Why California doesn't do more prescribed burning

https://jabberwocking.com/why-dont-we-do-more-prescribed-burning-an-explainer/

by overrun11 • 2 years ago

4 5 2 years ago

proc0• 2 years ago

tt feels llke this is just making a bunch of excuses for why fires are such a problem. The real question should be, is it impossible to have 100% safe controlled fires, or is it too costly? Can they not do smaller fires over weeks to make sure it doesn't get out of control? Can they not have a contingency plan in case one gets out of control?

I'm sure there are decades of discussion on this and I don't have all the information, but the results speak for themselves. For more than a decade we haven't been able to prevent catastrophic fires (not sure about before). Judging from the other problems plaguing CA for decades, it would seem there are other factors that have more to do with leadership. But what do I really know, maybe CA is a unique geography with unique history that all collide and create an extremely hard to manage state.

hilbert422• 2 years ago

Why doesn't California get rid of those dangerous highly flammable eucalyptus trees? It's well known that this non native invasive species from Australia is highly fire prone.

I'm from Australia and I've lived through bushfires and witnessed them first-hand. During a bushfire when eucalypts reaches a certain temperature they just explode into an enormous fireball in a split second; it's truly frightening to see every leaf on a tree disappear up in flames in a couple of seconds.

When I first visited California quite a few decades ago almost the first two things I noticed was the hugh numbers of eucalyptus trees there were—they seemed to be everywhere—AND how well they grew there.

I was struck by both the size of the trees and the thickness of their canopies compared to what I was used to seeing in their native land.

Hopefully, this tragedy will make Californians rethink the policy of continuing to grow this invasive species and that they replace/replant with homegrown species that are much less fire prone.

defrost2• 2 years ago

Scientists say fire-loving Tasmanian blue gums not to blame for LA fires

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-10/tas-bluegums-role-in-...

  David Bowman, a professor of pyrogeography at the University of Tasmania, said while the trees were a contributing factor to Los Angeles current fires, the story was far more complex.

  He said the city's naturally dry landscape, the high amounts of fuel that had accumulated, and strong wind conditions were major contributing factors.

  The region's own fire-prone native flora also needed to be taken into account, he said.

  Greg Moore, a tree ecologist at the University of Melbourne, also cautioned against concluding the ( various Australian ) native trees were to blame.

  He said an investigation into the cause of the fire would need to be conducted to determine what started the fires, and what role the trees may have played.

California naturally has a lot of highly flammable trees and shrubbery (like Australia). It's not clear that the Australian imports are more flammable than that which they replace.

hilbert422• 2 years ago

As someone from Australia, I love eucalyptus trees, they're quintessentially Australian. So do most other Australians, so those here coming to their defence is not a bit surprising.

I do not know to what extent the eucalyptus trees played in the Los Angeles fire and I'd suggest that at present no one does—and they won't until a proper scientific/forensic analysis has been undertaken—and with due respect to the learned people you've quoted, neither do they.

The fact remains that in California our beloved eucalyptus trees are a both an invasive species and a dangerous, fire-prone hazard, and prudent thinking ought side on getting rid of them.

Why California doesn't do more prescribed burning

Related Stories