"The greatest threat of catastrophic wildfire today is in U.S. National Forests, where years of fire suppression practices in the 20th century has allowed our federally-owned forests to reach dangerous fuel load levels."
I've got impertinent questions.
Back 400 years ago, before there was any substantial human population in the western United States, and there was no "forest management" to "reduce the fuel load", how far did wildfires spread then?
Did they just burn and burn until they finally burned out or were quenched by rain?
How can the "fuel load" become "dangerous" when compared to a time in the history of North America that the "natural fuel load" may have been even higher?
Jes' wonderin'...
Forests burn... It's what they do.
Go into the woods, find a blue spruce, pop one of the 'zits' on its bark, soak up the sap that comes out with a cotton ball, and light it on fire. You will see.
Go peel some birch bark and set a match to it... Hell, dunk it in a creek first, even... Then you will see.
Shred some cedar bark, light it on fire, and see what happens.
Trees are full of volatile oils.
What PREVENTS forest fires is EXACTLY forest management. Trees as a commodity make them a valuable resource. Trees as a subsistence item also make them a valuable resource.
It is forest logging, firewood hunters, and fence builders that manage the forest, reduce undergrowth, and 'park out' forests, or clearcut forests that cause fire to be manageable. And there has always been prescribed burning... all the way back to the native Americans.
And YES, without that management, forests burn till the rain puts them out.
Montana loses around a quarter million acres every year.
