USFS Decision to Halt Prescribed Burns in California is History Repeating
The US Forest Service has paused prescribed burns in California to prioritize resources for potential wildfires, highlighting issues of inadequate funding, political instability, and the need for bipartisan support in forest management.
Read original article
The US Forest Service has announced a halt to prescribed burns in California, citing a need to ensure staff and equipment availability for potential wildfires. This decision comes despite falling temperatures and ongoing prescribed burns by state and tribal authorities. Historically, California has relied on aggressive fire suppression tactics, neglecting Indigenous knowledge of forest management practices, such as prescribed burning, which helps mitigate wildfire risks. The lack of federal support for forest management has led to increased vulnerability to wildfires, as seen in the Caldor Fire of 2021, which devastated Grizzly Flats after inadequate project completion. The Forest Service's decision reflects ongoing issues with unstable funding and political commitment to forest management. California's recent budget allocates significant resources for fire protection, but the federal government manages vast areas of forest land without reliable funding. The article argues for a bipartisan commitment to stable funding for wildfire prevention, emphasizing that forest management is crucial for public safety and environmental sustainability.
- The US Forest Service has paused prescribed burns in California, impacting wildfire mitigation efforts.
- Historical reliance on fire suppression has overlooked Indigenous forest management practices.
- Inadequate funding and political instability have hindered effective forest management and increased wildfire risks.
- The Caldor Fire exemplifies the consequences of insufficient forest management and project delays.
- A call for bipartisan support for stable funding in wildfire prevention is emphasized for community safety.
Related
US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban
The US Forest Service proposes protecting old-growth trees in national forests, allowing public input but not enforcing a logging ban. Concerns arise over loopholes and lack of specific guidelines. President Biden's order aims to restrict logging, with ongoing updates planned.
'Primed to Burn:' Former Parks Canada Scientist Fears for Banff
Banff, Alberta, faces an escalating wildfire threat due to inadequate forest management and climate change. Experts urge immediate action for better mitigation strategies to protect residents and visitors.
California sees 'winter wonderland' in summer for first time in 20 years
California experienced its first August snowfall in over 20 years, creating a winter wonderland in the Sierra Nevada. Rainfall raised fire hazard concerns, while the Park fire is 78% contained.
'That's a bloodbath': How a federal program kills wildlife for private interests
The USDA's Wildlife Services program kills hundreds of thousands of wild animals annually, often without evidence of livestock damage, facing criticism for its methods and calls for reform towards nonlethal practices.
The Forest Service Is Losing 2,400 Jobs–Including Most of Its Trail Workers
The U.S. Forest Service plans to cut 2,400 jobs, mainly seasonal workers, due to a budget shortfall, suspending 2025 hiring and worsening maintenance backlogs, causing employee frustration and uncertainty.
- Many commenters express confusion over prioritizing resources for wildfire response over preventive measures like prescribed burns.
- There is a recognition of the financial and political challenges affecting forest management, including inadequate funding and the impact of climate change.
- Some suggest alternative solutions, such as large-scale sprinkler systems or involving local tribes in forest management.
- Criticism is directed at the federal government's management of public forests and the perceived inefficiency of current practices.
- Several comments highlight the cyclical nature of funding and resource allocation, questioning the logic behind current decisions.
31 commentsIt sounds like it's a resourcing issue, not a change in philosophy. It doesn't change the fact that it won't be happening though.
I'm not opposed to prescribed burns, either, I think they are totally necessary. But do them in the fall, when you've got nothing but rain and cool temperatures for the next 6 months, instead of weeks before the hottest and driest stretch of the year.
As to why they burn in early summer, they said at a community meeting it's because it requires fewer people to manage the fire.
Climate change is also to blame. The firestorms of 2017, 2018 and 2020 broke all records, and were insanely expensive to rebuild after. The typical trigger is a katabatic wind event [2] after a long dry spell. This massively reduces relative humidity (often to 5-10%,) making ignition much easier. Once a fire starts, the wind spreads it extremely quickly. Sustained wind speeds of 50-60mph are not uncommon near mountain peaks.
In 2017/2018/2020, the precipitating events were so intense that the initial responses focused exclusively on helping the residents out. By the time the actual firefighting began, the fires were already enormous.
It's surprising to me that we haven't seriously looked into large-scale sprinkler systems, such as this one deployed in Spain [3]. These could take a major bite out of the initial uncontrolled stage. They could either be deployed in the wild along naturally defensible lines, or at the perimeters of inhabited areas.
They're expensive upfront, but not as expensive as the alternative. They might also reduce the need for prescribed burns.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/10/home...
Would California have standing for damages? What would honestly be the consequences if the Governor and Legislature ordered Calfire to conduct controlled burns on federal land? (Can the Forest Service give Calfire permission to conduct burns on its land?)
An ounce of prevention is worth pound of cure. But now they're doing away with the prevention... to be able to afford the cure instead (which they are now likely guaranteed to need more of)?
I'm genuinely confused and trying to figure out the logic. Is this a california/usa political kind of thing?
Though I also have bad news if you happen to own property in rural CA...
I see these types all the time, they're the ones that produce various "studies" that are always get linked on HN. They usually have some generic name, some combination of various buzzwords, and their website is them displaying all the various "research" and "studies" they've produced.
Their stated goal is apparently to just "promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people’s lives".
How do they actually make money? They say they've got 33 staff members and 14 board members/advisors. Do they all work for free?
Do they actually sell some product somewhere? I see nothing on their site where something is for sale or where you can hire them for anything. Are they supported by ads somewhere?
All they seem to do is just spend year and year pumping out various "studies" and articles. Are there unknown backers paying them to produce this content?
(The Biden administration increased the amount of logging in the last few years from a historic low. But the goal is still only to log up to 4 billion board feet next year.)
While not a complete replacement for each other, prescribed burns are specifically more necessary now because of the lack of logging. And more importantly, these agencies are only collecting a fraction of the fees they once did to sustain their mission while having more unharvested forests to maintain.
If it’s known to be at least partially political, then that would seem to be a pretty critical thing to know.
Edit: And needed to gauge relative prospects versus everything else on the agenda…
I particularly recommend the superb audiobook.
Through a series of interviews, this book makes the case the practice of basketweaving by indigenous people living in present-day California - and the massive and well-organized trade of hundreds of different types of baskets - is/was not merely a mechanism of subsistence, but actually a brilliant wildfire control strategy.
Anderson and her many stunning interview subjects - indigenous people recalling the practices of grandparents and their siblings - make a compelling case that by encouraging the hundreds of different species which went into the creation of baskets to grow in certain places and not others, ancestors sculpted the landscape into one in which fires burned out in predictable patterns rather than scorching a significant portion of the continent.
You would think this would be high up on the list of hiring competent people to manage this part of CA life.
meanwhile forests keep burning in unplanned ways.
If you own something you got to take care of it and if you don't want to take care of it you should get rid of it.
In 2021, nearly half of RMNP burned down due to the lack of effective prescribed burns. I know the NPS/USFS are criminally underfunded, but losing these wonders is also a crime.
Edited: us forest service
2. Forest fires increase due to build up of flammable materials
3. Bureaucrats pat themselves on the back for their decision
Related
US Forest Service proposes protections for old-growth trees, without logging ban
The US Forest Service proposes protecting old-growth trees in national forests, allowing public input but not enforcing a logging ban. Concerns arise over loopholes and lack of specific guidelines. President Biden's order aims to restrict logging, with ongoing updates planned.
'Primed to Burn:' Former Parks Canada Scientist Fears for Banff
Banff, Alberta, faces an escalating wildfire threat due to inadequate forest management and climate change. Experts urge immediate action for better mitigation strategies to protect residents and visitors.
California sees 'winter wonderland' in summer for first time in 20 years
California experienced its first August snowfall in over 20 years, creating a winter wonderland in the Sierra Nevada. Rainfall raised fire hazard concerns, while the Park fire is 78% contained.
'That's a bloodbath': How a federal program kills wildlife for private interests
The USDA's Wildlife Services program kills hundreds of thousands of wild animals annually, often without evidence of livestock damage, facing criticism for its methods and calls for reform towards nonlethal practices.
The Forest Service Is Losing 2,400 Jobs–Including Most of Its Trail Workers
The U.S. Forest Service plans to cut 2,400 jobs, mainly seasonal workers, due to a budget shortfall, suspending 2025 hiring and worsening maintenance backlogs, causing employee frustration and uncertainty.