Canadian Wildfires

[jyoutz]

The problem I have with the current wildfires is that they ALL could have been MINIMIZED to a few 1,000 acres and quickly put out IF the governments had used the plan was presented to CA,BC,AB,ON and QC three and 1/2 decades ago. Never implemented, not even on a 'trial basis'. heck, NONE of the 5 even acknowledged the plan.

That’s an unrealistic expectation. And unnatural. Heavy fuels, drought conditions, and wind driven fires cannot be contained to 1000 acres. I recall a fire I was on in 2002 in Arizona that was spreading by 15,000 acres per hour due to those factors and it was completely unsafe to put crews on that fire until the winds subsided. We couldn’t even fly helicopters to map the fire, much less air tankers. The winds subsided two days later and the fire was already 150k+ acres. By the time you get a landscape scale fire of that size, you are looking at containment of spread, not suppression. I suspect that any plan that suggested that all wildfires could be contained to a few thousand acres was unrealistic, which is why it was ignored.

 

[jimh406]

And don’t make ridiculous comparisons to covid conspiracies.

You think they were “conspiracies” means you haven’t caught up with the facts yet. I suggest you need some different sources for your “science” if you care to know, but that’s totally up to you.

 

[jyoutz]

You think they were “conspiracies” means you haven’t caught up with the facts yet. I suggest you need some different sources for your “science” if you care to know, but that’s totally up to you.

It has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[DaveFromMi]

The fire areas in Quebec are not inhabited much. Probably not many resources up that way. Lots of inland lakes though.

This site has good information.

Smoke Forecast - FireSmoke.ca

 

[GreensvilleJay]

Actually part of the plan was to build/cut appropriately sized 'firebreaks' on roughly N-S and E-W 'grids' .Think like a chessboard. Each 'section' could be say 10,000 acres. When a fire breaks out in that section ONLY 10,000 acres or less can actually burn. Quick response teams 'water bomb/ fire retard' the firebreaks downwind of the fire.
It was probably ignored as it was a collection of common sense ideas that would save forests, animals, property and human lives and would NOT have cost taxpayers any money.

 

[The Evil Twin]

Just nuke it. That'll generate a fire break.

 

[jimh406]

It has nothing to do with this discussion.

Bottom line, we are probably never going to agree on a lot other than Kubota makes good tractors.

 

[jimh406]

If it was the boogeyman, then wouldn't the statistics run congruent to each other?

Nope, all you have to do is call it climate "change". Then, we are supposed to believe it's real.

 

[jimh406]

It was probably ignored as it was a collection of common sense ideas that would save forests, animals, property and human lives and would NOT have cost taxpayers any money.

They might have tried it if they allowed dissenting opinions from their employees. Another possibility is they think what they are doing is working.

Had the wind been blowing a different direction, maybe nobody would have noticed.

 

[Jchonline]

Actually part of the plan was to build/cut appropriately sized 'firebreaks' on roughly N-S and E-W 'grids' .Think like a chessboard. Each 'section' could be say 10,000 acres. When a fire breaks out in that section ONLY 10,000 acres or less can actually burn. Quick response teams 'water bomb/ fire retard' the firebreaks downwind of the fire.
It was probably ignored as it was a collection of common sense ideas that would save forests, animals, property and human lives and would NOT have cost taxpayers any money.

Well you are reducing fuel. That will certainly make a difference. But at the edges of that 10000 acres it would just burn right around it. If the conditions are bad I dont think it would matter. Cameron Peak was 208000 acres. Honestly the way the fire burned (very amoebic) there are stll large swaths in the middle that were not burned.

That is basically a 4 mile by 4 mile square. Imagine the cost to clear that much ground. Imagine the wildlife habitats you are decimating "just in case". Here in the mountains there would still be many, many areas where it is impossible to get a machine in. You would need a full logging setup with a yarder and most of these trees arent big enough to log. Pie in the sky in Colorado at least.

 

[GreensvilleJay]

re: That is basically a 4 mile by 4 mile square. Imagine the cost to clear that much ground. Imagine the wildlife habitats you are decimating "just in case".

No, you just clear the width of a 'firebreak' NOT the entire 'section' (4by4 mile in your case).
'forest fire guys' know the required width or swath to make the firebreak. Say it's a stand of pines and the 'book' says firebreak shall be a minimum of 300'. Increase that to 450-500' as the firebreak,that way fire will not 'jump' the firebreak, so the fire IS contained to a small section of land and is easy to put out or contain.
Right now MILLIONS of acres of forests AND the wildlife is being needlessly destroyed, and in the case of BC ,they'll be having mudslides pretty soon.

 

[The Evil Twin]

Nope, all you have to do is call it climate "change". Then, we are supposed to believe it's real.

Well......

 

[The Evil Twin]

re: That is basically a 4 mile by 4 mile square. Imagine the cost to clear that much ground. Imagine the wildlife habitats you are decimating "just in case".

No, you just clear the width of a 'firebreak' NOT the entire 'section' (4by4 mile in your case).
'forest fire guys' know the required width or swath to make the firebreak. Say it's a stand of pines and the 'book' says firebreak shall be a minimum of 300'. Increase that to 450-500' as the firebreak,that way fire will not 'jump' the firebreak, so the fire IS contained to a small section of land and is easy to put out or contain.
Right now MILLIONS of acres of forests AND the wildlife is being needlessly destroyed, and in the case of BC ,they'll be having mudslides pretty soon.

A lot of folks don't understand this. It's not a grid, per se. It follows the make up of the woods. Conifer, hardwood, etc. You don't put the fire out. You keep the next grid from burning.
And yes, like Kali.....take the plants that hold the soil.....the soil will soon migrate downhill.

 

[jyoutz]

Actually part of the plan was to build/cut appropriately sized 'firebreaks' on roughly N-S and E-W 'grids' .Think like a chessboard. Each 'section' could be say 10,000 acres. When a fire breaks out in that section ONLY 10,000 acres or less can actually burn. Quick response teams 'water bomb/ fire retard' the firebreaks downwind of the fire.
It was probably ignored as it was a collection of common sense ideas that would save forests, animals, property and human lives and would NOT have cost taxpayers any money.

Firebreaks only work when it’s not windy. Most of these large fires are both drought and wind driven. I’ve seen wind driven spot fires start over a mile from the flame front. It’s rare to get landscape scale fires that aren’t wind driven. In the western U.S. we have moved from fuelbreaks to landscape scale logging, thinning and prescribed burning. The idea is not to stop fires, but to keep them as low severity ground fires that are beneficial, instead of high severity crown fires. A thinned and burned forest that is open won’t carry crown fires very well.

 

[jyoutz]

The

Well......
View attachment 106238

The climate change discussion is falsely applied to wildland forest fires. The effects of a century or more of fuels build up and high forest density far outweigh the effects of changes of a few degrees in temperature, whether or not you think climate is changing is kind of irrelevant to this discussion. What’s a more significant change: forest density increasing from 100 to 500-1000 trees per acre over the past century, or 3 degrees of temperature increase?

 

[RCW]

I have a degree in forestry, although took a different career path.

Like @jyoutz mentioned, there are forest types that depend on periodic fires. We don’t like forest fires, so we put them out.

There are the Pine Barrens in the eastern coast that come to mind. Jack Pine cones actually depend on heat to release seed.

Not getting into any political conversation, but some of the forest fire issues we see today are of our own accord.

 

[jyoutz]

Well you are reducing fuel. That will certainly make a difference. But at the edges of that 10000 acres it would just burn right around it. If the conditions are bad I dont think it would matter. Cameron Peak was 208000 acres. Honestly the way the fire burned (very amoebic) there are stll large swaths in the middle that were not burned.

That is basically a 4 mile by 4 mile square. Imagine the cost to clear that much ground. Imagine the wildlife habitats you are decimating "just in case". Here in the mountains there would still be many, many areas where it is impossible to get a machine in. You would need a full logging setup with a yarder and most of these trees arent big enough to log. Pie in the sky in Colorado at least.

10,000 acres/640acres = 15.6 square miles (4x4 square as you say), 208,000 =325 square miles. For perspective.

 

[jyoutz]

I have a degree in forestry, although took a different career path.

Like @jyoutz mentioned, there are forest types that depend on periodic fires. We don’t like forest fires, so we put them out.

There are the Pine Barrens in the eastern coast that come to mind. Jack Pine cones actually depend on heat to release seed.

Not getting into any political conversation, but some of the forest fire issues we see today are of our own accord.

Hello to a fellow forester. And good point about suppressing fires just because we don’t like them. Those actions (suppressing all fires) over the past 100 years are why fires are burning with increased severity today.

 

[The Evil Twin]

The

The climate change discussion is falsely applied to wildland forest fires. The effects of a century or more of fuels build up and high forest density far outweigh the effects of changes of a few degrees in temperature, whether or not you think climate is changing is kind of irrelevant to this discussion. What’s a more significant change: forest density increasing from 100 to 500-1000 trees per acre over the past century, or 3 degrees of temperature increase?

That was satire.
A couple degrees doesn't mean shit when you pave over the earth and allow undergrowth to run wild in the wild areas that still exist.
Land burning goes back 1000s of years (as I'm sure you know). Damn near Neanderthals knew that controlled burns were a good thing.

 

[jyoutz]

That was satire.
A couple degrees doesn't mean shit when you pave over the earth and allow undergrowth to run wild in the wild areas that still exist.
Land burning goes back 1000s of years (as I'm sure you know). Damn near Neanderthals knew that controlled burns were a good thing.

I knew it was satire, but some folks didn’t. So I made my argument.