In my time at Clemson I have heard numerous professors speak of fire suppression and the harm it has done to natural processes. Here in the southeast we see denser forests and a lack of regeneration of fire dependent species. As a Wildlife Biologist, I have been trained to notice these changes. However, the average layperson would never know the difference.
The west is a beast of another color. Just this week we watched the outskirts of Reno, Nevada burned. While burning of arid lands is a natural process, many have already speculated that the severity of this weeks fires are, at least in part, due to fire suppression. These areas naturally burned approximately twice each decade. As people began to fragment this system with roads and houses, fires were suppressed in order to protect property. This suppression has led to a buildup of fuels, far above the natural levels.
The Reno area has seen an exceptionally dry fall and winter this year. When added to an abundance of fuel, all that was needed was a spark. In this case, that spark was provided by an elderly individual who improperly disposed of fireplace ashes. These ashes were whipped up by winds rushing ahead of new weather system. The winds gave our fire the added push to become more than just a wildfire, it was now a firestorm that threatened thousands of homes and lives.
Fortunately, the winds were short-lived and firefighters gained control of the fire within a matter of days. Additionally, the new weather front brought snow and rain to the area, helping to extinguish any remaining hotspots. In all, twenty homes were lost and one fatality resulted.
Could this have been prevented? Put simply, the answer is yes. We have the ability to manage these lands in a way that reduces the risk of catastrophic fires, and thereby mimics natural conditions. Why this was not implemented in Reno I cannot say, but I can make an educated guess. It could be because burning is more expensive than simply doing nothing at all. With the nation in a recession, landowners may have decided this was not a priority. Personally, I do not suspect this is the reason. Most of the land surrounding Reno is federal land (BLM and USFS), and therefore is managed pretty actively. The most likely answer is that the people of Reno do not want to deal with smoke created by controlled burns. Smoke inconveniences those with asthma, limits visibility for motorists, interrupts air-travel patterns, and is generally seen as having an “unpleasant” smell. So we package it up, put it away, and try to avoid it for as long as possible, with the end result being fires like the one we have just witnessed in Reno. The sad part is, this incident is bound to repeat itself due to the ignorance of people.
Still, none of this accounts for the damage to the ecosystem. When will people learn to live with the world around them, rather than constantly and irrevocably altering it?
No comments:
Post a Comment