Were there always this many wildfires?

ArrowFlyer86

ArrowFlyer86

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Jul 17, 2019
Messages
1,549
Location
Chicago suburbs
Display Name
Display name:
The Little Arrow That Could
When I was younger I never really paid attention to wildfires. Maybe they were less common, or maybe they were so far away that it didn't register in my mind.
But, I gotta ask from those who have been flying longer or lived in these areas...
Were there always this many TFRs up on the west coast for fire-fighting ops? Looks like damn near 15% of whole area is blocked off for that. If it hasn't always been like this, when did it really pick up?
1693680740372.png
 
Don't know,
but
Lot's of fires are started by people. There are more people to day and they all seem to be meaner.
Also, some of the biggest fires have been started by Electric Company line failures and as we race to add more capacity to the grid, we can probably expect to see more of that.

Oh yeah, a lot of people blame it on MMCC.
 
well a dog may wander, but you still can tell where he's heading....... aaaand IBTL.
 
To be clear, the cause I'm less concerned about... Though I know climate, electrical lines and man made are all contributing factors.

But I'm curious, was the big ramp up just in the last 5-10y? If you were flying in the 1990s did you have TFRs like this up?
 
I saw one of those crime shows that talked about all these fires i think back in the 70’s or something. Turns out one of the dudes on the fire squad was lighting them. You know, job security. At least for a little while.
 
kind of hard to assess - at one time the approach was to try to stop every single fire as quickly as possible.

Eventually someone figured out that the local environments needed the occasional fire to clear out old growth.
 
JOhnH said:
Don't know,
but
Lot's of fires are started by people. There are more people to day and they all seem to be meaner.
Also, some of the biggest fires have been started by Electric Company line failures and as we race to add more capacity to the grid, we can probably expect to see more of that.

Oh yeah, a lot of people blame it on MMCC.
Click to expand...
MMCC ???
 
When we were younger, we didn’t really know about any fires outside our local area, unless it was a really major fire.
 
Yes, the TFR's have been bad in the west for the last few years. I think this due to fires (obviously), but also because it seems the Feds put TFR's in place much more expeditiously. Thankfully this year, at least around here, the fires and smoke have been relatively light as compared to past years and is a welcome break. Of course ~ 50% of the forest has already burned up so there's probably not going to be as many fires... :(
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
If it hasn't always been like this, when did it really pick up?
Click to expand...
Yes and no, but it depends on what context you look at it from. Do they actively fight more wildfires now? Yes. And when you have fire air ops you have a TFR.

But basically the reason they go after more fires is because more people have moved into those areas for various reasons. Another basic reason for more fires in general is you are seeing the results of a lack of forest management in these same areas. Back around late 80s/early 90s when there were several high profile fires the topic was brought up on many fronts, but unfortunately ignored on those same fronts. Instead most wildfire budgets have steadily increased vs simply adopting are more proactive method.

Some states/areas still let fires burnout naturally or simply contain them on a larger scale vs actively fight them. The ironic thing is the same groups who stopped most forestry management programs 40-50 years ago, are the same groups who are blaming climate change for this increase. The fix for the problem is the same now as it was 40 years ago: manage the forests properly and limit or regulate type of structures in wildfire prone areas.
 
eman1200 said:
I saw one of those crime shows that talked about all these fires i think back in the 70’s or something. Turns out one of the dudes on the fire squad was lighting them. You know, job security. At least for a little while.
Click to expand...

Way back in '97 and '98 I flew fire patrol in West Virginia. The land was owned by the state and the trees were owned by the lumber companies, and the lumber companies spent big money to not have the trees burn. The fires were not allowed to burn uncontrolled.

When a fire was reported, that county was not allowed to fight the fire, but an adjacent county would be assigned to that fire. So, while not common, it did occasionally happen for a fire fighter to call a relative in another county to get the ball rolling fires started... guaranteed income for a few weeks...

(I learned to ignore small smoke columns coming up through the trees..:stirpot: )
 
This year has been exceptionally light so far. I don’t think there is that much left to burn.
 
Rumor is one of the fires near Spokane was started by a combine. That one burned almost 200 homes. We are drier than normal but with so many homes in rural areas things will happen.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
To be clear, the cause I'm less concerned about... Though I know climate, electrical lines and man made are all contributing factors.

But I'm curious, was the big ramp up just in the last 5-10y? If you were flying in the 1990s did you have TFRs like this up?
Click to expand...
I was flying in the '90s, and it was definitely not this bad.
 
Bell206 said:
… The ironic thing is the same groups who stopped most forestry management programs 40-50 years ago, are the same groups who are blaming climate change for this increase. The fix for the problem is the same now as it was 40 years ago: manage the forests properly and limit or regulate type of structures in wildfire prone areas.
Click to expand...
^ This, but it’s more than just forests. There’s more wildland/urban interface and more locales that discourage fire prevention activities in the name of ‘nature’.
 
Smoke has been bad here for quite some time. Visibility from 6500 to 7500' was only about 10 miles . Did a long cross country VFR flight in it. Great map reading experience picking out the waypoints. Lots of smoke here in northern Montana east of the divide is from Alberta and BC fires . The ocassional rain clears the air for a day and back comes the smoke.
 
I think there's an irony that instead of prevention, and human management, it seems like we'd prefer to NOT manage, but then need to burn a ton of fuel fighting the fires to preserve life.

Also, any "data" is only as good as how long that data has been collected, and honestly, suspect.

Fires have been around for a long time, and I presume that they would likely have been fewer, but burned a lot more acreage.

Here's an interesting read I was able to dig up quickly:

 
And here I thought some fires were started the old fashioned way: lightning
 
Bell206 said:
Yes and no, but it depends on what context you look at it from. Do they actively fight more wildfires now? Yes. And when you have fire air ops you have a TFR.

But basically the reason they go after more fires is because more people have moved into those areas for various reasons. Another basic reason for more fires in general is you are seeing the results of a lack of forest management in these same areas. Back around late 80s/early 90s when there were several high profile fires the topic was brought up on many fronts, but unfortunately ignored on those same fronts. Instead most wildfire budgets have steadily increased vs simply adopting are more proactive method.

Some states/areas still let fires burnout naturally or simply contain them on a larger scale vs actively fight them. The ironic thing is the same groups who stopped most forestry management programs 40-50 years ago, are the same groups who are blaming climate change for this increase. The fix for the problem is the same now as it was 40 years ago: manage the forests properly and limit or regulate type of structures in wildfire prone areas.
Click to expand...
My version of saying the same thing, and just my opinion. Or my version is follow the money…

Back when logging was the business in the forests the fires just didn’t start as often because the forests were managed to reduce fuels and prevent fires. When fires did occurs they were agressively fought because people and business saw their product and profits going up in smoke if they let it burn.

Then the let it burn polices and keep it natural (don’t log it) policies came into being, Fuels started building up the forests, fire started a lot easier and there were policies in place to prevent fighting fires unless it threatened populated areas. Otherwise there was little motivation to put the fires out. Also fighting fires is big business, so fires aren’t really fought to put them out, they are fought to make a profit for the businesses that fight fires. Now where there is smoke their is profit.

Brian
 
Fighting fires is private business, and profitable to sit a crew in the middle of nowhere on standby to fight fires hired by the government to fight, from what I heard. I saw a small fire started in the middle of nowhere while flying and thought about reporting it but I wasn’t talking to anyone and wouldn’t know how to describe the location who to call etc. I think news and information reporting is greater so it’s happening more due to that but the Canadian fires seem to have been exceptionally bad lately.
 
TCABM said:
^ This, but it’s more than just forests. There’s more wildland/urban interface and more locales that discourage fire prevention activities in the name of ‘nature’.
Click to expand...
None of that explains the increase in fire frequency in the Canadian Boreal forests (the source of our East Coast smoke). Those forests were never actively managed.
 
AlleyCat67 said:
None of that explains the increase in fire frequency in the Canadian Boreal forests (the source of our East Coast smoke). Those forests were never actively managed.
Click to expand...

sure it does... at the very least, it explains factors that contribute.
 
AlleyCat67 said:
None of that explains the increase in fire frequency in the Canadian Boreal forests (the source of our East Coast smoke). Those forests were never actively managed.
Click to expand...
Learned many years ago from a forestry guy that most non-managed forests have a natural burn cycle of 100-300 years. And it is not a simple mechanism for the cycle to start and stop. In the limited reading I've done on the Canadian fires, there was a consensus these fires were part of that natural cycle. I'd also be willing to bet this is not the first time Canadian smoke made it to the East Coast in the last 100-300 years. Regardless, comparing Canadian forest management to US management is not a valid point either for a number of reasons.
 
luvflyin said:
Oh. Hmm. So it’s all the guy’s fault??:goofy::devil: Mods, don’t lock the thread, just delete this and throw me in detention for awhile if necessary.
Click to expand...
I believe in man-made climate change, and when the government tells you it's man-made, you'd best believe them and ask which program of theirs is contributing the most? HAARP? Something else?
 
AlleyCat67 said:
None of that explains the increase in fire frequency in the Canadian Boreal forests (the source of our East Coast smoke). Those forests were never actively managed.
Click to expand...
If that is true that the forests were not managed, then you just answered your own question.

Fire has been around long before humans. It is part of the natural circle of life - one of the many ways that the planet uses to reset when environments/ecosystems get out of balance.

Problem comes when humans grow in population and build near and sometimes in forests and brush areas. We don't want that pesky fire to destroy our work, so we interrupt the natural process. Pre-1990s the standard practice was to put out the fire at the earliest sign. By the time I was a firefighter in Maine in the late 90s there was an increasing awareness that if you don't want large fires, you need to actively manage the land. Brush removal, controlled burns...etc. We did a lot of land surveys and controlled burns in Maine back then.

Problem with controlled burns is that the environmentalists don't like the idea of deliberate introduction of fire. So in many areas the tinderbox is left to grow until it nature takes over and then you end up with a much worse situation than you would have if you HAD managed it.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I believe in man-made climate change, and when the government tells you it's man-made, you'd best believe them and ask which program of theirs is contributing the most? HAARP? Something else?
Click to expand...
How about the politicians that negotiate lucrative trade deals to ship fresh produce from the Americas to SE Asia for packaging in plastic containers to then ship back to the US while telling you that it's all the fault of gas powered cars on US roads that is the problem...

For the record, I do believe the climate is changing, but the people who claim to be trying to save the planet are not actually trying to save the planet.
 
Fearless Tower said:
How about the politicians that negotiate lucrative trade deals to ship fresh produce from the Americas to SE Asia for packaging in plastic containers to then ship back to the US while telling you that it's all the fault of gas powered cars on US roads that is the problem...

For the record, I do believe the climate is changing, but the people who claim to be trying to save the planet are not actually trying to save the planet.
Click to expand...
All of the above. The rules for packaging guarantee that tons of waste go into landfills… and everywhere else. As a professional real estate photographer, the packaging industry waste everywhere kills me. It’s such a scourge.
 
This year is an El Nino, which typically promotes wetter weather in the south and west. However, that's countered by drier and hotter weather in Canada. Northern California is in a border zone, so it could go either way depend on where the cutovers begin.
 
wfca.com

10 Largest Wildfires in U.S. History | WFCA

Explore the details of the top 10 largest wildfires in U.S. history, from the Dixie Fire in California to the Yarnell Fire in Arizona with this list from the WFCA.
wfca.com wfca.com


Just like with hurricanes, costs will always go up. There are more people, more structure, things cost more.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0138.png
    IMG_0138.png
    19 KB · Views: 13
AlleyCat67 said:
None of that explains the increase in fire frequency in the Canadian Boreal forests (the source of our East Coast smoke). Those forests were never actively managed.
Click to expand...

Active management and/or passive management policies can have neutral, positive, or negative effects on severity of fires. Quantity of fires is pretty simply; they either start naturally or are man made.

As population grows, man made fires obviously has to grow. Combine that with increased populations using wildlands and using them in more remote places, severity is a pretty direct result of policy decisions from both a prevention perspective to management of the fire. Can it be fought (resources and access) and should it be fought (risk) are policy choices that very well have been made decades ago and are generally independent of how the fire was started.
 
Here's another relevant article (Fukuyama on how the national forest service has gone from managing forest land to protecting property owners from wildfires) : https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/america-decay

Incidentally, I was on the Navy Search & Rescue team that flew support missions for firefighters during the 1990 Yosemite fires that burned more than 60,000 acres. It seemed like the end of the world then.
 
Last edited:
wilkersk said:
I was on the Navy Search & Rescue team that flew support missions for firefighters during the 1990 Yosemite fires that burned more than 60,000 acres. It seemed like the end of the world then.
Click to expand...
You should have seen the 1988 Yellowstone fires. Burnt 800,000 acres in the park and over 500,000 acres outside the park. Only the fall snows and rains put them out. What amazed me was how loud a forest fire could be.
 
The worst year in Idaho by far was 1940 (or somewhere around there). They're not more common, just more destructive because people are now building a LOT more stuff in the woods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top