A prescription for fire prevention?
By: North County Times Opinion staff | ∞
Our view: Burns will not stop fires and may actually create more
After fires have scorched much of North County , many of us are asking, "Do we need more prescribed burns?" We can't do much about the Santa Ana winds, but perhaps, the thinking goes, thinning out the vegetation that fuels the fires would limit their destructive scope.
There may be truth in that assumption, but prescribed burns alone aren't a panacea for North County's vulnerability to wildfire.
Proponents of prescribed burns, or fires intentionally set under controlled conditions to reduce undergrowth, tend to believe that poor land management and uncontrolled growth of chaparral have created the conditions for the massive fires we've seen in our county this decade.
To them, fire is natural and necessary for the healthy development of forests. They point to Baja California, where more frequent fires have left a patchwork of differently aged chaparral that resembles a multicolored mosaic as an example for us to follow. They say allowing or causing chaparral to burn more frequently limits the size -- and damage -- of wildfires.
In contrast, Southern California has large, uniform areas of unburned chaparral carpeting our backcountry, and the consequences were apparent last week.
But many others disagree with those conclusions, arguing that the conventional wisdom gleaned from forest management doesn't apply to chaparral .
Prescribed burns may do more harm than good, at least in chaparral. Frequent burning eventually kills chaparral, opening acres to invasive grasses and weeds more likely to catch fire. Scientists on the scene tell us they already see evidence of such ominous damage in areas burned in both the 2003 Cedar fire and last week's Witch Creek fire.
Catastrophic wildfires are part of the natural heritage of Southern California, driven by extreme weather conditions -- wind, drought, heat -- with long histories on this land. Each fall brings dry, hot reminders that we live at the end of a wind corridor, an oft-overlooked equivalent of living in a flood plain, hurricane zone or along an earthquake fault. So long as the Santa Anas are blowing, fires sparked in the backcountry will be difficult to contain.
Furthermore, opponents argue that prescribed burns don't work. If they did, a silver lining from the Cedar fire would have been less vulnerability to future fires. Instead, about 68,000 of the acres consumed last week were also burned in 2003. What's more, the vast tracts we've kept from development mean untold acres would need to be subjected to prescribed burns, and there's little evidence they work on such a large scale.
Finally, the accidental fires we too-frequently ignite are effectively mimicking prescribed burns, and as we said, they don't seem to be working.
Even fire officials who consider prescribed burns an important tool in their toolbox admit that cost is a key consideration: It's cheaper to burn brush than clear it. And anyone who suggests Baja as a planning model for San Diego County has had a little too much tequila; that's comparing apples and chilies.
That's not to say that prescribed burns shouldn't be used, only that they should be used strategically. Burning chaparral to create defensible spaces for firefighters to stage their operations makes sense. So does creating a perimeter around highly populated areas with prescribed burns. Still, requiring 100- to 200-foot barriers around homes and fire-resistant construction are even more important prevention measures.
The argument over how to manage our vast acres of brush and scrub will persist. There are still plenty of areas around the county with plenty of fuel to burn (ask not for whom the fire bell tolls, De Luz, Palomar Mountain, Mesa Grande, Warner Springs, Julian, it tolls for thee). Prescribed burns should remain part of our fire prevention efforts, but any thought that they alone would eradicate the threat posed by wildfires ought to go up in smoke.
More Stories
Advertisement
Randy wrote on Oct 31, 2007 8:36 PM:We need to burn the San Luis Rey riverbed to the ground. Otherwise, the forest is a direct path across Northern Oceanside!
RamonaResident wrote on Nov 1, 2007 8:16 AM:Can't we introduce some goats to areas of national forest with mature chaparral? Goats are efficient in thinning vegetation without killing it, and they work for free.
Go Away Randy wrote on Nov 1, 2007 11:32 AM:Are you always so negatie about everything? Build over everything, kill every plant, animal and bird? You need to go back to the very barren desert.
Yeah Randy, wrote on Nov 1, 2007 1:09 PM:You must know the San Luis Rey River is one of Mayor Wood most embarrassing failures. He has had four years to take corrective action and still uses the same old lame excuse. Well excuse us Mayor, how about some leadership on the critical issue, the over growth of vegetation in the San Luis Rey River needs to be eliminated or severely reduced.
MOUNTAIN BUG wrote on Nov 1, 2007 2:55 PM:Without sounding rude, I wonder what the qualifications are of the author of the editorial. That's an awful lot of words to simply say that controlled burns are not the sole answer. Well, of course not! Those who build homes in vulnerable areas should be compelled to have fire retardent homes, and most importantly a clean clearing of vegetation out to at least 200' from any building. Some of these fires were apparently set by arsonists from all reports. There are a myriad of factors in wild fires and forest fires. Controlled burning is useful when done professionally and directed by those with the appropriate education in the subject and credentials. Op Ed writers don't qualify.
Anahuac wrote on Nov 1, 2007 6:35 PM:Control burning may clear the understory of a pine forest and keep the fuel ladders from destroying trees. But most of San Diego is chaparal. You cant' burn the understory of an ecosystem that doesn't have an understory. If you remove all the vegetation what are the health risks: consider the added irritation to lungs, skin, and extra stress on the heart? More dust, erosion, less moisture put into the air: Are these a factor when so many plants are gone?
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement

