Top Posters
Since Sunday
y
2
m
2
m
2
u
2
m
2
B
2
M
2
e
2
k
2
N
2
y
2
m
2
Home Q & A Board Biology-Related Homework Help Environmental and Conservation Biology
New Topic  
obpopnurse obpopnurse
wrote...
Go to Answer
Posts: 25
Rep: 0 0
11 years ago
If the dead trees and under-brush are cleared out, and the forests thinned some, fires won't spread as much.  Would this be a good idea?
Read 463 times
6 Replies
Replies
wrote...
#1
11 years ago
Maybe we should stop overbuilding in areas that are near this kind of danger.
Answer accepted by topic starter
LeggosLeggos
wrote...
#2
Posts: 8
Rep: 0 0
11 years ago
Sign in or Sign up in seconds to unlock everything for free
This verified answer contains over 110 words.
1

Related Topics

wrote...
#3
11 years ago
They are doing that already, but what is burning in CA are not lush forests. Most of these areas are very dry bushes and grass. These areas will be very pretty in January when the rains come and everything is green for a few months, but right now it is all dry cinders.

At the end of the summer these areas are very susceptible to fires and once a fire starts it can consume a large area in a very short time. In fact, it can be impossible to outrun a bruch fire and people, even experienced firefighters, die.  

The hot, warm winds make firefighting very dangerous and often it is impossible to save an area at all. Typically firefighters try to clear out areas in front of the fire and set small fires to remove material that can burn in the main fire before it gets there.

The main reason for the loss of buildings are the development rules and building codes. People who build in the hills know about fire being a real danger and that they have to expect natural wildfires (the current ones might be arson, though).

But because land is expensive and everybody wants their dream home with a view, cities push the limits on what are places with acceptable fire risk. Home owners do themselves no favor by building stick-and-frame homes where fire-retardant concrete (can't build with brick in or near an earthquake zone!) would be called for.

Much of this is a man made problem. Nature needs and can survive these fires (which does not mean I am not hurting for all the small animals and plants which perish in them) and that is part of the natural cycle in these areas.

It is us invading these places what causes the real destruction in human terms.
wrote...
#4
11 years ago
Yes it is a good idea.  The Forest Service and the state of California recommend it.
wrote...
#5
11 years ago
The bottomline is fire is and always has been a vital part of nature. We have spent the last century under a phiosophy that man and fire are natural enimies. It turns out that fire is nature, so if we keep fire out of the picture, we are actually making enimies with nature. We need to start introducing more prescribed burning on our landscape, and try to bring it closer to how it once was. Native Americans understood that, and used fire a lot. Florida has a pretty good policy where they do that. They still have fires, but they are less frequent and intense.

Thinning does help, thinning mimics what fire does, in ways.

Also, you shouldn't build homes in some of the most flammable vegetation in the world. Just like you shouldn't build a city in a bowl that is subject to hurricanes, or build homes on sand or in a flood plain. If you choose to do that, or move to one of those said areas, it should be your responsibility to deal with the consequences.
wrote...
#6
11 years ago
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Mother Nature is already taking care of this right now.
New Topic      
Quick Reply
Explore
Post your homework questions and get free online help from our incredible volunteers
  533 People Browsing
Start New Topic Take the Tour CoursesNew Study Tools Topics Trending Browse by Textbook
Live Chat
Related Images
  
 215
  
 368
  
 337
Your Opinion
Do you believe in global warming?
Votes: 488
Previous poll results: Where do you get your textbooks?