NPR Story on (Some) Fire Experts Against FS 90-Day Review of Prescribed Fire

I thought this NPR story was interesting.
This is the title.
Ecologists say federal wildfires are at a dangerous level with climate change

As far as I know, most fire ecologists and firefighters agree with this statement.
Claim 1. Ordered fire works mostly (especially in the east and south), but FS plays the game with improved technology, better practices, less pressure on individuals for acres, more and more trained people, and so on.

Claim. 2. This is due to the combination of previous fire extinguishers, many homes, the escapes are more dangerous (and perhaps a few suppression options), unwanted expansion and climate change – all of these factors are due to some unknown combination, new and increasingly combustible (even ) By creating a mixture of conditions.

Please add your own ideas or your own claims in Clause 1 or 2 in the comments.

On May 20, USFS Chief of Staff Randy Moore suspended a 90-day safety review of ground fires. New Mexico fires burn more than 340,000 acres[340,000 ha]

But many fire ecologists and forest experts warn that this “momentary cessation” is exacerbating the risk of wildfires. Critics have merely hidden the agency’s dangerous, outdated and problematic intentional fire and fire prevention measures, which have failed to adapt to climate change and mega droughts.

Of course, many others who are not mentioned in the story disagree. But logically, I don’t understand this … FS How much PB works in the SUMMER in the West. Look, August 20 is 90 days from May 20. And FS had trouble hiring enough firefighters this summer to deal with wildfires. So what are the possible PBs during that time?

Okay, in a letter to scientists, they say:

Today, during the 90-day holiday, we ask you to re-install the ordered burning of non-severe U.S. national forests. For example, regions 8 and 9 are not currently in a state of drought; According to a recent NOAA drought forecast for the United States, most areas in Region 8 and Region 9 will be suitable for further combustion measures. Allowing FS scientists to collect burned data from non-federal partners during this period also included national leadership in the proposed fire study. Once the national review is complete and it is safe to do so, we ask that you consider reconsidering the burning in the Southwest and Western United States of America, even before this 90-day break.

Mostly they seem to be talking about the Midwest and the South, which is not really a concern for people who are prone to fire hazards (and who do PB often, with unintended consequences). So that statement makes sense (allow some to continue burning) but not for the sake of it (excessive oil storage in the West).

But perhaps the 90 days are giving FSS a chance to “improve the risk.” Or mobilize long-term efforts to improve the presentation. Why don’t we think that’s what they do?

Hurtew and other forest services – and other fire agencies – continue to ignore climate change in decision-making processes, despite scientific evidence and the agency’s own goal of reducing dangerously large amounts of built-up fuel in Western forests.

But what does it mean to “take the lead in climate change” in practice? Obviously one option is due to CC due to circumstances varying and not fully understood, so let’s be very careful with PB, let’s be more careful than ever. But the scientists do not seem to argue in their letter.

Several sections of the report emphasized the point, including that fire officials were unaware that the fire had been prepared in “more dry conditions than usual.”

But was that a “climate change” thing or something like “FS did not do the right thing on the site” (read the report later)? And if climate change is not translated into what is measured at the site (fuel humidity or air temperature or humidity), do we lack something that is very important?

For these and other reasons, experts worry that the agency’s firefighting is more than just a “window of opportunity” to cover the gaps between speech and reality. According to Hurtew, all the peers and forest services assessed in the case are planning to reduce their own hazardous forest fuels at a historic level.

“The question remains. Is the agency ready to make changes to create a conducive environment for its employees, their staff to work efficiently and to be well-supported and well-funded to achieve those goals?”

So there is a question. Another question is whether FS can partner with governments and other institutions to implement that, including social consent.
In any case, just by reading this article, you can get the impression:

(1) F.S.
(2) But experts feel that they should continue to burn, knowing that they should not be damaged.

I do not understand the letter from the real scientists. I am very sorry for the journalists who are trying to cover this.

And of course (approximately) a solution from me.

Maybe a million dollars in modeling and technology development (let’s say there are drones and models with different levels of accuracy and timeliness to determine the temperature in the combustion pile) but I don’t think there is a big difference between that. In practical terms, financial support is provided. One suggestion, then, is for the fire expert / panel to make a joint decision on key questions and for any study that is thought to be useful for PB.

Articles You Might Like

Share This Article