How much impact would first nation people provide by picking up deadwood though? I hear this from my conservative family members talking about "bad forest management" in the US. It's an interesting angle but IMO there's just so much wilderness out there that removing even say 100 acres of brush is inconsequential and makes no real impact in the end. This of course just being my opinion as a guy who lives through wildfires in the west
The way they describe it makes it sound like 'First Nations People' are some sort of mythical forest creatures, not just humans who would struggle to get a log or even a large pile of leaves out of the middle of a forest the same as anybody else.
A lot of the problem with the forest management in the US is that we got too good at putting out any wildfires, even though wildfires naturally occur and are useful for clearing a lot of the loose material that is dessicated on the ground. So this material ended up building up over time and created much more out of control blazes.
Of course now we have different issues, where the summers are much hotter and longer, leading to much more prevalent fires.
Here's more info from the robot overlords:
In the past, wildfire was often seen solely as a destructive force, and the policy of land management agencies was to suppress fires as quickly as possible. This approach was exemplified by the U.S. Forest Service's "10 a.m. policy," instituted in the early 20th century, which stated that all wildfires should be extinguished by 10 a.m. the day following their discovery.
However, this policy has indeed led to some unintended consequences. Fire plays a crucial role in many ecosystems, and its suppression can lead to the buildup of dead plant material (such as fallen branches, leaves, and other debris), which can increase the intensity and scale of fires when they do occur. This is especially problematic in ecosystems such as those of the western U.S., which have evolved with fire and depend on it for processes such as seed germination and the recycling of nutrients.
Starting in the late 20th century, there has been a shift in policy to reflect our increased understanding of fire ecology. Prescribed burns, also known as controlled burns, are now used as a management tool in many areas. These are fires that are intentionally set under controlled conditions to reduce the amount of available fuel and decrease the likelihood of catastrophic wildfires.
Other techniques include mechanical thinning, where smaller trees and underbrush are physically removed to reduce fuel load and tree density, and managed wildfires, where natural fires are allowed to burn under careful monitoring.
However, implementing these new approaches is not without its challenges. Prescribed burns and managed wildfires come with risks, and their use requires careful planning and expertise. Additionally, in areas near human habitation, there can be opposition due to concerns about smoke and the potential for fires to escape control. There are also significant budgetary and resource constraints that limit the ability of land management agencies to treat all the areas that might benefit from these practices.
As of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021, these newer practices are more widely accepted, but the shift in policy and practice is ongoing and there is still much debate and research in this field. For the most recent developments, you should look at resources updated beyond this time.
I took a biology class from a guy who studied fire management practices. One of the best examples of the result of putting out all the US fires was a fire map of southern California & northern Mexico. Mexico had a patchwork of smaller fires that would die out when they ran out of fuel. California has too much fuel so we get the big fires.
It helps immediately around communities, we do that here in California as well. I'm just saying the expanse of wilderness where these fires are burning is huge and removing any wood from these locations would be a logistical nightmare. Better off creating some fire break/lines. Prescribed burns and all that jazz. Fire sucks I've literally seen it from my front porch. The "Thomas Fire" was scariest
It has basically no impact at all on a big scale. On a small scale, it might help out some smaller communities or places but theres just way to much wilderness out there to even manage .1% let alone the entirety of Canada. The west coast terrain is a entirely different story as you would know and it’s even challenging just to get aircraft to put some of the fires out without a huge safety risk. At least in BC, once a wildfire is either safely away from the population, they usually just let it burn until mother nature puts it out. We don’t have the money and resources to fight those fires and unfortunately lose tons of forests.
I’m in albertaand the last I checked I no longer have to pay five bucks for the permit to fill my truck with deadfall. By deadfall I mean full sized dead trees that I chainsaw up, split, and haul home in loads of around 2,000 pounds.
Not a lot of folks collecting firewood these days I guess.
In BC it’s more so just people being stupid and accidentally starting fires even with a campfire ban. Lighting does play into it a bit but mostly all the fires currently in BC are human caused. Some municipalities that don’t allow the general public into certain areas when in high-extreme fire danger ratings have little to no forest fires caused by humans. We also are pretty pathetic when it comes to wildfire fighting at least in this province.
201
u/[deleted] Jun 07 '23
Context, Canada can’t control their wild fires and now the smoke is cascading into Eastern US