"Climate change" isn't making wildfires burn hotter and be "more destructive". 100+ years of total wildfire fire suppression has. Thin the fuel load as best as can be done and then let the forest do what the forest does.
Montana has a good program. Forested areas are divided like a checker board allowing trees to be harvested in the "red squares but not the black squares" leaving a beautiful forest with pastures throughout. Less fuel, tons of defensable space and the "black squares" that are left untouched, are better protected.
@@shawnlandry9287 I completely agree👍 but the forest in the surrounding area couldnt be done similarly? Or the rest of the state? Leaving rare, big or protected trees inside one of those "squares" is common practice. It doesnt make sense that Montana does it way better with far less man power and money, with a very similar land size to protect.
Large areas of forest in California are managed this way by private timber companies and big fires tear right through them. California is hotter and drier than Montana.
@@cnixon4444 some fire have good fuel. some fire have not so good fuel. fire burn better with better fuel. hotter fire can destroy things better like new seeds from the trees.
@@cnixon4444 Also, giant sequoias can withstand a normal forest fire even if the outside of them burns. But these "infernos" that occur these days are so hot they're burning the trees completely, killing them.
I think the problem we have as humans with a finite and relatively short lifespan (especially compared to these trees), we are only witnessing a snapshot of the history of these forests. What are these forests supposed to look like? Is there a “perfect” forest? What did this forest look like before indigenous humans? Was that the “perfect” forest? What about before modern humans? I really don’t think we truly know. We just try to impose our limited knowledge of the subject into a highly complex situation and think we are right. This goes for both sides of this situation.
What does not help the Sequoia tree is when you preserve a forest you allow all the smaller vegetation to grow,to thrive then die. This adds to the fuel load of the Forest. Also with the vegetation is constricting the source of water and nutrients for the Sequoias the tree begins to die adding more to the fuel load all of this lead to the potential for a large fire. To save the giant trees the smaller vegetation needs to go.
It’s amazing to me that the USDF can cite a century of “conservation” to claim that a 3,000 year old tree needs these specific conservation measures. It’s obvious that Native Americans were running frequent controlled burns that allowed the most amazing coniferous forests in the world to flourish, and we would be spitting in the face of overwhelming historical and scientific evidence to continue down the path we’re on.
Lol are we really debating wether wildfires occurred? I was literally on a high quality grassland after it had a lightning strike. These habitats are resistant. I started burning my land about five years ago. It went from a closed canopy desert to literally thousands of species. I have multiple plants that haven’t even been documented in my county now.
And the fact wild fires are a natural environmental proccess and human intervention is not letting them happen periodically enough so forest grow to big for the environment to handle.
I questioned their wording as well. They make it sound like prescribed burns just started up a year or so ago. Smokey telling campers to be cautious with their campfires is an entirely different message from California suppressing ALL fires, as they state.
It stopped being illegal in CA in 1978 however not everywhere implemented prescribed burns throughout the state until more recently when fires have become a lot worse
doesnt anyone get it yet? the planet will survive. humans, probably not. us humans have engineered our own demise and millions still cheer when they hear drill, drill, drill. go figure?
Wouldn't the fires also serve as an a important source of nitrogen in the soil? Seems like a bit too much intervention. I'm all for growing more seedlings and increasing the plant mass in the world overall but fires are natural and inconvenient to humans
