have wildfires ALWAYS been so common?

[porwolf]

Another reason why so many wild fires are in the news is because many more people built houses in or near wilderness. Fires make the news when homes are threatened or destroyed. With no homes in danger fire don't get the same news exposure. No fires in the news few people are aware of them.

[LWJ]

Trees are grown as a crop in Oregon. I assume this is true other places. Having forests that are all the same age and planted with high density is a contributor.

[Geary]

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

hate to PARF it, but there is a reason why forest fires are getting worse.

I hate to see threads PARF'd, but something does seem out of the ordinary. I recall the fires up & down California in 2008, and the story that I heard only once, on the radio. Authorities had shot & killed a man that they caught starting one of those fires .. yet this HUGE story was immediately squashed. I believe most of the 2008 fires were blamed on lightning strikes.

[Flieger]

Originally Posted by Geary

I hate to see threads PARF'd, but something does seem out of the ordinary. I recall the fires up & down California in 2008, and the story that I heard only once, on the radio. Authorities had shot & killed a man that they caught starting one of those fires .. yet this HUGE story was immediately squashed. I believe most of the 2008 fires were blamed on lightning strikes.

Interesting. Never heard about that. Sounds like a good system, though they would need more publicity of the kills to prevent copycats.

[RWebb]

you have to separate ignition events from what happens to the fire AFTER it is started

then you have to separate the severity of the fire from the damage it does - e.g. a big, bad crown fire in wilderness does less damage to us than one near the urban interface (houses, roads, powerlines, etc.)

logging not only affects stand characteristics (age of trees, underbrush, sunlight that gets down to the tinder on the ground, etc.) - it also creates roads that allow firebugs to get in there and cause trouble

but wood is a national resource and no way is logging going to stop - the issue is how to do it

[Por_sha911]

Originally Posted by quicksix

One hundred years of fire suppression policy instead of prescribed burns.

+1

Originally Posted by porwolf

Another reason why so many wild fires are in the news is because many more people built houses in or near wilderness. Fires make the news when homes are threatened or destroyed. With no homes in danger fire don't get the same news exposure. No fires in the news few people are aware of them.

The sad part is these same idiots that built in the middle of a wilderness cry when their house burns down. Worse yet, they want the govt (firefighters) and the ins company to spend millions bail them out for their stupidity. I say, if you built in a forest in the middle of nowhere, you're on your own. That's the price you pay for having a cool home to brag about at the office in the city.

[RWebb]

Yes, we have the same problem on the coast. RIch morons build or buy a house built, literally on sand. Then they want the taxpayers to pay for their house when storms undermine the cliff it sits on, or bury it in the sand.

[dhoward]

Or you have to consider the effects of instant information.
4th page story about a fire 1500 miles away? Who cares.
Now it's televised constantly to fill a 'need' to 'inform'.

[Soterik]

Originally Posted by gatotom

Well, after living the last 30 plus yrs in the mtns, yes, fires have increased.

My take on the subject:

Logging has become extinct, got to save the owls or whatever.
Since no more logging no more land management which leads to over growth of the woods.
no more land management also leads to more bug infestation which leads to more dead trees in the woods.
More dead trees give the natural lightning more fuel to burn.
More forest fires.

Does Europe have as many forest fires as USA??? probably not because they are active on land management with thinning of the woods almost to the point that makes them like parks.

In my eyes it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the problem, now we have to convince those environmentalists which leads us back to the good old political system where the problem started in the first place.

Hey Tom!
You might recall that I'm up Eagle Creek... and just like 9 years ago, I just got through spending last week yanking parts and cars out of my barn. Since they gave me the time to do it, it was just my labor, so it worked out fine. Who knows what will happen the next time. I was the last property that was in Evac Zone 2, they were in Zone 3 100 yards further up the canyon.

Eric

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by RWebb

Yes, we have the same problem on the coast. RIch morons build or buy a house built, literally on sand. Then they want the taxpayers to pay for their house when storms undermine the cliff it sits on, or bury it in the sand.

Indeed...don't build houses on sand bars (i.e. barrier islands)...Mama Nature don't like that crap and there ain't a damn thing we can do about it in the long run...well, except use tax dollars to rebuild 'em over and over

[porwolf]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

+1

The sad part is these same idiots that built in the middle of a wilderness cry when their house burns down. Worse yet, they want the govt (firefighters) and the ins company to spend millions bail them out for their stupidity. I say, if you built in a forest in the middle of nowhere, you're on your own. That's the price you pay for having a cool home to brag about at the office in the city.

Since we are a capitalist country those who dare fate with building stupid can always buy insurance. But if they see a quote they may get smart again very quickly.