A new paper out in Nature finds that the United States has a fire deficit. Parks et al. find that contemporary fire occurrence is far below historical levels. They write
The year 2020 had the highest percent of sites recording fire in the contemporary time period [1984–2022] with 6% of NAFSN sites burned. This percentage is far below the 29% burned in the most widespread historical fire year (1748) and equal to the average of 6% that burned per year across NAFSN sites during the historical period [pre-1880].
Overall, fires occurred at a rate of only 23% of that expected based on historical fires — indicating a huge accumulated deficit.
Parks et al. suggest that North America needs more — much more — fire on the landscape. I hope California is listening.
Specific actions include substantial increases (10- to 100-fold) in prescribed fire, mechanical thinning combined with prescribed fire, and managing fire as an ecosystem process in locations and times of year when it is safe to do so. Such preemptive actions will increase the probability that future unplanned fires will be less disruptive to society and forest ecosystems (i.e., lower severity fire), thereby allowing us to better co-exist with fire, as did traditional societies long before the disruption of historical fire regimes.
Exactly. That is the crux. Outlaw idiotically placed moronically designed structures near forests and brushlands. Until that happens the situation will endlessly worsen.
The controlled burns will not be perilous, and could even be tourist attractions. I worked on a controlled burn in Sequoia National Park far from any structures that slowly burned for almost 6 years. Now the new growth is lovely, and endangered wildflowers and species of rare birds are making a wonderful comeback.
Sending Smokey the Bear into official retirement with a big party could be the perfect way to underline the return to sanity.
I get a few parts of LA burned down recently but the area would have burned down a few times by now. Instead we tore down most of the vegetation to make parking lots.
Bob…I am saying fewer fires because of human construction sites.
Looking at California as an example, they know what they have to do but they don’t commit the political resources and money. Parks mentioned a 10 to 100 fold increase in prescribed fire. That fits well with this NPR item from 2021:
We went over this once before. Florida is as flat as a pancake, and has year round rain. That keeps plants fairly wet and slow burning.
California is mountainous and rugged, with multitudes of inaccessible areas where fire is uncontrollable. Add in a highly seasonal climate where many plants dry out or die seasonally, turning them into highly flammable tinder. Top it off with a persistent insect infestation which has killed millions of tall trees, turning them into giant matchsticks. All of these combine to make controlled burns an oxymoron.
Comparing CA to FL in this way is nothing short of asinine.
Nowhere close. Los Angeles is surrounded by big mountain ranges and threaded through with hills close to unbuildable covered with highly flammable stuff, and even the huge amount of construction over the last century does not change that.
…and the southeast has wetlands and wetland forests and sort of sometimes not very damp forests, and the trees are relatively (compared to California coastal and lowland mountains) low in pitch. Chaparral is insanely rich in oils that love burning quickly and extremely hot.
And the Santa Ana winds are called devil winds because they are wild, destructive, and hot as Hell.
Controlled burning where really needed is extremely difficult, costly, and rare because zoning and laws, still largely controlled by real estate interests and large scale bare land property owners, prevent sane zoning. Their wealth depends on cheap flammable housing in dangerous locations.
Certainly things are easier in Florida and less expensive to do. However, what is also true is that the area in California needing controlled burns is huge. California and other states need to expend vastly more resources than they have done to get things under control and reduce what Parks termed a fire deficit.
Are you saying there would be fewer fires or that we need fewer (controlled) fires?
100% of FL is a reasonable place to conduct controlled burns. And those burns are possible nearly year round.
A large part of CA (something like 1/5 to maybe 1/3) is impossible to conduct a controlled burn. Ever. Unless the fire is started in the middle of a rainstorm, it will quickly become impossible to control. Those places where you simply can’t do a controlled burn are also the places where such burns are needed. The places where controlled burns would be possible largely don’t need them.
If you do not understand this, you do not understand California in the least.
I think we both agree that California is not doing enough, so we can skip over the comparison with the southeast US if you would like.
The point is that (for whatever reasons; some are discussed in the Parks paper) the west in general has built up a very large fire deficit and we can expect more fires to the detriment of those who live in the region.
I’m not sure I’m willing to agree to that. Certainly not if your definition of “enough” includes not enough prescribed burns.
I’d even turn the question around. Why is Florida doing so many controlled burns? Even if you’re not concerned with dumping all of that carbon into the atmosphere (and clearly you are not), all of the smoke is bad for the people who are near the burn areas - and plenty that are further away in the path of the smoke plume. That land in Florida is flat and easily accessible. Why isn’t it being bulldozed instead of burned?
Also, why aren’t you picking on Wyoming or Montana or Utah? They have just as much of a “fire deficit” as California.
It does. This article from 2020 says “The researchers say that about 20 percent of the state—20 million acres—could benefit from prescribed burns to reduce the wildfire hazard.”
And from 2021: “California has always kind of fallen short on prescribed fire, and so the prescribed fire community for a long time has said we need to address liability, we need to address the insurance issues, we need to provide more training for people,” Quinn-Davidson said.
And from 2022:
California Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force issued a Strategic Plan for Expanding the Use of Beneficial Fire to expand the use of prescribed fire and cultural burning to build forest and community resilience statewide – efforts critical to forest management and wildfire mitigation.
Indeed. As I wrote, “California and other states need to expend vastly more resources than they have done to get things under control and reduce what Parks termed a fire deficit.”
and
“The point is that (for whatever reasons; some are discussed in the Parks paper) the west in general has built up a very large fire deficit and we can expect more fires to the detriment of those who live in the region.”
California in particular came to mind upthread because of what happened last month.
Probably because they don’t have as many dense very high priced areas that can be destroyed by fire! Fires in low density areas cause MUCH less damage than fires in high density areas.
And I think the reason CA is being discussed is obvious, isn’t it?
Most of the land in California that should have / needs prescribed burning is actually federal land. So it is the federal government that is responsible. Although perhaps raking all the leafs would be sufficient
The reason California hasn’t conducted more of these controlled burnings comes down to existing environmental laws in the U.S. that have posed bureaucratic obstacles to prescribed fires. It often takes years for proposals to go through reviews before any controlled burning can actually take place…
But in order for these prescribed fires to occur, they must go through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process, which can last anywhere from 3.6 years to 7.2 years between the time of initiation to when the burning can actually begin, according to a 2022 policy brief from the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC)…
Forest Service officials have estimated that planning and assessment consume a full 40% of the agency’s total direct work at the national forest level and that those efforts cost the Forest Service more than $250 million every year. "Although some planning is obviously necessary, Forest Service officials have estimated that improving administrative procedures could shift up to $100 million a year from unnecessary planning to actual project work to restore ecosystems and deliver services on the ground," the agency said in its report.
I am all for controlled burnings, have argued for them in public meetings, and have participated in doing them, but the crux pragmatic issue in California remains the lunacy of putting vulnerable housing close to the burnable stuff. It is extremely difficult to get property owners (voters!!!) to go along with these necessary burnings because they are perilous. The band of lots of the burned out areas lying closest to the forest/chaparral should be bought out from the current owners, but nope, too expensive.
Almost everywhere always always modern humans seem to repetitively put off to tomorrow what should have been done yesterday. Do not rinse, but do repeat…
Californians love their mountains and their marvelous plants, but damn….
My favorite wild plants have long been the California blue lilac, ceanothus, stunningly gorgeous, but I kept my specimens under very close watch and far from any structures.
Yes. It’s a convenient political target for those currently in the White House. Mainly because CA wouldn’t kowtow to his golf course development a number of years ago. And Californians in general are adverse to his current political stupidity and raping of America.
So yeah, the reason California is being discussed is pretty obvious.
