Does creating fire break lines work to control forest fires?

[yungman]

......There are lots of people in Oregon who would love to cut down more trees. Its called the timber industry and it is politically strong around here. I see lots of Timber Unity signs in the rural areas I travel.......

Good, design the fire break, then give them license to cut trees along the fire break free. Saving money! They can keep the trees as long as they do it for free. demand they to pull the stumps so it's totally clear. Use the money saved to set up look out along the fire break lines for fast response.

But that's too sensible for the politicians.Anyone live in the bayarea? Look out the window now, it's scary, the sky is orange color like sunset. This is NOT the same fire when I started this thread.

 

[Mark44]

Good, design the fire break, then give them license to cut trees along the fire break free. Saving money!

That's not how things work, at least in the biggest forests that are managed by the US Forestry Service (under the Dept. of Agriculture). These agencies don't pay logging companies, so your claim of saving money isn't true.

They can keep the trees as long as they do it for free. demand they to pull the stumps so it's totally clear. Use the money saved to set up look out along the fire break lines for fast response.

Logging outfits don't usually pull stumps, as it takes more effort and requires specialized equipment. Leaving a stump in a fire break is not going to greatly increase the risk of fire jumping across the break.

Setting up lookouts along thousands of miles of fire breaks isn't financially feasible. How would you pay for it? Your plan of taking the money that a government agency would pay a logging outfit doesn't work, for reasons I already explained.

Furthermore, several of the big fires in So. Calif. got started during strong Santa Ana winds, winds that blow out of the desert and toward the coast. If a fire gets going in a Santa Ana, fire breaks don't do anything, and there's nothing fire fighters can do until the winds die down. The same would be true in other areas that don't get Santa Ana winds, but 30mph or higher winds are just as problematic.

 

[yungman]

That's not how things work, at least in the biggest forests that are managed by the US Forestry Service (under the Dept. of Agriculture). These agencies don't pay logging companies, so your claim of saving money isn't true.
Logging outfits don't usually pull stumps, as it takes more effort and requires specialized equipment. Leaving a stump in a fire break is not going to greatly increase the risk of fire jumping across the break.

Setting up lookouts along thousands of miles of fire breaks isn't financially feasible. How would you pay for it? Your plan of taking the money that a government agency would pay a logging outfit doesn't work, for reasons I already explained.

Furthermore, several of the big fires in So. Calif. got started during strong Santa Ana winds, winds that blow out of the desert and toward the coast. If a fire gets going in a Santa Ana, fire breaks don't do anything, and there's nothing fire fighters can do until the winds die down. The same would be true in other areas that don't get Santa Ana winds, but 30mph or higher winds are just as problematic.

I said you don't have to pay for the logging company if you let them log the fire break line.

How do you pay for the expense of putting out the fire right now, every season, every year. Also the cost of property loss, forest, wild lives and human lives. How much do you pay for putting out wild fire consistently every year, year after year? It is a full time job for fire fighters to do this all the time. this is not going to be the last fire of the year yet.

At least with fire break, you can get to the fire easily, be there on the fire break line to watch out for amber breaching the line. There is no 100% containment, but guess what is the % of containment now? 0%.

You keep saying it is not possible, so doing nothing year after year and let it burn?

Another way is let it burn, burn it all up and there won't be trees to burn next time. at least we don't have to pay for it. That's how nature works...before we are here...and long after we are gone.

 

[Mark44]

I said you don't have to pay for the logging company if you let them log the fire break line.

The government agencies don't pay the logging companies.

How do you pay for the expense of putting out the fire right now, every season, every year.

With property taxes, (CA) income taxes, and probably some federal income taxes.

At least with fire break, you can get to the fire easily, be there on the fire break line to watch out for amber breaching the line. There is no 100% containment, but guess what is the % of containment now? 0%.

California has had forest fires forever, at least since the last ice age about 14,000 years ago. The early inhabitants of Los Angeles (in the 1700s) noted how smoky it would get due to forest fires.

In California, with its generally dry climate and pine forests at the higher elevations, forest fires are inevitable. The earlier Forest Service philosophy was to attempt to put out all fires in the forests as soon as they started. The Forest Service and National Park Service began to see the folly of that philosophy about the time of the big fires in Yellowstone Natl. Park back in 1987 (or '88?). Since then they have been letting relatively small tracts of timber burn in a controlled manner, to prevent large masses of deadfall limbs and such from building up. Keeping the forests pristine by putting out all fires makes the big fires that occur much more destructive.

I'm afraid your idea of putting fire breaks all over is just not practical, given the large area that the forests occupy.

 

[yungman]

The government agencies don't pay the logging companies.

government restrict logging companies, but if you let them log to create fire break, they'll be more than happy to do it for free.

With property taxes, (CA) income taxes, and probably some federal income taxes.

Then use it to pay for maintenance after the fire break. It must be large amount of money paying over and over and over.

California has had forest fires forever, at least since the last ice age about 14,000 years ago. The early inhabitants of Los Angeles (in the 1700s) noted how smoky it would get due to forest fires.

In California, with its generally dry climate and pine forests at the higher elevations, forest fires are inevitable. The earlier Forest Service philosophy was to attempt to put out all fires in the forests as soon as they started. The Forest Service and National Park Service began to see the folly of that philosophy about the time of the big fires in Yellowstone Natl. Park back in 1987 (or '88?). Since then they have been letting relatively small tracts of timber burn in a controlled manner, to prevent large masses of deadfall limbs and such from building up. Keeping the forests pristine by putting out all fires makes the big fires that occur much more destructive.

I'm afraid your idea of putting fire breaks all over is just not practical, given the large area that the forests occupy.

Then why are they keep fighting the fire time after time, year after year. Why even spend money fighting it? Oh yeah, they want to preserve the forest! Then they keep fighting fire! Let it burn for months, burn it all up until it stop by itself. I can live with that! Don't worry, I am not thinking about people that choose to live in the forest. It's their choice.

Given that they want to preserve the forest, the green for the environment, then one has to rethink the fire break. That or don't fight it, let it burn. You want to bet, they are going to fight you to death to preserve the forest and the cycle repeat over and over.

 

[Mark44]

government restrict logging companies, but if you let them log to create fire break, they'll be more than happy to do it for free.

The Forest Service and other government agencies DON'T PAY logging outfits to log the forests.

Then use it to pay for maintenance after the fire break. It must be large amount of money paying over and over and over.

@yungman, you have this idea that firebreaks should be constructed. No one is going to pay any attention to your argument until you do the math to back up your scheme.
On the three West Coast states, how many acres are in National Forests, National Parks, and lands administered by BLM? How far apart do you imagine the fire breaks should be? What is the total acreage of the forests to be logged for fire breaks?

When you come up with some numbers, I will reopen this thread, but until then, the thread is closed.