biochar, and energy from the
wood. Biochar is a useful industrial and agricultural product, and it's pretty
much just solid carbon. Hypothetically you could bury it and be carbon
negative, but there isn't really anyone doing that at scale.

You could also bury the wood deeply enough that it wouldn't re enter the
carbon cycle, but wood is heavy, large, and difficult to move around.

I hope your down voters realize the intent of your question (can we sequester
the carbon from forest waste/slash rather than releasing it?) and adjust their
votes.

~~~
jstanley
> Burning will return what the tree pulled out of the atmosphere, so it's
> already carbon neutral.

Couldn't you make the same argument about burning literally anything?

Doesn't burning oil just return carbon to the atmosphere that was already in
the atmosphere at one point anyway?

~~~
Pfhreak
Coal and oil are adding carbon to the atmosphere that was not there within
human timeframes. Yes, perhaps on a geologic scale it is neutral, but we
generally think about carbon on a human scale.

------
cubictoaster
I don't get why we talk about forest management as if it's the main culprit
for what's going on right now.

Don't y'all remember between 2012 and 2017 the west coast went through a
MASSIVE DROUGHT? Are Californians really this forgetful?

The constant dry heat waves killing off large swaths of our forests is the
thing that is now providing the tinder for our massive fires. Other states
like Washington, Oregon, and Idaho are experiencing the same thing. It's not
just California.

I've been here a long time and I don't ever remember experiencing smoke
smothering our cities for weeks on end until these past few years.

Calling out forest management like it's some sort of magic bullet is kind of
like telling individuals to stop using straws to clean up ocean waste.

Sure, it might help a little but it doesn't really solve the root cause
systemic issue: Climate Change.

~~~
option
It is estimated that 3 mil acres burned in 2020 so far. But before the Golden
Rush that number is estimated to be 4.5 mil of acres per year. We need better
forest management which means more controlled burns.

Climate change is not the root cause here, it is an amplifier. Which means we
need to plan for the effects of climate change too. And the only hope to slow
climate change is a _global_ effort, or at the very least on a country level.
California closes nuclear power plants earlier than expected and then LA
county buys 18% of its electricity from Utah generated on coal plants.

~~~
cubictoaster
I don't get it. While I wasn't alive in the period immediately following the
gold rush, I've been here over 40 years and I don't ever remember fires
blanketing our entire state in smoke for extended periods of time until
recently.

Did we just get lucky somehow between the Gold Rush and 2018?

I agree w/ you on global effort for climate change. Hopefully we can get
started on a National level soon.

~~~
option
no we didn’t get lucky. We started fighting fires which used to occur
naturally. That leads to accumulation of unhealthy forest growth which
eventually burns in a big way (now).

And of course other effects like PG&E not maintaining their grid =>
unnecessary fires; more people live in forests => more deadly/damaging fires;
etc.

As usual, looking at data and scientific consensus will help, I just hope we
start doing so sooner, rather than later

~~~
cubictoaster
Didn't you say we started fighting fires right after the gold rush?

You'd expect maybe after 30 or 40 years in 1900, we would have seen the
massive statewide fires like we have now.

But I find it hard to believe we have to wait all the way until 2017 to see
the results of "fighting fires"

------
dang
Recent and related:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24323379](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24323379)

------
IncRnd
To be blunt, this is CAs own fault.

I remember a couple of decades ago people were talking about how they weren't
allowed to clear or perform controlled burns on the dead underbrush. People
can think they are doing good but are actually being shortsighted, causing
more problems than they fix.

~~~
ngokevin
CA owns 3% of its forest lands.

~~~
bpodgursky
CA can put restrictions on land owned by individuals. What's your point?

~~~
mattnewton
Not who you are responding to, but can they put restrictions on land under the
federal BLM? My understanding is that the feds manage about 58% of
California’s forestland, including much of what is on fire right now.

It’s a mess; the state and local government should do more, but also the feds,
people should stop building up so much in the woods, etc. lots of blame in a
complicated situation with no easy answers.

[https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/08/13/california-u-s-forest-
serv...](https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/08/13/california-u-s-forest-service-
establish-shared-long-term-strategy-to-manage-forests-and-rangelands/)

------
throwawaysea
Preventative techniques are being ignored by our governments, who are instead
focused on political messaging around climate change. Climate change may
indeed be worsening dry fuel loads, but there’s a lot in terms of forest
management that simply isn’t being addressed and could go a long way in
preventing wildfires.

As this article notes, controlled burns are an important tool, and based on
personal observation they seem vastly underused today compared to the
frequency with which we used to see them in the past. We also need responsible
forest management to thin trees and clear brush. We also need proper
management (or funding) of power utilities, which have been responsible for
many wildfires on the West coast - and I don’t mean just PG&E in CA (see
[https://www.wsj.com/articles/pg-e-sparked-at-
least-1-500-cal...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/pg-e-sparked-at-
least-1-500-california-fires-now-the-utility-faces-collapse-11547410768)), as
some recent fires in WA were also sparked by power lines downed by trees that
were too close and poorly managed. We also need relaxed regulations for
private land owners - I know home owners in WA who were prevented from
removing dangerous trees on their land and the difficult, expensive, time
consuming process of getting permits caused them to give up and ignore the
trees ultimately until they naturally fell. Unfortunately I had a tree fall on
my house that my neighbor ignored for the same reasons.

It feels to me like basic common sense techniques to prevent wildfires have
been abandoned, and rules intended to protect the environment have backfired
in some cases.

Forestry management works: WaPo has noted that Finland does a lot better than
its neighbors when it comes to wildfires due to controlled burns and
compartmentalization of forests
([https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/11/19/why-
finland-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/11/19/why-finland-is-
so-good-handling-forest-fires-hint-its-not-because-raking/)). That
compartmentalizations comes in part from a dense forest road network that
makes the forests accessible and has also subdivided them
([https://www.is.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000005903733.html](https://www.is.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000005903733.html)).
Another interesting note is that Trump was widely ridiculed for his “raking”
comment, but he was somewhat correct, although he misunderstood the term.
Visit a clear cut of a timber stand in WA or OR and you’ll see a tangled mess
left on the ground (brush, branches, stumps) that’ll dry up into a mass of
fuel waiting for a spark. In Finland, they invest in clearing the land of what
would otherwise be prime forest fire fuel in a process known as a “root rake”
(see example video of machinery at
[https://youtu.be/o_EZeAiy3ew](https://youtu.be/o_EZeAiy3ew)).

Voters need to draw more attention to preventative techniques and ask that
funds be redirected accordingly. In Washington state, our Department of
Natural Resources has been asking for increased investment in managing the
fuel load and thinning forests for years (see
[https://www.dnr.wa.gov/StrategicFireProtection](https://www.dnr.wa.gov/StrategicFireProtection)).
The private forestry industry also has been asking for increased
investment/assistance from the state in thinning and prescribed burns
([http://www.wfpa.org/sustainable-forestry/reduce-wildfire-
ris...](http://www.wfpa.org/sustainable-forestry/reduce-wildfire-risk/)).
However these calls have been ignored, despite ever increasing state budgets,
and our governor and legislature have done little to address the issue. Please
contact your representatives and don’t let them get away with foregoing
responsibility by blindly blaming just climate change for wildfires.

~~~
howlgarnish
Finland is not a great comparison point though, since it's generally too wet.
Forest fires do happen during dry spells in the summer, but not on a
Californian/Australian scale, because a dry spell is measured in weeks, not
years.

~~~
throwawaysea
If you look at the links I provided, you’ll see they have much better wildfire
results than their immediate neighbors (who deal with the same climate) and
also that their own results have improved over time significantly despite
forest size increasing (more fuel load). I think their approaches warrant a
deep examination and we should learn from their successes, even if their scale
is different. For example, why wouldn’t compartmentalization via a dense road
network and forest management work in the US? Sure the worst wind driven
wildfires may still take place but there are many more that would be
prevented. I don’t think the scale impacts how well their approaches would
translate.

~~~
throwaway40year
When the US president mentioned anything of the sorts, it was ridiculed and
turned into a meme in local California news papers.
[https://www.sfchronicle.com/california-
wildfires/article/Fin...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/california-
wildfires/article/Finland-raking-President-Trump-memes-wildfire-13405330.php)

------
pvaldes
Why to ask a scientist, when you can ask a chaman?

------
blackflame7000
What Tribes Have Known All Along... in the far away land of Texas

------
konjin
Correct me if I'm wrong but the culprits for the fires are Eucalyptus trees
imported from Australia. It seems a bit backwards that American Indians would
know how Australian Aborigines dealt with forests.

~~~
kelnos
While the imported eucalyptus is awful (easily catches fire, often _explodes_
while on fire, grows like a weed), I don't think we can point to just one
culprit here.

------
TinkersW
The part of northern California I grew up in has been experiencing weather
that I never experienced in over 30 years growing up there & going back to
visit. It has been far hotter and more humid, so I'd say this isn't just down
to overgrown forests.

------
heimatau
Make no mistake. These problems are solvable. There is an active political
will (via the majority of people). Yet, the three States that are burning
millions of acres are apathetic right now. This could be solved for many years
going forward. Raise taxes (the richer, the higher the fee) then fix the
problem and also force the Federal Government to do a better job with their
land. This isn't just a State/local govt problem a large portion of the West
Coast is owned by the Federal Government.

Trump is brazen, you now have political coverage to be just as brazen to fix
these issues. We should be expecting more from our leaders because what we
have now is a poor rationalization for shitty leadership. 16 of the past 20
years have been record breaking fires in California, this isn't a new problem.
It's just long overdue to be solved.

P.S. I have zero faith that this will be fixed. It's fairly clear to me that
the entire political servants aren't actually leading, they're apathetic while
the country literally burns. It's not a difficult thing to ask that our
elected leaders stop this in the short-term, let alone the long-term. It's
difficult when we rationalize their bullshit, so expect more.

~~~
captainredbeard
> Raise taxes (the richer, the higher the fee) then fix the problem

Is there any indication that this is caused by shortage of funds? Policy is
what is preventing proper forest management. Compared to building highways and
state-funded healthcare, forest raking and related tasks are cheap.

~~~
heimatau
> Is there any indication that this is caused by shortage of funds?

States don't have the luxury to just print money. For example, California uses
inmates to supplement their firefighting workforce and at least 9 States have
come to our aid this season, due to covid19 reducing that slave/prison labor.

I wouldn't call it 'policy' that prevents OR and WA. Most likely true in CA.
I'd call it lack of desire. Most politicians aim for the most popular ideas
that help get them reelected, not something prudent.

I don't care if I get down voted. Even if the West Coast wasn't in drier
conditions, this would still be a problem. Not only that, I'm skeptical that
WA is that dry. Maybe in select places but I'm very skeptical, maybe the heat
changed the situation as well (record highs all throughout the West Coast
prior to these fires).

Look, if you aren't blaming your leaders while things are this bad. How can
you praise them when things are good? This is your life. This is your health.
This is you and your families future. The blame falls on them, full stop.

The fact that the Governor didn't threaten the Bay/Tech Sector with steep
taxes if they don't help fix it, is another stupid move. This isn't rocket
science. This isn't something too far for humanity to solve. If you care about
your State, be patriot and save it from the fires.

We're in crisis after crisis, yet no one is actually leading. Good luck having
a State with 2 more decades of this. If you didn't murder them through gross
negligence then you destroyed their lungs/health with all this smoke.

Gov Newsom signed a thing to allow prisoners to accept a low paying job as a
firefighter? Seriously? Why not argue with your legislature and work on behalf
of the people? That's right, no one gives a damn and if you think to the
contrary, what actions have they done that make you think that?

Did you know a lot of residential new construction, in CA, is in fire prone
areas? This is because...? Good leaders? Or are the people going to demand
more from their leaders?

~~~
IncRnd
> Look, if you aren't blaming your leaders while things are this bad. How can
> you praise them when things are good? This is your life. This is your
> health. This is you and your families future. The blame falls on them, full
> stop.

That's not true. The blame falls on the voters who keep voting for those
clowns, one after another in a parade of lies, greed, and obfuscation, all for
the promised, immediate benefits.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
It seems pretty unreasonable to say voters are at fault for every issue they
don't become a single-issue voter against.

