[danrl]

Here in the U.S. west coast mountains some land owners started controlled fires on their property to get rid of the stacking fuel naturally while preserving the bound minerals and helping the large redwoods and sequoias to fend of contenders. I have no idea how they managed to get a permit in this area where officials and population ate crazily scared of these natural processes given that uncontrolled fires make the news every year.

Also, a second generation redwood forest looks very different from an undisturbed one I recently learned from a forest guy who walked with me. He was reading the forest like a book. Very impressive. Turns out, my forest is a second generation and I should maybe take down a few redwoods, something I considered morally wrong before the walkthrough.

[retrac]

Prescribed burns (intentional, hopefully controlled, fires) are increasingly common in modern forestry and wildfire prevention. They're done in Canada and Australia, and from a quick search, it was brought back into practice in the 1990s in the USA.

Parks Canada has an interesting FAQ about their practices: https://parks.canada.ca/nature/science/conservation/feu-fire...

[prawn]

In South Australia, they're very much monitored and controlled. In the Northern Territory however, it is not uncommon in season to see fires burning beside the highway in a national park, and no one anywhere nearby monitoring them. Well, that is besides birds who hang around to nab fleeing insects and other creatures. Birds have been known to carry burning twigs elsewhere to spread the fire too.

Coming from the former region and visiting the latter, it's quite jarring. But that (now called) mosaic burning has thousands of years of history. You can easily see how it advantaged the early occupants of the area: reduce overall fuel load, flush out animals to hunt, and clear annoying tall, dry grasses which would be miserable to live amongst and walk through.

[iak8god]

Prescribed burns are much more common in the southeastern US than in other areas: https://www.wabe.org/why-the-southeast-is-ahead-of-the-west-...

[superchroma]

In Western Australia they are a racket. Land is burned for burning's sake as an area of required burning is defined and people rush to hit a quota. Studies are showing that land left untouched for years is actually less flammable than land in the medium turn after burn-off. Additionally, the effects on air quality cannot be discounted either. It is a politicized issue and people are terrified of being seen as not doing anything to combat bushfires that would otherwise threaten homes.

[dmoy]

The US West Coast lags way behind almost the entire rest of the US w.r.t using controlled burns to limit wildfire danger.

California intentionally burns like only half of the area as Minnesota, despite being like twice as big.

Arkansas, GA, SC, etc all burn like 5-10x what CA does, for prevention purposes.

Growing up outside of the West and moving to the West later, I was shocked how little controlled burns there are here.

[MostlyStable]

My understanding is that California air pollution regulations make it incredibly difficult to burn. The fact that, if you don't do a controlled burn it will result in an much larger uncontrolled burn later is not taken into account by the regulations.

[burnte]

> Arkansas, GA, SC, etc all burn like 5-10x what CA does, for prevention purposes.

I live in ATL and just drove back home from being up north for thanksgiving, drove through a huge prescribed burn on the way a few days ago.

[yencabulator]

People like to blame various west coast states for this, but do note it's mostly federal land, managed by federal employees. East coasters tend to not comprehend how much federal land there is in the southwest/west; watching tourists is fun.

[adastra22]

> California intentionally burns like only half of the area as Minnesota, despite being like twice as big.

Well the wildfire arsonists take care of the other half.

(I'm serious, not joking. You don't need to do a controlled burn if the wildfire already did one for you.)

[sakopov]

Controlled burns is a very old practice. So old, in fact, that Native American tribes have used it for centuries to prevent catastrophic wild fires in North America.

[thimkerbell]

Though they did it for deer and preferred plant habitat I think.

[downWidOutaFite]

Supposedly. In my readings the evidence is thin on this oft-repeated claim.

[dtgriscom]

Well, "had used it for centuries..."

[Projectiboga]

There is very little original "old growth" forest anywhere in the Continental US. It is usually in small parts of hard to log areas like around small streams, soft ground blocking how to remove the logs and certain slopes and hills.

[jmspring]

Sometimes those landowners doing prescribed burns don't always do them in the best conditions. The Estrada Fire was near the Santa Cruz Mountains east of Watsonville. I've been to the property several times over the years and it has some beuatiful redwood groves including an albino redwood or two.

Story - https://pajaronian.com/as-cal-fire-makes-progress-on-estrada...

[suzzer99]

I'm not sure about redwoods, but tropical rainforests take something like 5,000-10,000 years to return to pristine old-growth state.

[dtgriscom]

At least part of that is the climate. A forest in a tropical zone is so efficient at processing nutrients that the soil beneath a forest is almost nutrient-free; the nutrients are always moving from plant to plant. If you take off the forest, what is left is not very hospitable and erodes easily.

Temperate forests accumulate humus; remove the trees and there are nutrients sitting there waiting to foster new growth.

(IANA forestry expert...)

[bcbrown]

I'd question that definition of "pristine". The old-growth temperate rainforests of the Olympic Peninsula in Washington, have only existed for about 10-12,000 years; that's about how long it's been since the entire area was covered by an ice sheet.

[odyssey7]

This makes me want to see designated areas for old-growth forests to re-establish, and yet there’s almost no chance that the people living in those areas 2000 years from now will have continuously held the same values and kept the project going.

[graphe]

Where did you read that?