US Forest Service Prevents Its Own Scientists from Talking About Study

http://kvpr.org/post/us-forest-service-prevents-its-own-scientists-talking-about-study

98 28 11 years ago

roflchoppa2• 11 years ago

Man that's some crap right there. Science should be in the direct interest of politics, esp. in the case of ecology, environmental studies.

What does it mean to be forbidden to speak, that's a load of shit, if there is someone that's studying the field, allow them to present the facts of what occurs, and whats the best way (saving lives of wildlife, cost effectiveness, etc) to officials.

a load of bullshit its whats holding us back.

gegtik• 11 years ago

this has been happening in canada for the past decade or so

indlebe• 11 years ago

the upcoming canadian election is ultra-important for this reason.

a3n• 11 years ago

What does it mean to be forbidden to speak

It means you'll lose your job if you speak.

roflchoppa2• 11 years ago

i do understand the implications, what i dont understand is the reasoning.

nraynaud2• 11 years ago

Can anyone show some example maps of the proposed zoning? I have trouble envisioning the proposed policy.

Sanddancer2• 11 years ago

It doesn't sound like there are example maps, as this is just a paper studying what has happened, and one possible future mitigation. From what it sounds like, if we use Los Padres National Forest as an example, [1] they'll let areas near Alamo Mountain burn, but Pinon Pines Estates and Lake of the Woods would get forces concentrated there, with preventative forestry work to thin trees, etc to make things more manageable.

[1] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Los+Padres+National+Forest...

nraynaud2• 11 years ago

how does propagation work? wouldn't a fire travel all the way from a inhabited place to the habitations? do they have some kind of maximal propagation distance?

labster• 11 years ago

In California chaparral, both area and rate of burning far exceed the natural levels. I suspect that the plan for the entire Los Padres ecosystem would be full suppression of wildfire, except perhaps in the most remote areas. Alamo Mountain has off-road vehicle trails, so I suspect it already has increased fire risk.

   "Although chaparral is adapted to periodic wildfire,
   there is substantial evidence that fires are burning at
   unprecedented frequencies, and this repeated burning
   (at intervals closer than 15–20 years apart) exceeds
   many species’ resilience"

ftp://www.geology.sdsu.edu/pub/IEMM/CSS/Other%20papers/SyphardEtAl2007.pdf

CapitalistCartr• 11 years ago

Way to promote the paper and make sure its gets plenty of news coverage. I wish I could think they planned it that way, but I know better.

throwaway_yy2Di• 11 years ago

Here's the paper they're talking about:

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6254/1280.summary

Unfortunately only the abstract seems to be free.

toufka• 11 years ago

Some non-paywalled resources for more information are cited directly from within the paper:

"Although agencies are slow to reform internally, they may more rapidly respond to local stakeholder pressure... This has begun to change as communities increasingly threatened by large fires are urging land-management agencies to accelerate fuel reduction efforts, including the use of managed fire [1][2]."

[1] http://yosemitestanislaussolutions.com

[2] http://4fri.org

Hermel• 11 years ago

Francis Fukuyama recently wrote an excellent article about the US Forest Service in Foreign Affairs. Title: America in Decay

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2014-0...

jqm2• 11 years ago

"45 percent of recent new hires to the federal service are veterans, as mandated by Congress"

This is disturbing if true. Certainly not a way to get the best quality work force.

reitanqild2• 11 years ago

Not sure if I agree... 45% might be a too high percentage but hiring veterans? Absolutely yes. Likely a win/win.

Federal services get provably dependable people and veterans get work.

bro-stick• 11 years ago

We own a rural residential property near Chico, CA on top of a mesa in a fire-prone area, and the forest "management" is haphazard, combined with clueless American neighbors whom the city has to force to mow their weeds and remove fuel from their land, and you have a constant battle against stupid and/or lazy people whom don't know how to mange their land and are liabilties to everyone else. I'm often think about "accidentally" chucking a roadflare in their yard to get them with the program.

IIRC forest management changed significantly under either Bush Sr. or Clinton.

rasz_pl• 11 years ago

Dear scientist, please shut up, you are ruining our budget rise prospects. Bigger the fires bigger the budget and elevated importance of management positions.

raintrees• 11 years ago

I read it more as "we have spent all of the prevention money on fighting."

Along the lines of the "when you are up to your ass in alligators, it may be hard to remember that your original goal was to drain the swamp."

rsync• 11 years ago

I've read this through a few times and have yet to see anything even remotely controversial.

It's accepted, conventional wisdom - so deeply as to be cliche - everywhere in the fire service that managed burning and moving away from the emphasis on "stopping all burns no matter what" is the way to go.

I've never spoken to anyone that disagreed with this on any level other than specific tactics...

guelo• 11 years ago

This is a very poor article. It doesn't explain what it was that happened except at the end where it says Science added a disclaimer note. The reporter didn't get a quote from the Forrest Service about the issue. It's sensationalistic more than informative.

neltnerb2• 11 years ago

This was certainly common enough knowledge that it was taught to me explicitly in Boy Scouts back in 1997. Preventing all forest fires builds up undergrowth so that the severity of eventual fires is much worse and they are less controllable.

At the time, they were doing controlled burns of the Boy Scout camp (Philmont) in Nevada to try to make up for decades of undergrowth buildup before they knew better.

BuffaloBagel• 11 years ago

Philmont is in New Mexico.

hownottowrite• 11 years ago

There's a nifty disclaimer in the main text: "The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the USFS."

In any case, here are few of the more interesting citations from the full text.

"Globally, wildfire size, severity, and frequency have been increasing, as have related fatalities and taxpayer-funded firefighting costs" CITATION: http://nature.berkeley.edu/stephenslab/wp-content/uploads/20...

"But the 2% of wildfires that escape containment often burn under extreme weather conditions in fuel-loaded forests and account for 97% of fire-fighting costs and total area burned" CITATION: http://www.wildfire-economics.org/Library/Calkin_et_al_2005....

Bonus: Malcolm North on Climate Change and Wildfires - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9buMJNu6v4

contingencies• 11 years ago

On Australian aboriginal peoples' burnoff traditions: http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2010/12/aborigin... and http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/management/fire/fire-and-the-envir...

US Forest Service Prevents Its Own Scientists from Talking About Study

Related Stories