|
|
What Can Be Done To Stop Wildfires?
|
|
T O P I C
|
Discussion Started: 06-11-2002, 10:19 AM
|
|
|
|
With several wildfires raging across the state, and Colorado in its worst drought in the past 100 years, this is by far, the toughest wildfire season we've ever faced.
Gov. Owens has already banned fireworks and open burning. Is this enough? What else can be done to prevent reckless human-caused fires? What would be appropriate punishment if the person who started the wildfire is caught?
|
|
View Messages: [newest first] | [oldest first]
|
Koi72!8m6
|
11-19-2006, 12:43 PM
|
|
|
As a previous, and possible future user of wilderness areas, (because I'm getting a bit old), I always worried about wildfires. Pine trees loaded with very burnable sap and sometimes exploding to hundreds of feet away when burning is spooky especially when you're sleeping in a tent. Dry brush and grass fires are just about as bad.
But stopping somebody who "loses it" and lights a fire, like in the Hayman (sp?) one, is a problem I don't have a clue to resolve. The only thing I relied on when I have gone backpacking and dayhiking, was my psychic intuition: go or don't go. I also used that for the lightning danger, and never got struck once, though I went above tree-line during danger times.
What is dangerous to a user of psychic precognition like me is setting a rigid schedule as a priority for wilderness destinations. Then, I shunt the gut feelings, the swift "seeings" (precognitions) aside, rationalizing "Oh, that couldn't possibly happen!" I get enough of this problem in day to day city life, and put it aside when using the Wilderness. Too bad somebody didn't apply such a warning system and sidetrack the firestarter in the Hayman fire. Or even just to read the obvious clues to non-esp-users that must have been present. Perhaps they felt they were on a schedule that had priority, and the fleeting perception that the firestarter was heading in a bad direction got shunted aside.
For your thoughts... -- Koi
|
|
Nel
|
07-30-2002, 10:53 PM
|
|
|
I'm not sure how you make people think or be responsable. The wilderness belongs to each person. I do think that the waxey stuff that is left after a fire, the stuff the water won't go through. I think you should contact Jerry Baker. He uses regular household(Cheap) products to get the water to to INTO the earth, not run off. Revive works well too. It is expensive. Jerry Baker's ideas get the vegetation growing fast too. Give it a try. Maybe lush, very GREEN, moisture holding plants wouldn't burn as eaisly.
Sincerely,
Nel
|
|
rancher2
|
07-20-2002, 12:49 PM
|
|
|
Pass the roadless rule now! Almost every fire that is human caused was started within a few feet of a road. With more and more off-road vehicles trespassing on public and private land (remember the mudfest?) more fires will be started by carelessness. I get these people driving across my land all the time, and they come in from forest roads that need to be closed by the authorities to protect my land and the public's land!
rancher2
|
|
ajones5011
|
07-04-2002, 12:01 PM
|
|
|
When the whole state has a fireworks ban, its pretty ridiculous that Gov. Owens would still allow firework displays by individual towns. I would think having the worst fire season on record would have made him make a responsible decision. Ban should mean everyone!
|
|
tcnohead
|
06-25-2002, 3:05 PM
|
|
|
Since when does carbon contribute to global warming?? I was under the impression that the release of CFC's and other man-made chemicals were the cause. The earth has has forest fires for millions of years. If carbon does cause global warming, thats a lot of years for global warming to occur and I think it would be a lot warmer that it is now. Please get your facts first. Controlled burns work. Its been proven. Clearing works, but in smaller areas. In large areas, its just too much effot and labor. Best thing to do here is to have an forest service that activly pursues violators of the no-fire policy.
"We kill time, time buries us." Machado de Assis
|
|
joeindt
|
06-21-2002, 12:22 PM
|
|
|
Thinning does not stop forest fires. It's expensive and if it is done properly very slow. Thinning also is a backdoor for timber companies to build roads and eventual development. Control burns are the most natural. I believe the true answer is limit access to mountain subdivision development and let the fires burn. Build towns instead of sprawl in the hills. Then those who build outside of the protection area must bear the price of protection on themselves. They can gamble if they want.
Here is an excellent article in the Seattle Times: http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=harrop20&date=20020620&query=denver
|
|
P-M
|
06-20-2002, 1:13 PM
|
|
|
There are two main options to stop wildfires, one is controled burn. As many previous posts have mentioned this seems like and effective way. However, there are two main downsides, one is that they release tons of carbon into the the air which contributes to global warming. The second main downfall is the fact that they do have the potential to get out of control. The second option to stop wildfires is to manually go through the forests aand clear the underbrush and over crowded trees. This has been down in numereous examples from OSMP in boulder to Los Alamos in NM. There has been good results, fire passes through the forest, but does not get out of hand and ignite the trees, this seems like a viable optipon. The only problem is cost. But it would be less than fighting a full blown fire even if it is in contol
|
|
LJ6101
|
06-19-2002, 11:43 AM
|
|
|
Steve, The most reasonable statement you made was to give the forest service the tools and the monies to manage and maintain the forests. One of my relatives was a manager of the forest service; moving between Yellowstone and Glacier for several years; there were less than adequate resources to work these areas. He was also a Hot Shot and fire jumper; until Yellowstone burned; and his home and land burned in the Montana side; for weeks those who were there argued that the fire had to be fought or that we would lose hundreds of thousands of acres. No one listened. Unfortunately, the forest service is in the business of selling forest areas to private enterprise to futher develop obnoxious ski resorts which use water to make artificial snow (no restrictions on this!!); of which only 40% is returned to the earth as moisture. They are also selling to developers to build homes with shake roofs so that we can all pay for the loss in the case of natural disaster. Look at any map and see how much forest land we have lost; in that loss we have lost the value of trees; to clean the air; to release oxygen, to protect vegetation in the event of heavy rains and flooding; old growth trees and our history; all for the sake of a few bucks to a developer. Any return to normal participation rates in Colorado will only create futher devastation in massive floods, loss of top soil; and damage to the water system; the aquatic life; and yeah, the drinking water; the tainted water for crops; all will be affected. Once the flames are extinguished; the new work has just begun; maybe an ski run will be created..gosh, can't wait.
|
|
mtnlvr
|
06-19-2002, 11:36 AM
|
|
|
Real forest management is certainly the answer. Since that hasn't been happening however, we need to take drastic steps to protect our beautiful state. Stricter fire bans need to be enacted and enforced. I live in Durango where the Missionary Ridge fire is raging out of control. It shouldn't be a surprise to anybody that the state is extremely dry, yet the police are getting numerous reports daily about people tossing cigarette butts out their car windows. Somebody was caught a few days ago with a campfire up the LaPlata Canyon! Members from my entire family have volunteered many hours to help with relief efforts, communications, etc. in fighting this fire. Anybody caught ignoring the fire ban should be fined a hefty amount, and ordered to serve a few hundred hours of "useful public service" on a fire line. Perhaps that would finally open their eyes - the fire raging just 10 miles from us, consuming over 44,000 acres thus far hasn't seemed to. Huge subdivisions in the mountains are a hazard. Some of them here have only ONE road for egress! This is due to poor planning on the county commissioner's part, and greed on the developer's part. It is sad the the fire cannot be attacked directly because resources are being used to protect structures. Firefighters are saying that too many people did not perform mitigation efforts, so they're having to do so now. This is causing the efforts to be centered on defense, protecting homes, rather than on offense, attacking the fire. The wildlife has had a very tough time of it the last few years, and again must take a back seat to man.
|
|
lab_man
|
06-18-2002, 4:02 PM
|
|
|
What indeed?
Easiest; light fires. Once the fuel is gone they won't burn anymore. Isn't this basically what we have been doing for the last several decades? Want a better solution? Take the environmental groups out of the picture and resume sensible forest management practises. Revisit overly restrictive land management policies; wilderness designation is a good example of mis(non)management, as are the current policies governing national parks (witness Yellowstone). Promote timber harvesting on public lands, to include clear-cutting where appropriate. Use controlled burns to clean up the forest floor as necessary. Give Forest Service personnel the tools and $$$ they need to their job, and then back off and let them do it. Or just let the forests burn as an earlier post suggests. Of course you're still gonna get those ugly clear-cuts . . . big black ones.
ByeBye! S.
Steve Jernigan Laboratory Manager Microelectronics Research University of Colorado (719) 262-3101
|
|
Top
News