why don't areas out west do controlled burns?

[ktgrok]

I'll admit it, i got no sleep last night and I'm too lazy to google. Why don't western states do controlled burns the way they do here in Florida? We have the all the time to keep brush down so that wildfires don't burn out of control. Wondering why it seems we are the only place that does this? Or am I wrong and other states do this too?

 

I'm sure there is a logical explanation, I'm just too tired to find it.

[Julie Smith]

I'll admit it, i got no sleep last night and I'm too lazy to google. Why don't western states do controlled burns the way they do here in Florida? We have the all the time to keep brush down so that wildfires don't burn out of control. Wondering why it seems we are the only place that does this? Or am I wrong and other states do this too?

 

I'm sure there is a logical explanation, I'm just too tired to find it.

 

I know Canada does it a lot.

 

I heard a joke once that if like starting fires become a Canadian bush fire fighter.

[dangermom]

They do. Sometimes the controlled burns don't stay controlled, either! But mostly they happen as they are supposed to.

[EKS]

Western states do do controlled burns.

[Outdoorsy Type]

I remember both brush clearing and controlled burns in Oregon.

[higginszoo]

They do ... but Colorado has 3000-5000 foot drops in places and Florida is flat, so it's not as possible to get to all areas in CO as it is in FL. The areas that are burning right now (the two big fires) are along the front range -- where the Rockies rise as much as 10,000 feet above the prairie in the span of less than 10 linear miles ... no way to control burns in that kind of terrain.

[Georgiana Daniels]

We do controlled burns in AZ, but sometimes it's simply not enough. Especially when the fires are human caused in areas that wouldn't necessarily have been a controlled burn area. And I'd also guess there are funding issues, but I have no data/link to back my assumption.

[amyco]

They do controlled burns in the west; unfortunately things like this happen. The Cerro Grande fire was devastating and scary.

[ktgrok]

They do ... but Colorado has 3000-5000 foot drops in places and Florida is flat, so it's not as possible to get to all areas in CO as it is in FL. The areas that are burning right now (the two big fires) are along the front range -- where the Rockies rise as much as 10,000 feet above the prairie in the span of less than 10 linear miles ... no way to control burns in that kind of terrain.

 

Gotcha, that makes sense, I'm remembering now that in California they can't do them in many areas because the houses are too close. I'd forgotten about that.

[TXMomof4]

I know they do controlled burns in TX - but last year the drought was so bad they weren't able to. It was a d**ned if you do, d**ned if you don't situation. Too dangerous to do the burns, but too dangerous not to.

 

In KS I know there were a lot of problems with the EPA because of the burns. The air quality was so bad during the burns that it affected the cumulative readings for the year. I was only there a short time but I heard the irritation many times from the local people about how they had to fight to be allowed to do the burns.

[Random]

Gotcha, that makes sense, I'm remembering now that in California they can't do them in many areas because the houses are too close. I'd forgotten about that.

 

The opposite is true in Arizona. In AZ, approximately 80% of the land is public. We have the some of the biggest national forests. The Forest Service does quite a bit of controlled (technically 'prescribed') burns, but it's impossible to know when or where a fire will break out, and preemptively burn that area.

 

Unfortunately, we're also experiencing significant drought conditions, along with lots of dead trees left-over from the bark beetle infestation.

 

It's yucky.

[Forget-Me-Not]

They do them in CA.

[Carrie12345]

We just had a prescribed burn locally, but there's only so much that can do for the one particular spot in which it was done.

 

My neighborhood is FULL of underbrush. My acre alone has tons and tons of disposal that still needs to be done, but a burn obviously isn't possible in this kind of setting. With thousands of similar properties around me, a single lightning strike could destroy the whole neighborhood. Which is terrifying when I remember that the house 3 doors down was struck a couple of years ago!

[Lara in Colo]

They do lots of controlled burns, however the beetle infestation had killed lots and lots of trees; add to that how dry it is right now, even a controlled burn is very dangerous.

 

I have been worried about fires for a few years.

[Critterfixer]

however the beetle infestation had killed lots and lots of trees

 

This is a big problem out west. Put that with terrain, winters without enough snow and you've got a recipe for fires. Controlled burns are just that: controlled. You don't start one unless you plan on being able to control it. If you can't control it, you shouldn't burn. And there are plenty of places in Colorado that controlling a burn is impossible.

[mirth]

2x post

Edited June 27, 2012 by mirth

[mirth]

4 words:

 

Lower North Fork Fire

 

 

Prescribed burns are ok if they can be controllled.

Edited June 27, 2012 by mirth

[KrissiK]

There are always controlled burns going on in the Sierras all summer long. But, they don't always do the trick!

[Quad Shot Academy]

This year, 3 people died and dozens of homes were destroyed in a fire that started as a controlled burn. We do controlled burns out here, but there is just so much forest, so much dead forest due to beetles and little logging. Logging sites used to serve as a break for fires, but people don't like to see bare spots along the front range so now they can see dead and burned spots.

[Chelli]

This year, 3 people died and dozens of homes were destroyed in a fire that started as a controlled burn. We do controlled burns out here, but there is just so much forest, so much dead forest due to beetles and little logging. Logging sites used to serve as a break for fires, but people don't like to see bare spots along the front range so now they can see dead and burned spots.

 

Bingo. My dh went to school as a forest management major before becoming a minister. They actually studied the catastrophic fires in the west. The number one reason they happen is because of the above.

 

Fires need three things: fuel, oxygen, and ignition. You can't control oxygen (it's in the atmosphere), and you can try to control ignition (but crazy things can still happen). The only thing you can control is the level of fuel (aka trees, underbrush).

 

However, out west there is a more prevelant attitude of keep the mountains looking natural and pretty. The cost of that attitude is forest fires. If logging companies and the government were allowed to come in and reduce the amount of timber on every acre of land by drastic amounts then you would not have this problem. But people want pretty and protected, so this is the result.

 

My dh was talking about all of this to me last night as we were watching the horrifying pictures coming out of Colorado. It's just so sad, but much more preventable than what people think.

[ktgrok]

And don't forget 100+ years of fire suppression--areas that should have burned years ago, didn't, and now we get crown fires. And if they had, we wouldn't have mile after mile of same-age stands, all dead now from beetle.

 

That was what I was wondering. I don't know if we started prescribed burns here earlier, or if things just burned more often anyway, due to lightening, or if it is because of the kind of land, or what. Here much of the land is designed (?) to burn....the land is much healthier afterwards, as long as it burns often enough.

[ApronMama]

Bingo. My dh went to school as a forest management major before becoming a minister. They actually studied the catastrophic fires in the west. The number one reason they happen is because of the above.

 

Fires need three things: fuel, oxygen, and ignition. You can't control oxygen (it's in the atmosphere), and you can try to control ignition (but crazy things can still happen). The only thing you can control is the level of fuel (aka trees, underbrush).

 

However, out west there is a more prevelant attitude of keep the mountains looking natural and pretty. The cost of that attitude is forest fires. If logging companies and the government were allowed to come in and reduce the amount of timber on every acre of land by drastic amounts then you would not have this problem. But people want pretty and protected, so this is the result.

 

My dh was talking about all of this to me last night as we were watching the horrifying pictures coming out of Colorado. It's just so sad, but much more preventable than what people think.

 

:iagree: it's all about politics. Most of the people who want to leave it pretty and protected don't live anywhere near it or have any understanding of forest health.

[Alphabetika]

A dear friend of ours lives in Prescott, AZ, and there are controlled burns near her home frequently.

[armom]

I live in the Ozarks and we have controlled burns every year. When the controlled burns every year there is thick clouds of smoke seen for miles and miles.

[ereks mom]

Georgia does it. A National Forest ranger conducted a field trip for our homeschool group a few years ago, and he explained how controlled burns were done. He said that the reason the western states don't utilize controlled burns as much as Georgia (and, I guess, Florida) does is because conservation groups in those areas won't permit it. I don't know where he got his information, but that's what he said.

[OLG]

They do. Sometimes the controlled burns don't stay controlled, either! But mostly they happen as they are supposed to.

 

Yes, they exist and many states are well aware of the benefits. But, one cannot control for lightening caused fires or human stupidity. Forest management is HUGE in our state.

[ktgrok]

Georgia does it. A National Forest ranger conducted a field trip for our homeschool group a few years ago, and he explained how controlled burns were done. He said that the reason the western states don't utilize controlled burns as much as Georgia (and, I guess, Florida) does is because conservation groups in those areas won't permit it. I don't know where he got his information, but that's what he said.

 

Hmm..yes, they are constant here, not once a year like some are reporting. But, we have a landscaped that evolved (was created..either way), to need and rely on fire.

[godsaggie]

CO has done controlled burns for years. However, the areas that need it simply can't have them any more. Once fire hits that beetle kill, there is no stopping it. Just wait until Summit County goes--it's going to look way worse than Waldo Canyon. Imagine an entire county (multiple counties) where most every tree is dead:

This is what Colorado is facing.

 

We drove from Parker to Silverthorne last week and just couldn't believe all the dead trees along the I-70 corridor!

 

Here in SW Colorado, we do have controlled burns by the forest service. We also have hundreds of ranchers that do their own burns of their ditches every year as well. But the controlled burns can't always be controlled...and not every area that needs it can be reached. We have 54 mountains that reach over 14K feet in elevation and hundreds upon hundreds that reach over 12K and 13K feet. Currently, the Little Sand fire (which is close to me) is in the Weeminuche wilderness...some of the most rugged terrain the state. We have had almost a dozen fires start this past week as a result of lightning alone...fortunately most of them contained. It is very difficult to see all of this devastation.

[Elizabeth in MN]

Not to mention that controlled burns do nothing to prevent arson, which is what has been happening in Colorado.

 

As for the pretty and protected comments - I was born and raised at the base of the Rockies. The mudslides from clear cutting are worse than the fires - and that's saying something.

[wapiti]

CO has done controlled burns for years. However, the areas that need it simply can't have them any more. Once fire hits that beetle kill, there is no stopping it. Just wait until Summit County goes--it's going to look way worse than Waldo Canyon. Imagine an entire county (multiple counties) where most every tree is dead:

This is what Colorado is facing.

 

Oh yes. We have a cabin up in Summit Co, adjacent to national forest. We have already cleared a number of nearby dead trees away (by permit) from forest land, but it's not cheap. Then the live ones left too alone promptly blow down. There are vast, vast numbers of dead trees, and many of them will be falling down in the next few years, I think. They have already started.

 

The good news, if there is any, is that there seems to be quite a bit of new growth of other types of pine trees - forgive me, I don't know what they're called (I want to say spruce - they look a little bit like some sort of Christmas tree variety). The problem is all the dead lodgepole and all the needles from them that already fell off are just standing or laying there on the forest floor. A lot of fuel.

 

I think you're right, that if something happens, nearly the entire county could go.

Edited June 29, 2012 by wapiti

[Quad Shot Academy]

Not to mention that controlled burns do nothing to prevent arson, which is what has been happening in Colorado.

I have not heard of a single fire starting by arson this year. :confused: One was a controlled burn and the rest were lightening strikes as far as I am aware of. We have a friend that is a local volunteer fire fighter and he said dozens of fires have been started each day by lightening. Thankfully they have gotten all of theirs out.

[Bassoonaroo]

I have not heard of a single fire starting by arson this year.

 

Now you have... (hope that didn't "sound snarky"):

 

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/31213126/detail.html (article written a couple of days before the Waldo Canyon Fire broke out). Teller County is just to the west of the Waldo Canyon Fire and some of Teller County has been evacuated and some are "pre-evacuated" (ie. get ready to roll).

 

Over 20 arson fires have been extinguished in that area in the last couple of weeks. The cause of the Waldo Canyon Fire is officially "unknown." I will comment that we had no lightning for about 10 days before the fire started, so it's not lightning and there are no power lines near the source of the fire. The news says that the fire is "human caused" but they haven't determined if it was accidental or intentional.

[Guest ChesterBullock]

CO has done controlled burns for years. However, the areas that need it simply can't have them any more. Once fire hits that beetle kill, there is no stopping it. Just wait until Summit County goes--it's going to look way worse than Waldo Canyon. Imagine an entire county (multiple counties) where most every tree is dead:

This is what Colorado is facing.

 

I took that photo 3.5 years ago. The pine beetles have killed a large majority of trees stretching from the Grand Lake/ Granby area down south past Summit County. That said, there have been studies that show that, once dead for a certain amount of time, as in the case of the areas mentioned in Colorado, beetle-kill trees are not a great fuel for a forest fire. Read more about it at http://www.hcn.org/issues/44.8/bark-beetle-kill-leads-to-bigger-fires-right-well-maybe

[wapiti]

. 

 

[higginszoo]

That's interesting, thanks!

 

Here's a picture I took less than an hour ago, while sitting at a red light on route 9 in Summit Co.

 

My in-laws have a place behind Wal-Mart in Frisco, and the forest has been mostly dead due to beetle damage for a few years now. (I should check the pictures taken in the park across the street from s-i-l's wedding 8 years ago.) I've been wondering about fire danger there, and for my cousin who lives in Silverthorne or Dillon (can't keep track of which -- he works at Keystone year-round).

[twoxcell]

Controlled burns are done yearly in Oregon.