Why don't we do more prescribed burning? An explainer.

[usonian]

Long (how unusual these days) and thorough.
https://jabberwocking.com/why-dont-we-do-more-prescribed-burning-an-explainer/

Posting just 4 takeaways.

There are a few things to take away from all this. First, the longstanding opposition to prescribed burns has never been about California. It's nationwide and was due primarily to US Forest Service policies that set a standard for the whole country.

Second, prescribed burns have both upsides and downsides. The upside is that they help prevent wildfires from spreading, especially to populated areas. The downside is that sometimes they get out of control and produce understandable public opposition. They also generate large amounts of smoke, which is both annoying and a genuine health hazard.

Third, prescribed burns are expensive and underfunded. In 2022, the Biden administration announced a plan to reduce the fire risk on 50 million acres of land, an effort it figured would cost around $50 billion. But it was only partially funded with $3 billion from the 2021 infrastructure act.

Finally, prescribed burns can only be done on certain days: not too hot and not too cold (or rainy). Forest managers declare specific days, mostly in spring and fall, as "burn days," but climate change has steadily eroded that window. Fewer and fewer days, especially in the West, are safe for prescribed burns

Lots more at the link.

[efhmc]

1. We had great programs going in Texas until some people did not follow the rules and we lost insurance

and many groups that had been set up and were viable all over the state. In pictures of the Bastrop fire of 2011, there are shots showing the difference across the road of areas that have been prescribed burned and those which had not.