Just letting forest fires burn?

[densa44]

It seems that they are very hard to extinguish, there are lots of them and they are natures way of renewing a forest, why don't we just let them go?

Can we cut/log all the trees we need for housing and still leave the forest fires?

We can work as hard as humanly possible and with just a breath of wind the fire takes off again.

I don't think what we are doing is working. I guess we will have to stop building houses/cities right next to a burnable forest.

What have I got wrong? Is there a way to fight fires that we haven't tried?

Lots of smoke here in Cocrane to-day.

[HVA7mm]

In the last 60 years or so there has been too much fire suppression and not enough proper forest management/prescribed burns. Logging practices have also changed over the years and not in a good way. The provincial governments have created policy based on the advice of the profit driven lumber industry and their lobbyists instead of the experienced boots on the ground logging contractors. The changes over the years have had nothing to do with forest management, but money for the mills and government via stumpage fees. This in turn has created very unhealthy forests with way too much fuel. The fires don't necessarily get any larger than in the past as there have always been large forest fires, but they burn much hotter and faster. Below is a pretty good overview on the topic.

https://www.vernonmorningstar.com/lo...-board-7323737

[elkhunter11]

We certainly aren't going to abandon every location where there are forests. On the other hand, we do need to do prescribed burns, and perhaps let some fires burn, when conditions are right, and they aren't likely to threaten civilization.

[Grizzly Adams1]

Forgive for being a heretic, but if we treated Wildfires like a war situation and threw every available resource at them we could reduce damage dramatically. In the old days, every physically able male who could handle a shovel or use a hose was mobilized , bars were emptied, any necessary machinery was seized. Now they won't even let you near the fire without a stack of safety and proficiency certificates. Talked to a BC cottage owner the other day. The fire that wiped out a bunch of cabins near his, was a small fire caused by a lightning strike that should have been easily contained. The "Professionals" dumped a few gallons of water on it, deemed it out and walked away. it came with a vengeance.

[Pathfinder76]

Forests need management not huggers. That is exactly why we are in the state we are in today. California is a perfect example of this. Privately managed forests generate revenue and surprisingly don’t burn.

[1899b]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

We certainly aren't going to abandon every location where there are forests. On the other hand, we do need to do prescribed burns, and perhaps let some fires burn, when conditions are right, and they aren't likely to threaten civilization.

Conditions are never right anymore now though.
I can remember spending the summers at our summer home on Moose Lake and there be 2-3 days of straight rain at times. I also remember super hot days with no wind and we were skiing and kneeboarding on a lake that was calm as glass for days straight at times.

Summers now consist of everyday being windy and no rains.

[Twisted Canuck]

It's a Climate Emergency. The entire Planet is Effectively Burning. A Cabinet Minister said so. Pay more taxes and the fires will stop.

What a world to live in, where government incompetence and mismanagement can be turned into an extortion racket.

[britman101]

Unfortunately, it is past the finger pointing stage now. Take the latest fire outside of Fort Nelson. This was years in the making with severe droughts over the past few years. This latest fire started from a downed power line.
Forests too tinder dry, lack of water and rain to help in suppressing it. The other disturbing side effect is the smoke that blows from these fires into surrounding areas. It did not take long for it to blanket communities in Alberta for instance.
This fire season looks to be another bad one, and a long one.

[huntinstuff]

It has become a multi million dollar business and it is quite easy to get business going......

Sometimes a huge fire is a good thing for the future......but people dont think that far ahead. They want it all during their lifetime.

[Twisted Canuck]

A huge fire in Ottawa would be great for Canada's economy. And our international reputation too, probably.

[burbotman]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

We certainly aren't going to abandon every location where there are forests. On the other hand, we do need to do prescribed burns, and perhaps let some fires burn, when conditions are right, and they aren't likely to threaten civilization.

Short, sweet and spot on

[3blade]

Originally Posted by HVA7mm

In the last 60 years or so there has been too much fire suppression and not enough proper forest management/prescribed burns. Logging practices have also changed over the years and not in a good way. The provincial governments have created policy based on the advice of the profit driven lumber industry and their lobbyists instead of the experienced boots on the ground logging contractors. The changes over the years have had nothing to do with forest management, but money for the mills and government via stumpage fees. This in turn has created very unhealthy forests with way too much fuel. The fires don't necessarily get any larger than in the past as there have always been large forest fires, but they burn much hotter and faster. Below is a pretty good overview on the topic.

https://www.vernonmorningstar.com/lo...-board-7323737

Yep

Another big problem is “replanting” - by spraying the deciduous growth of a clear cut with roundup and then replanting conifers. Logging only works as a management tool when those deciduous trees are allowed to grow and form barriers to crown fires.

In the north where logging isn’t a driving factor, there has been far too much fire suppression. While I understand the desire to limit damages, it’s not possible to protect thousands of miles of roads, power lines, and resource infrastructure. Very little thought was given to this during development.

Then there’s the unmanaged “natural” green space/park problems. I know of 4 large areas in and around Edmonton that are ripe for a disaster. Fire is natural too. It’ll go eventually, whether people like it or not.

[lannie]

Best way to understand forest management in Alberta would be to discuss the strategy with the Province of Alberta. There are some well trained individuals who could share their knowledge and training if contacted after the fire season. Is there anything the Alberta forestry does that is unique in fire management strategy? It's is easy to say let the fire go when you don't have any personal property at risk.

[britman101]

The Fort Nelson fire is now 25 square kms in size . The fire officials are warning the last remaining 100 to 150 residents to evacuate the town. The last transport bus will leave at about 5pm today. Hopefully things work out for the best.

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams1

Forgive for being a heretic, but if we treated Wildfires like a war situation and threw every available resource at them we could reduce damage dramatically. In the old days, every physically able male who could handle a shovel or use a hose was mobilized , bars were emptied, any necessary machinery was seized. Now they won't even let you near the fire without a stack of safety and proficiency certificates. Talked to a BC cottage owner the other day. The fire that wiped out a bunch of cabins near his, was a small fire caused by a lightning strike that should have been easily contained. The "Professionals" dumped a few gallons of water on it, deemed it out and walked away. it came with a vengeance.

This! In grade 9 I stayed home from school for a Dr apt, a fire broke out in the forest our subdivision was surrounding. Forestry sent a truck out with one guy!

Mom and I walked up, I was the only able bodied male between 5 and 65 around at the time. Old Forestry guy took one look at me, asked if I had a pair of work boots and gave me 90 seconds to get them......30 seconds of "on the job training (this way turns hose on, this way off, don't let fire get behind you to your hose and if you lose pressure drop the hose and run)" and I spent the next 6 hours fighting the fire. Wisdom of the years tells me it was stupid but a rush in the moment!

Actually got paid for it, a whole $5/hr (min wage in NB at the time). Hardest $25 I ever made in my life!

Today I'd probably have the cops called on me and I'd be charged with a workplace violation if I tried to rally a few neighbours to help save our community!

[Sleddawg]

I’m up in the Pink Mountain area around that Donnie Creek fire burn from last year and if you take one look off the road into the bush you can see why they can’t be fought. Honestly I think if you crashed a plane a mile off the highway you wouldn’t make it to the pavement alive. We see no animals in the area and I swear it’s because nothing but rabbits can actually walk through the bush. I say log heavily in and around infrastructure and do some burns in other areas. This area going to be bad again this summer. It’s already starting

[W921]

Originally Posted by lannie

Best way to understand forest management in Alberta would be to discuss the strategy with the Province of Alberta. There are some well trained individuals who could share their knowledge and training if contacted after the fire season. Is there anything the Alberta forestry does that is unique in fire management strategy? It's is easy to say let the fire go when you don't have any personal property at risk.

The experts put a logging moratorium on a strip of forestry in forestry west of granum between private and public land back in 70s.
Now huge amounts of standing and fallen old dead pine beetle infested tinder box that nobody is going to be able to put out.
Forestry west of that is micro mismanaged by experts and its also crooked who can log and who can't.
Forest have to be managed but if you have wack jobs setting fires and other woke David Suzuki types thinking its all wonderful if it burns. We are surrounded by idiots.
But hey they can blame it on climate change and keep guys like you and me from accessing it. Maybe more laws and taxes to really screw us over?

[lannie]

Originally Posted by W921

The experts put a logging moratorium on a strip of forestry in forestry west of granum between private and public land back in 70s.
Now huge amounts of standing and fallen old dead pine beetle infested tinder box that nobody is going to be able to put out.
Forestry west of that is micro mismanaged by experts and its also crooked who can log and who can't.
Forest have to be managed but if you have wack jobs setting fires and other woke David Suzuki types thinking its all wonderful if it burns. We are surrounded by idiots.
But hey they can blame it on climate change and keep guys like you and me from accessing it. Maybe more laws and taxes to really screw us over?

That's an interesting opinion.

[Sooner]

Curious as to what percentage of these massive fires in BC and to some degree in AB, are the result of that nasty little pine beetle making millions and millions of match sticks out there?


A thought I had after the Slave Lake and Fort Mac fires was these cities and towns that are in the middle of the woods need a big buffer zone. Turn that area into rolling park land with bike trails, shrubs and storm water ponds. I know embers can fly for a long way but get the standing stuff out. Seems to me a grass fire may be easier to contain then a fire that's coming to your hood in the tree tops.

[3blade]

Originally Posted by Sooner

Curious as to what percentage of these massive fires in BC and to some degree in AB, are the result of that nasty little pine beetle making millions and millions of match sticks out there?


A thought I had after the Slave Lake and Fort Mac fires was these cities and towns that are in the middle of the woods need a big buffer zone. Turn that area into rolling park land with bike trails, shrubs and storm water ponds. I know embers can fly for a long way but get the standing stuff out. Seems to me a grass fire may be easier to contain then a fire that's coming to your hood in the tree tops.

Yeah the pine beetle problem is real. There’s no solution unless someone comes up with a natural disease we can give them, like what they did with aedes aegypti mosquitos.

As for a buffer zone - it’s possible in some places (foothills), but once you get on pine/spruce/peat boreal, it would be really tough. Plus people don’t want to pay for it, and there’s a pile of legal/environmental issues. Of course it could be done, but that would require politicians to actually do something useful….and THAT is about as likely as a pig learning to dance.

[trailraat]

Originally Posted by densa44

I guess we will have to stop building houses/cities right next to a burnable forest.

What have I got wrong? Is there a way to fight fires that we haven't tried?

Yes and no

- we can start by planning around development by planting deciduous trees in a buffer zone to reduce intensity of fires and creating fire breaks (cue the tree hugging nimby's)
- discouraging the use of combustible materials like vinyl siding and cedar shakes in fire prone areas in house construction (cue "that's unaffordable" crowd"
- we can come to grips with the fact that large fires are part of the landscape of Alberta (not climate change) and start spending more money on infrastructure protection instead of spending millions on fire response that has middling results at best.

[schleprock]

Aren’t poplar/aspen trees a natural buffer zone in regards to forest fires? I always wondered why they weren’t planted as a fire break around the towns that have been considered high risk areas. Is it because they wouldn’t be able to grow and survive in the soils surrounding these areas?

[W921]

Originally Posted by lannie

That's an interesting opinion.

I wanted to log standing dead timber and deadfalls with horses for firewood business. Pay stumpage fee to province and reduce fire and disease hazard. Apparently all public land belongs to spray lakes sawmill. Well except for the timber the government gave to one of their friends who has a dude ranch. Let him steal enough timber to build a big fancy log barn same time telling me they wouldn't do business with me even though I would have been paying them to make the public land better by getting rid of the garbage. Not cutting down premium timber.
Guess grazing cattle and recreational access is all equal and fair as well?

[Big Grey Wolf]

Fires are very easy to extinguish when they first start and are small. When Upc's go rid of All the "Alberta Smoke Jumpers" and closed fire towers, have almost no water bombers, heavy equipment and use choppers with surplus night goggles and a barrel of water we are doomed to burn.

[Bigwoodsman]

Originally Posted by Big Grey Wolf

Fires are very easy to extinguish when they first start and are small. When Upc's go rid of All the "Alberta Smoke Jumpers" and closed fire towers, have almost no water bombers, heavy equipment and use choppers with surplus night goggles and a barrel of water we are doomed to burn.

Early detection was the key to successful suppression of fires.

Industry and a growing population, acreage subdivisions etc. have increased the provinces exposure to forest fires.

Industry has reached in to all corners of the province. Letting fires burn won't happen anymore.

BW

[JohninAB]

Originally Posted by Big Grey Wolf

Fires are very easy to extinguish when they first start and are small. When Upc's go rid of All the "Alberta Smoke Jumpers" and closed fire towers, have almost no water bombers, heavy equipment and use choppers with surplus night goggles and a barrel of water we are doomed to burn.

Your old tired rhetoric again. Getting rid of the RAP crews was long overdue.

NDP reduced the number of bombers.

Remote towers used in a lot of jurisdictions for fire detection.

Surplus night goggles and barrels of water!

Comments like that show just how out of touch with reality you are.

[MOUNTAIN MICKEY]

As explained to me. If there is no chance of saving a house that is on fire, they go on the defensive to protect the adjacent area (houses). They also said about the same thing with wild fires. Firemen were in our Crescent last Wednesday evening doing fire practice teaching/training newer recruits and using the hill behind our house as a training example.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Sooner

Curious as to what percentage of these massive fires in BC and to some degree in AB, are the result of that nasty little pine beetle making millions and millions of match sticks out there?


A thought I had after the Slave Lake and Fort Mac fires was these cities and towns that are in the middle of the woods need a big buffer zone. Turn that area into rolling park land with bike trails, shrubs and storm water ponds. I know embers can fly for a long way but get the standing stuff out. Seems to me a grass fire may be easier to contain then a fire that's coming to your hood in the tree tops.

Throw a christmas tree on a firepit and when that's done throw a dry log on it. Dead standing isn't the problem

I agree with bugger zones. Between Slave Lake then Ft. Mac a few years later I had hoped that idea would have came to fruition. Apparently not.
Mile wide buffer zone of grass makes sense. Wouldn't have a hard time finding someone to hay it all in the summer

[Big Grey Wolf]

Sorry, forgot to mention the 'State of Art" that UCP now using to fight major fires to replace D-8 cats and water bomber aircraft. Now using choppers with young ladies and lap top, also night goggles and in future AI. Dem forest fires are sure in trouble now.