So, is NASA going to Fund this? Bush sure ain't!

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...275885,00.html

Let controlled blazes burn
Agenda 2003: Environment

Sunday, March 30, 2003 - A series of wet snowstorms during the past two weeks
delayed the imminent onset of Colorado's wildfire season but didn't eliminate
the danger. Many woodlands, especially ponderosa pines, still face a risk of
catastrophic wild blazes.
One of the most effective tools to reduce wildfire danger is also one of the
most controversial: The U.S. Forest Service and other agencies want to fight
fire with fire.

Once the snow melts, wet soils will sprout grasses and other fast-growing
plants. But the spring growth could become a problem later, when hot, dry
weather turns small plants into natural kindling.

Moreover, the snows didn't resolve the overgrown forest conditions that feed
massive wildfires, including the build-up of deadwood and sick, scraggly trees.

So this spring, while the ground is moist and temperatures are moderate, the
Forest Service plans to ignite small, controlled blazes in the Front Range
foothills and near mountain towns at risk of wildfire.

The controlled burns clear out the potential wildfire fuel most likely to erupt
into catastrophic blazes. Ponderosa pines evolved by surviving small blazes, so
the use of carefully monitored, prescribed fires mimics natural processes and
restores ecological balance to mid-elevation woodlands.

The technique works. In autumn 2001, the Forest Service burned 8,000 acres east
of Deckers. Large pines survived, but the sickly, small stuff apt to feed a big
wildfire was consumed. In June 2002, that area, called the Polhemus burn, saved
Roxborough and nearby subdivisions by depriving the oncoming Hayman wildfire of
fuel. If not for the Polhemus burn, Roxborough would have been toast.

Yet while the Polhemus burn was underway, the Forest Service got pounded with
citizen complaints about the smoke. Such whining is typical of the obstacles
the Forest Service and other agencies encounter when doing controlled burns.
The public must realize that the alternative to prescribed fire is the awful
destruction from a real wildfire.

Even Colorado's state government has made it tough. The Forest Service often
has a narrow window of time in which the weather conditions are right and
trained personnel are available. But punitive state legislation, called SB 145,
requires the Forest Service to get a state permit before doing a controlled
burn. The extra bureaucratic layer could significantly delay controlled burns,
leaving communities vulnerable.

There are hundreds of thousands of acres that the Forest Service would like to
manage with controlled burns, but limited budgets mean only a few such burns
will get done this summer. In reality, the Forest Service and other agencies
should set prescribed fires every spring and fall for decades.

So before citizens complain about smoke from controlled burns, they should
remember the huge ash clouds generated by the Hayman fire - and realize that
controlled burns are one of the best ways to prevent such massive
conflagrations.

Aozotorp wrote:
So, is NASA going to Fund this? Bush sure ain't!

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...275885,00.html

Let controlled blazes burn
Agenda 2003: Environment

Sunday, March 30, 2003 - A series of wet snowstorms during the past two weeks
delayed the imminent onset of Colorado's wildfire season but didn't eliminate
the danger. Many woodlands, especially ponderosa pines, still face a risk of
catastrophic wild blazes.
One of the most effective tools to reduce wildfire danger is also one of the
most controversial: The U.S. Forest Service and other agencies want to fight
fire with fire.

Once the snow melts, wet soils will sprout grasses and other fast-growing
plants. But the spring growth could become a problem later, when hot, dry
weather turns small plants into natural kindling.

Moreover, the snows didn't resolve the overgrown forest conditions that feed
massive wildfires, including the build-up of deadwood and sick, scraggly trees.

So this spring, while the ground is moist and temperatures are moderate, the
Forest Service plans to ignite small, controlled blazes in the Front Range
foothills and near mountain towns at risk of wildfire.

The controlled burns clear out the potential wildfire fuel most likely to erupt
into catastrophic blazes. Ponderosa pines evolved by surviving small blazes, so
the use of carefully monitored, prescribed fires mimics natural processes and
restores ecological balance to mid-elevation woodlands.

The technique works. In autumn 2001, the Forest Service burned 8,000 acres east
of Deckers. Large pines survived, but the sickly, small stuff apt to feed a big
wildfire was consumed. In June 2002, that area, called the Polhemus burn, saved
Roxborough and nearby subdivisions by depriving the oncoming Hayman wildfire of
fuel. If not for the Polhemus burn, Roxborough would have been toast.

Yet while the Polhemus burn was underway, the Forest Service got pounded with
citizen complaints about the smoke. Such whining is typical of the obstacles
the Forest Service and other agencies encounter when doing controlled burns.
The public must realize that the alternative to prescribed fire is the awful
destruction from a real wildfire.

Even Colorado's state government has made it tough. The Forest Service often
has a narrow window of time in which the weather conditions are right and
trained personnel are available. But punitive state legislation, called SB 145,
requires the Forest Service to get a state permit before doing a controlled
burn. The extra bureaucratic layer could significantly delay controlled burns,
leaving communities vulnerable.

There are hundreds of thousands of acres that the Forest Service would like to
manage with controlled burns, but limited budgets mean only a few such burns
will get done this summer. In reality, the Forest Service and other agencies
should set prescribed fires every spring and fall for decades.

So before citizens complain about smoke from controlled burns, they should
remember the huge ash clouds generated by the Hayman fire - and realize that
controlled burns are one of the best ways to prevent such massive
conflagrations.


Well, he can fund it now or fund it in August. It's a lot cheaper now
and good training for seasonal crews.

What I'd like to see is a program that does this for the thousands of
small private landowners in the West - lots of the shots on TV last year
were of fire fighters wasting their time and energys trying to protect
property on small inholdings.

The interface question is no longer an issue: those lands have been
developed and are full of taxpayers. It matters little whether the
surrounding forest lands are federal, industrial or just a slough of
five acre woodsy parcels and hobby farms. They don't have the resources
to fire proof their lands even if they could get a burn permit to do it.

Maybe the insurance companies could cough up the money.

Maybe the insurance companies could cough up the money.


The Policy Holders would be cancelled faster than a speeding bullet!