Karenin
卐 Nazi sympathizer
The chronic fire situation in California is regularly mentioned in mainstream media, with the fires being presented as a massive danger. But I recently learned that putting out naturally-occurring forest fires is counterproductive and will cause even bigger fires that destroy more trees in the long run, the very thing the Forestry Service purports to save.
At the beginning of the 20th century, federal conservation policies were initially limited to preventing people from building homes and businesses on protected land, but eventually changed focus into actively fighting naturally-occurring fires from running through protected lands. Once it became economically feasible, this policy of putting out fires as quickly as possible became the norm.
Over the course of the last few decades, fires have multiplied in frequency, size, and damage. Undergrowth which would have naturally burned many times over became excessive, diverting valuable water from usage by both humans and centuries-old trees — and, during water-competing drought, produced millions of dead trees, which burned the forests hotter than they would have if left to burn naturally. These excessively hot and artificially long-lasting fires burn down the old growth which we were trying to preserve, which — ironically — would have likely survived many cycles of the natural, less-intense fires.
So putting out forest fires, no matter how nobly inspired, is now proven to have had an effect opposite from that which it was intended. Worse, the federal agencies which exist to put these fires out blow through their taxpayer-funded budgets year after year, further justifying their existence and increasing the agencies’ ability to preserve and expand themselves.
At the beginning of the 20th century, federal conservation policies were initially limited to preventing people from building homes and businesses on protected land, but eventually changed focus into actively fighting naturally-occurring fires from running through protected lands. Once it became economically feasible, this policy of putting out fires as quickly as possible became the norm.
Over the course of the last few decades, fires have multiplied in frequency, size, and damage. Undergrowth which would have naturally burned many times over became excessive, diverting valuable water from usage by both humans and centuries-old trees — and, during water-competing drought, produced millions of dead trees, which burned the forests hotter than they would have if left to burn naturally. These excessively hot and artificially long-lasting fires burn down the old growth which we were trying to preserve, which — ironically — would have likely survived many cycles of the natural, less-intense fires.
So putting out forest fires, no matter how nobly inspired, is now proven to have had an effect opposite from that which it was intended. Worse, the federal agencies which exist to put these fires out blow through their taxpayer-funded budgets year after year, further justifying their existence and increasing the agencies’ ability to preserve and expand themselves.
Last edited:
