14-05-2003, 03:56 PM
|
|
|
A Letter and an Editorial
(Aozotorp) writes:
No one disputes that the West faces a major risk of wildfires each summer. A
wrongheaded and nearly century-long policy of suppressing fires, which was not
reversed until the 1990s, created a dangerous buildup of fuel in the woods. The
region is also in the fourth year of a severe drought. Sprawl development
around big cities and second home projects in scenic mountain areas have pushed
more homes into the ''wildlife urban interface,'' where uncontrolled fires
ignite houses and put both residents and firefighters at risk.
I wonder how effective this "fire suppression" actually is. Even with
modern equipment, it has been impossible to stop the major forest fires
of the last decade. All they can realistically do is try to protect
structures and pray for rain. Historically, there have always been
excessive fuel loads and catastrophic forest fires.
The only real change is that we don't intentionally set everything on
fire every year like the Indians used to do. I don't hear anyone
advocating a return to arson as a way of enhancing hunting prospects.
Urban sprawl is a separate problem not directly related to forestry.
Homeowners need to take responsibility for managing their own property,
which includes a fire buffer zone, access roads and perhaps fire fighting
equipment. Certainly they need to provide a water supply. Small
woodlots also rarely receive any practical forest management. The
occupants may live in the country, but their orientation is urban and
they don't care for their land.
I am also curious how private forest owners manage to control fire so
well. I have noticed that, though private timber interests own half of
the forests in Oregon, the vast majority of the woodlands burned has been
on public land.
--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc
|