Living (Dangerously) in an Era of Megafires | Paul Hessburg | TEDxBend

[@calebdoner]

So small clearcuts with controlled slash burning will closely replicate the natural order while bringing in revenue. This is what rural logging communities have been saying for decades. Gotta thin those forest out. It is interesting how wildfires don't get crazy on privately held and managed timberlands.

[@MovingCamera]

Zoning restrictions need to be added to slow down the tendency to build houses in the wildland/urban interface. This may happen anyway by insurance companies refusing to insure cabins in the woods. That would be a good thing. Also, the Forest Service needs money to apply to controlled burn programs and they need the philosophical will to do the burning. They have been the protectors of commercial timber harvesting for too long. Paul doesn't say this but the Forest service prevents wildfires because fires burn commercially valuable trees. The Forest Service's budget is partially dependent on tree harvesting so they have the incentive to prevent all burning. The replanting programs need to be managed better as well. Currently they tend to plant the commercially valuable trees rather than focussing on diversity of species. They plant too close, 10 feet apart usually, so the growing trees then touch providing a pathway for fires. They do this because they can then thin the forest and commercially harvest the thinned trees. If the forests are allowed to self seed, you get more diversity, and more widely spaced growth. Often the replanted hillsides are plowed, all stumps removed, the soil completely disturbed causing erosion and the eradication of mycelial networks , decaying roots and underground wildlife. A forest should not be treated like a corn crop. It is a complex system that includes fire as a mechanism. Timber can be harvested appropriately but it must be approached in more ecological, and historical manner.

[@AdellAstare]

I'm listening to this on a day I cannot leave the house because air quality is HAZARDOUS from wildfires 100 miles away. This information needs to be sent to the people who can do something about it.

[@georgebenwell664]

Big clearcuts tied to appropriate defensible boundaries followed by broadcast slash burning in the fall....in other words closely simulate the natural order.

[@ronrothrock7116]

@Mike Schnobrich The limitation to this idea is that smoke doesn't only effect the rural communities. Forcing those who want to life in fire-prone areas to pay for most or all of the fire suppression is not fair either. Also, those who life in the urban areas LIKE to see the forests, not the patchwork stuff, when they travel to the countryside. The cost should be borne by all, not just those who live there. Everyone benefits from the fire suppression.

[@adrianpugh7491]

Thank you for sharing this vital message. The Australian Government banned burns offs 10 years ago. They didnt listen to the elders and keepers of this land. Now as a result this country is going up in flames. I hope the world learns from the Australian mega fires and make the changes that are needed. P.s.. Aboriginals, Native Americans, ect They new their land inside out, working with nature. I wish they held the power to make all decisions that involve our planets well being. They are the peace keepers of the lands.

[@BrendanChewy]

yeah about that

[@Tasmantor]

I can't find any Australian jurisdictions where controlled burning isn't a part of the fire management policy. Many have banned private unorganized burn offs but these started more fires then stopped or slowed them.

[@gracieunltd4667]

So true so sad

[@biogroupinc.4013]

Can we learn collectively to do what is necessary to save these precious shared resources - our great forests of North America? Hoping these great video resources dealing with fire Ecology go viral.

[@nomadsurvival4952]

We forgot how to use fire.

[@larryzach7511]

Manage the woods Harvest the timber on a sustained yield management or nature will manage them for us. You also left out the crippling of the logging industry so that huge swaths of forest are allowed to overcrowd.

[@CaptainNoDoze]

We are in the process of siphoning off billions of taxpayer dollars to big pharma, big oil, the military industrial complex etc. Unfortunately there is no budget for issues that do not enrich the corporate interest that run/own our "leaders" and this country.

[@nihilioellipsis]

he does a good job speaking in a steady, clear, engaging, personal way, which includes scientific factual information well integrated. It's a user-friendly talk for me.

[@Eclectifying]

Paul Hessburg is now saying, "I told you so." Will we learn from this?

[@ProcurerOfLight]

this didnt age well

[@katgrrl77]

Fantastic Ted talk! It's interesting how this was 5 years ago and I feel like nothing's changed except for the fires are getting worse, burning hotter, and smoke thicker. I also wonder why no one ever mentions how much Working Forests and their dense monoculture contribute to this tinderbox situation as well?

[@mattropolis99]

The 'monoculture' argument is NOTHING compared to the fact we've over-preserved and never let our forests naturally burn. Now we have millions of acres that are ready to go up like a matchbox - and will. Now we pay the piper for 50 years of over-conservation efforts.

[@katgrrl77]

@@mattropolis99 but the reason we have been suppressing fires is exactly because of monoculture in Working Forests. Those forests are vulnerable to disease and fire and big business pays our governments to make sure they are protected since they invest decades of growing time in them.

[@SuperClaud1]

Powerful message for everyone !

[@MultiFisherofmen]

All that pesky CO2 is making the trees drunk

[@thlrock]

This is SOO important. We are developing smoke seasons that are killing people, TODAY

[@ronrothrock7116]

In my opinion, moving the smoke from summer to the rest of the year doesn't really solve the problem. People sensitive to the smoke are still sensitive to it in the non-summer months, even if it is less smoke.

[@thlrock]

@@ronrothrock7116 but in concentrations that are more manageable for the body and environment to deal with rather than harsh toxic clouds

[@albertboyles7637]

I'm happy about the fires. I am devastated by the Capitolistick practice of selling off our nutrients.

[@charlesloftis2920]

Is the driver on mismanagement the political clout of those who built and/or grazed where they really shouldn't have?

[@georgebenwell664]

...pretty good....I don't agree with his rather optimistic "herd natural fires around stuff" but good otherwise....

[@woodlogan]

Log it. Graze it. Or watch it burn.

[@JP-px4gp]

Only...logging and grazing is what got us to this point when coupled with fire suppression. Either you could not be arsed to actually watch the video and ken simple cartoon illustrations, or you are as dim as a 3 watt bulb and can do no more than drool whilst regurgitating the propaganda of those looking to become even richer by using your public lands for their private profit. Righto. That's none too smart, there.

[@MrCheckitout123]

did you here the part when he said mechanical thinning...aka Logging. @ 11:45 nice video of fellerbuncher. we now have the use and ability to process smaller pulp woods. it is gonna have to start at logging and grazing as smaller burns will take too long. public lands for profit, then why don't the gov spend the millions and hire their own crews. oh yeah, cause free market does it for less! I seen a whole lot of profit burned up last year. you can also target the tree hugger and cow haters who do everything in their power to stop ranching/logging in all cases, even standing bug kill. same ones who killed the timber industry so bad that processing mills are much further away. cost the gov more money and longer projects.

[@crispydyslexic6628]

10:27 Oh, houses still have sceletons while tree canopies are gone? What then explains just the opposite happening in the Paradise fire?

[@emilyechevarria22]

I don't think i understand what you're asking?

[@ronrothrock7116]

Paul, you say this is a social problem. If this is so, then couldn't one argue that complete fire suppression, as we used to do, is the best answer? There is a $ cost to this, of course, since there is much more fuel load than in the past. And sometimes the fires will get out of hand and burn homes. But the argument would be that since there are people/homes spreading all throughout most of those forests, then protecting those homes is the first priority. You argue that we protect those homes through prescribed burns and re-creating the patchwork forests. This has 2 negative effects, one is the smoke from the prescribed burns and the other is people prefer the dense forests over the patchwork. If you define this as a social problem, then it is about people. People don't want their homes burned and they prefer to see the thick forest (they also don't want smoke from fires). Returning to the patchwork will cost money and and so, too, will continued fire suppression the way I suggest. If it is a "social problem" then the better solution is better/more fire suppression. If one considers the environment side of the equation, and all the environmentalist crowd pushing for the environment, then returning to the patchwork is the right way to go. I just don't see this as being defined as a social problem as the right way to go. To do so will undermine your argument.