I posted a comment on Facebook, supporting another person's statement, and it evolved into an interesting and educational discussion:
Matt B:
>
so the question is why didn't you do this already before the fire started?Steve C:
>
Repeating the question by Matt B: Why do we wait until 300 square miles burns to do this? Seems like every fall crews should fan out and do this -- just before the first wet storm would be ideal! Could even be done by crop duster or helicopter dropping little fire starting "bombs".Timothy H:
>
If I remember right, Yosemite does do this on a schedule within the park. The fire started outside the park, and they are not allowed to do control burns outside the park. So the real question is: Why doesn't the National Forest Service do control burns?Steve C
>
Judging by the acreage burned inside the park, it looks like even Yosemite should be stepping up the fall burning efforts. I definitely agree that the N.F. needs to do it. Unfortunately federal budgets have been cut to the FS year after year after year.Yosemite person:
>
Steve and Timothy - we do! This is one reason why the Rim Fire slowed down once it reached Yosemite's boundaries. Learn more at http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/rx-fire-history.htm and http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/mechanical-thinning.htm.Burt S:
>
I will chime in on this one since I am responsible for the Rx burn program on the Forest Service land that borders the southern boundary of YNP. As easy as you guys make it seem to grab a torch and start dropping fire on landscape our biggest constraint to do more burning is the air quality regulations that we deal with in the southern sierra nevadas. The San Joaquin Air shed is one of the dirtiest in the nation and even though we all work very well with our air regulatiors the limited burn windows and daily acreage limitations we have to deal with really hamper our ability to burn large acreages.The trade off our local air boards must deal with is following the national evironmental policy regarding clean air, immediate public health vs long term reduced emissions from rx burns and future wildfires. As much as federal budgets are being reduced this is really secondary to the air quality stuff. So how can you in the public side lend some support is to write your public representative and voice your thoughts and ideas on how we need to change our current process. YNP has been one of the leaders in using managed wildfires and rx burns to manage fuels and the end state of what this fire did inside the park will provide a good insight into the past burns. The bottom line is the future of forests in Sierra Nevada are in the hands of the pubic and if they are to carry on as a recreating envirornment they will need some form of fuels management that includes landscape scale fire which equates to smoke impacts in some form or the other. Remember mother nature always bats last.Steve C:
>
Burt, thanks so much for the explanation and the information. I had heard about that stupid turf war between the air quality people and the forest service in the past, but never made the connection here. It is obviously hampering your burning times and needs. It is pretty ridiculous the FS has to abide by the same rules as valley farms.
So as a result, we can expect more huge forest fires, where the Air Quality people have no control. I am also aware that lightning-caused fires are often "cultivated" and allowed to burn, since the FS cannot be reprimanded for starting them.
If you ask me, the need to use fire to prevent huge uncontrollable wild fires in the future ought to take precedence over present-day air quality rules.
And I wish this type of discussion could take place in a more permanent and public forum, so more people would see it.
