Jokes aside, setting shit on fire is a legit firefighting tactic: The idea is to burn off all the fuel before the actual wildfire can reach it, forming a barrier the fire cannot easily spread over.
High winds obviously complicate this, but it can still work under the right circumstances.
Also a legit forestry tactic - you set a controlled fire in a part of the forest, and keep it well-controlled, to burn off leaf litter and dead wood that would otherwise easily fuel a wildfire, and to encourage the growth of some species (or discourage others - burning is the only effective way to stop some invasive plant species).
The ecology of California in general, and in particular the Sierra Nevada, has evolved to expect a wildfire every 10 years or so. Going 100 years (in some places) without a fire was completely beyond anything that ecology had evolved for, and it’s no wonder that those areas that hadn’t burned in a century got slate-wiped. The native Americans, and later the herdsmen who took over their lands, benefitted from these small vegetation burns and would frequently start and manage them. In the early 1900s, though, the feds (with good intentions, mind) came along and said you can’t do that anymore because fire is always bad.
Planting a ton of Eucalyptus trees in the 1890s-1910s, that self ignite when they get too dry didn’t help matters either. Worst part is those trees were planted for the railroad. Once the tree is smoldering they explode with sticky burning sap.
Holy crow, I had no idea that they secrete a sticky sap when they burn, nor that they were planted for the railroad. I always heard it was because John Steinbeck liked them / made them popular. Do you have a source so I can learn more?
Wait, they made a flame throwing helicopter?
Perhaps I have misjudged you, California.
looks at their rifles
Never mind, I judged correctly the first time.
Cool helicopter though!
Jokes aside, setting shit on fire is a legit firefighting tactic: The idea is to burn off all the fuel before the actual wildfire can reach it, forming a barrier the fire cannot easily spread over.
High winds obviously complicate this, but it can still work under the right circumstances.
Also a legit forestry tactic - you set a controlled fire in a part of the forest, and keep it well-controlled, to burn off leaf litter and dead wood that would otherwise easily fuel a wildfire, and to encourage the growth of some species (or discourage others - burning is the only effective way to stop some invasive plant species).
The ecology of California in general, and in particular the Sierra Nevada, has evolved to expect a wildfire every 10 years or so. Going 100 years (in some places) without a fire was completely beyond anything that ecology had evolved for, and it’s no wonder that those areas that hadn’t burned in a century got slate-wiped. The native Americans, and later the herdsmen who took over their lands, benefitted from these small vegetation burns and would frequently start and manage them. In the early 1900s, though, the feds (with good intentions, mind) came along and said you can’t do that anymore because fire is always bad.
Planting a ton of Eucalyptus trees in the 1890s-1910s, that self ignite when they get too dry didn’t help matters either. Worst part is those trees were planted for the railroad. Once the tree is smoldering they explode with sticky burning sap.
Holy crow, I had no idea that they secrete a sticky sap when they burn, nor that they were planted for the railroad. I always heard it was because John Steinbeck liked them / made them popular. Do you have a source so I can learn more?
https://ucanr.edu/sites/Igor/Mature_-_Historic_Tree_Stands/Eucalyptus_in_California/
We’re strangers on a bullshitting forum on a bullshitting site and I know you don’t owe me shit, so thank you very much for sharing that with me!