When smoke is not such a bad thing
A reader mentioned the inconvenience as well as the breathing problems from smoke in Yosemite National Park over the holiday weekend.
There are good reasons why Yosemite and other forest managers allow lightning-caused fires to burn, though nobody wants these fires to get out of control.
Forest ecologists and others explain that for thousands of years natural or lightning-caused fire has controlled overgrowth in the forest and allowed the opportunity for healthy new growth. Sierra forests need fire.
For many decades over the last century, the government snuffed out fires as quickly as they started, not fully understanding the harm that could come. As a consequence, the Sierra became dangerously overgrown. Huge, destructive wildfires are a big danger now.
Remember the big Yosemite fires of 1990? Yosemite Valley was closed down for days.
Now authorities are in this delicate position: They need to let natural fires clean up the forest, but they also need to prevent them from becoming big fires.
So, we wind up breathing smoke in Yosemite and other mountain places during summer.
Comments:
As you know, we live in an area where asthma and other respiratory conditions are endemic. Furthermore, many people in this area suffer from impaired immune systems due to pesticides, and other volatile organic compounds in our atmosphere. I have to wonder if there is are any alternative approaches to allowing forests to burn, particularly at this time of year. When I was south of Flagstaff, Arizona last summer (getting away from our fires), I noticed that they seemed to be reducing fire hazard by cutting down trees (to ground level, by the way, not leaving the ugly stumps we often see in the Sierras). Is this a possible solution? Could we provide badly-needed jobs and keep our forests healthier?
Just wondering.
Posted by: Deanna Evans at July 7, 2009 4:18 PM
Post a comment
(read the comment policy before posting)