Study: Beetles May Reduce Wildfire Risk

[jpak]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2006/nov/29/112908403.html

DENVER (AP) - The infestation of tree-killing bugs sweeping through millions of acres of forests in the West might help prevent wildfires rather than fuel them as feared, according to a new study.

The outbreak of beetles that burrow under the bark, eventually killing the tree, might reduce wildfire risk by naturally thinning forests, according to the report released Tuesday by researchers from Colorado State University, the University of Colorado and the University of Idaho.

"We are suggesting that the supposed fire risk is probably overblown," said Bill Romme, professor of fire ecology at Colorado State and the lead researcher. "It's possible the insects are doing the forest thinning that we would never be able to afford."

An expert with the U.S. Forest Service criticized the report as "selective science," saying it appears to advocate a hands-off approach to managing forests.

<more>

[hatrack]

1. No trees, no fires - you betcha!!

OTOH, the suggestion that maybe the Forest Service just leave the damn forests alone (implying letting them burn on a semi-regular basis) isn't necessarily a bad idea . . .

[ThomCat]

2. But they can't let the forests burn naturally

because that would endanger all those nice expensive country homes that were built out there in the woods. Rich people's whims have to come before the natural cycles, right?
:eyes:

[mike_c]

3. a number of forest entomologists have been saying this for years....

At the very least, there is lots of evidence that much of the additional fire risk associated with beetle attacks, to the extent that there really is any additional risk, is itself the result of dense, poorly managed forests in which natural fire cycles have been disrupted.

[Parche]

4. beetles

Paul McCartney sings great, but I dont think he can prevent forest fires

[Make7]

5. It's difficult to say for sure...

... they're bigger than Jesus. :)

- Make7

[Viking12]

8. I always preferred the stones...

have you ever seen a rock burn in a forest fire? :evilgrin:

[JohnWxy]

6. What about deer? Years ago in National Geographic they showed a test done

perhaps by the forest service. they fenced off a patch of forest to keep deer from getting to it. After a season or two, outside the fence everything up to about 7 or 8 feet was eaten down to the wood. Inside the fenced in area it was loaded with underbrush. Now this underbrush is what later dies and dries out. what if you had some deer in those forests? The deer would eat the shrubs so they wouldn't be there to dry out and become tinder. You could contract with guys with a few dogs to run the deers off areas before they started to eat the the bark off the trees and eliminate the underbrush from becoming fuel for fires.

Too simple?

[FREEWILL56]

7. I'm confused here

Just because there are fewer trees doesn't stop forest fires as there would be an abundance of dead would lying around. Live trees don't generally burn as fast or as hot as dead trees anyhow, so what in the world are they thinking? We certainly need more trees to absorb the out of control co2 gasses too, which when trees burn they are contributing to the greenhouse gasses so it's more than rich people's homes at stake. Some burning is necessary and will happen anyway, but I would think it to be important to stop it from endangering people's lives and property. Fewer trees would present less foliage to stop the earth from drying out excessively due to the increases in global temperatures, thus presenting a larger than natural fire hazard propelling the problem even further. The moisture of the soil is what stopped vast areas from burning away as even lightning occured before mankind was here.