It’s about Flammable Homes, not forests

Here’s how to respond to those misleading posts claiming our recent fires are all about tree huggers preventing logging and a supposed fuel build up via past fire suppression.

1. Most of California’s most devastating fires were far from any forest (see map below).

2. For those few devastating fires that were near forests, most if not all of those forests around the communities destroyed had the kind of suggested thinning and fuel treatments misinformed commentators claim didn’t exist.

3. The majority of the area burned during the Camp Fire before it hit the town of Paradise had burned 10 years ago and was composed of habitats other than forest (e.g. post fire shrublands). The wind-driven ember rain that ignited the town came primarily from these 10-year-old sparse to dense shrublands, grasslands, areas damaged from salvage logging, and young tree plantations northeast of the town. A large percentage of the trees within the devastated town did not burn. See the fire progression map here and match it with the current view on Google Earth.

The Los Angeles Times discussed the science behind the fire’s path.

Here is an excellent map of the fire from the New York Times.

4. Climate change is drying the state. Dryer conditions lead to a more flammable landscape. We may also see more of the kind of winds that powered the Camp Fire into Paradise.

“The major factor is climate change across the west. Regardless of fuels management, we just wouldn’t be burning like this, especially in Northern California, in a normal year.”
– Dr. Leroy Westerling, UC Merced

More fires will dramatically alter the kinds of habitats we are used to seeing. Highly flammable, non-native weed-filled landscapes that dominate places like Riverside County will likely become more common. More on this issue here.

Tree Mortality 14 Final

It is more than discouraging when someone claims our wildfires are all about forests, dead trees, lack of logging, or unnatural fuel build up via past fire suppression. Such claims are a disservice to the families who have lost so much and hamper our efforts to solve the problem.

What is it about? Flammable homes and communities built in fire corridors (where wind-driven fires have burned historically or are likely to burn due to topography).

Please see our solutions and understand why Governor Brown and the California State Legislature failed us – they ignored the real problem. Our letter to them with 12 recommendations.

Here is a well-researched article on the Woolsey Fire from the LA Times.

Here’s how to protect your home from wildfire.

Here’s our information flyer on external sprinklers.

An explanation why much of what you hear about forests and dead trees is inaccurate:
http://www.californiachaparral.com/cforestfires.html

Here are the most devastating wildfires in California to November 17, 2018 as per Cal Fire’s list of 20 (fire, structures burned, fatalities):

Fires 2017-2018
Camp/14,500/85*
Tubbs/ 5636/ 22
Redwood/ 546 / 9
Carr/ 1599/ 8
Atlas/ 783/ 6
Nuns/ 1355/ 3
Woolsey/1500/3
Thomas/ 1063/ 2
Ferguson/ 131/ 2
Mendocino/ 277/ 1 (forest burned within fire perimeter, but not generally involved in losses)

Previous devastating fires prior to 2017 where losses were also unrelated to forests and dead trees:
Tunnel (1991)/ 2900 /25
Cedar (2003)/ 2820/ 15
Harris (2007)/ 548/ 8
Witch Creek (2007)/ 1650/ 2
Butte (2015)/ 921/ 2
Erskine (2016)/309/2 (not part of the Cal Fire top 20)
Jones (1999)/ 954/ 1
Paint (1990)/ 641/ 1

Significant forested area involved, but not seriously impacted by dead trees:
Old (2003)/ 1003/ 6 (some of the home losses were near forested areas)
Valley (2015)/ 1955/ 4
*Camp Fire involved forest inside the fire perimeter, but most of the area within the fire’s path prior to hitting the town of Paradise was a mix of habitats.

This entry was posted in Fire, Forests, Misconceptions. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to It’s about Flammable Homes, not forests

  1. John F says:

    California has to learn from Australia, which has had a very coordinated fire response plan in place for many years. For example, in the kind of climate we had 50 years ago, fires moved more slowly. Now, with a much dryer climate, fires move very quickly. That means that water bombers are pretty much a waste of money, something Australia decided a long time ago. Having a rural fire authority that depends very much on volunteers, having a red alert system throughout the State that can focus on specific counties, establishing a network of fire-proof shelters in every town together with subsidies for homes installing them, and a few other things. In Australia, you just get people out of the way of a major fire because they cannot be easily stopped. Time for strategic planning, something Americans seem pretty bad at usually.

  2. Carlos Declet says:

    Makes more illustrated sense than the Raking Genious theory!

  3. One Blood Ye and I says:

    What if we truly used wild horses to keep the range/forest clean of dried grass/shrub?
    “…Further evidence of the ‘grass and brush’ wildfire paradigm is seen by way of the large burn scars that are now devoid of trees (trees previously destroyed by wildfire), which nevertheless are the breeding grounds of regularly occurring catastrophic wildfires fueled by the un-grazed annually recurring grass and brush on burn scars in and around our forests. In some cases these burn scars over five-hundred thousand acres in size.

    Wild horses can help save our forests and watersheds. The ~50,000 wild horses sitting in the BLM/USFS corrals costing taxpayers $50-M annually can be legally deployed into and around carefully selected forests where they will naturally abate the ground fuels at the rate of 1.5 million pounds per day, or about 274,000 tons of grass and brush annually. The value of this annual fuel abatement service in minimally hundreds of $-millions of dollars.
    In total, the concept is known as the Wild Horse Fire Brigade….”

    Details: http://healthyforests.org/2018/04/capt-william-e-simpson-wildlife-wildfire-and-wild-horses-undeniable-evolutionary-connection/

    • While some grazing can help in areas where native shrublands have already been type-converted to non-native grasslands, grazing can seriously compromise the ecological integrity and biodiversity of healthy, intact shrublands. The best place to address fire risk is not in modifying the natural environment, but within the communities themselves. In California’s fire climate, fires can and will be fueled by whatever is available – grass, shrubs, or trees.

  4. Diane Newell Meyer says:

    Don’t forget the Klamathon Fire, the earliest one, again burning the town of Hornbrook, and open juniper -oak -grass country .

  5. Jim Kennedy says:

    What is a “fire corridor?”

    • Hi Jim. Thanks for the question. We’ve clarified it with an edit:

      What is it about? Flammable homes and communities built in fire corridors (where wind-driven fires have burned historically or are likely to burn due to topography).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s