• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Big Fires Around Halifax

Air quality in Ottawa is terrible today. Smoke and haze over the city. Big fires in Quebec and west of Ottawa.

This summer is going to suck in a lot of places.
 
In central Ontario (southern Georgian Bay area) we've had haze for several days as well as blood-red sunrises and mons, but today the smell of smoke hit us for the first time.
 
In central Ontario (southern Georgian Bay area) we've had haze for several days as well as blood-red sunrises and mons, but today the smell of smoke hit us for the first time.
In Virginia the haze started Monday, Tuesday we had the smell of smoke, but today it smells like plastic is burning - and the Air Quality is in the Awful Purple zone.
 
After a prairie grass fire, ever notice how green and healthy the next year growth is on the previously burnt area? Burns are a part of nature and we should be managing them somehow.

There is a push to start doing controlled burns again as part of the forest management; it used to be more common but people complained about the smoke and they would occasionally get out of control.

Clearing out the dead underbrush, dead fall etc isn't really practical, and will build up overtime to create massive fire loads. If you can regularly burn off some of the accumulation (at least in areas) it helps from things getting way out of control when it does kick off (when it's much drier). It at least creates some fire breaks to help fence off areas to help contain things.

Not a new idea; the first nations used to regularly do this centuries ago for the same reason, which is probably a better option than having a fire rip through your village when your evac options are on foot or in a canoe, and your warning is animals running away.
 
Clearing out the dead underbrush, dead fall etc isn't really practical, and will build up overtime to create massive fire loads. If you can regularly burn off some of the accumulation (at least in areas) it helps from things getting way out of control when it does kick off (when it's much drier). It at least creates some fire breaks to help fence off areas to help contain things.
Did not Donald Trump suggest a few years ago that the California wildfires could've been prevented if the state hadn't been to lazy to rake their forests?
 
Did not Donald Trump suggest a few years ago that the California wildfires could've been prevented if the state hadn't been to lazy to rake their forests?
I think so, but hard to tell if he was serious.

But a lot of the same people that complained about the smoke from the controlled burns had their houses reduced to ash.

Not to downplay the impact of a large scale burn and the amount of smoke and ash it creates, and the very real air quality impacts, but I'd prefer that be done on purpose in a controlled manner every 5 years than just let it build up to catastrophic levels and then get fun phenomena like fire tornadoes ever 10 to 20 years when things are way to dry to do anything other than try and evacuate people.
 
Did not Donald Trump suggest a few years ago that the California wildfires could've been prevented if the state hadn't been to lazy to rake their forests?
He did. His statement was based off of the National Forest Service's (or whatever agency that was) study of the problem. His points were completely valid but some people didn't like the way he said it...
 
Ah, the Purple zone haze...

1686256909854.png

I don't think wildfires were on his mind back then. Maybe certain mushrooms on the forest floor.

There is a push to start doing controlled burns again as part of the forest management; it used to be more common but people complained about the smoke and they would occasionally get out of control.

Clearing out the dead underbrush, dead fall etc isn't really practical, and will build up overtime to create massive fire loads. If you can regularly burn off some of the accumulation (at least in areas) it helps from things getting way out of control when it does kick off (when it's much drier). It at least creates some fire breaks to help fence off areas to help contain things.

Not a new idea; the first nations used to regularly do this centuries ago for the same reason, which is probably a better option than having a fire rip through your village when your evac options are on foot or in a canoe, and your warning is animals running away.

I'm no fire scientist but I understand that if they do it right, it burns quickly through the understorey and doesn't negatively impact standing timber; although some softwood timber like Jackpine need the heat of a fire to release the seeds from their cones.
 
Sorry but the tree huggers were told that forests need to burn years ago. How they burn we sort of control through controlled burn, logging and responsible forest practices. Instead they argued to shut things down, and they got their wish.
BC use to have a very effective fire control through the logging companies who leased or owned the forest lands. They would do controlled burns, brush clearing, clear cutting, and provide direct fire fighting teams to hit small fires hard with water bombers and crews. They were told they were wrong and to stop what they were doing. So they did.
BC use to also use Sentenced offenders to provide work crews to clean ditches and clear debris from the forest floor around critical populated areas. People cried fowl and the program was ended.
 
Too much fuel.

Clearing forest floor debris is well within the capacity of property owners - it was one of my childhood chores. Helpful when you live on "the interface".

Hard to clear forests, though. The next best thing is clearing blocks and strips (aka "logging") to build in some breaks where at least the fires are a bit limited.
 
I think so, but hard to tell if he was serious.

But a lot of the same people that complained about the smoke from the controlled burns had their houses reduced to ash.

Not to downplay the impact of a large scale burn and the amount of smoke and ash it creates, and the very real air quality impacts, but I'd prefer that be done on purpose in a controlled manner every 5 years than just let it build up to catastrophic levels and then get fun phenomena like fire tornadoes ever 10 to 20 years when things are way to dry to do anything other than try and evacuate people.
Same problem in Australia couple years ago with severe fires. The greenies succeeded in stopping any controlled burns, opting for let nature take its course.
 
There is a push to start doing controlled burns again as part of the forest management; it used to be more common but people complained about the smoke and they would occasionally get out of control.

Clearing out the dead underbrush, dead fall etc isn't really practical, and will build up overtime to create massive fire loads. If you can regularly burn off some of the accumulation (at least in areas) it helps from things getting way out of control when it does kick off (when it's much drier). It at least creates some fire breaks to help fence off areas to help contain things.

Not a new idea; the first nations used to regularly do this centuries ago for the same reason, which is probably a better option than having a fire rip through your village when your evac options are on foot or in a canoe, and your warning is animals running away.
Not just those that are affected by smoke - I'm one - some allergies here. However I would encourage the use of controlled burns to keep the wildfires at bay. PLUS eco warriors were dead set against controlled burns.
We ALL need to sacrifice something at points in our lives but it seems Canadians have forgotten this.
 
Not just those that are affected by smoke - I'm one - some allergies here. However I would encourage the use of controlled burns to keep the wildfires at bay. PLUS eco warriors were dead set against controlled burns.
We ALL need to sacrifice something at points in our lives but it seems Canadians have forgotten this.
I'm in the same boat, but I'd rather take the occasional planned hit for maintenance as well.

Most people replace brake pads, tires etc when they are worn before they fail, and understand why there is regular construction season to repair bridges and other infrastructure, so same idea.

On the flip side, no one with influence is up in arms about local pollution issues around heavy industry, as it's usually poor people impacted, and that's probably much worse than occasional fire smoke from planned burns. So bit more of short sighted NIMBYism writ large.
 
Forest managers have been wanting to use more prescribed burning for at least 30-40 years but have been stopped at the political level by NIMBY complaints. And those NIMBYs weren’t all the greeny wienies. In fact, a lot of the tree huggers who knew something about forest ecology (most don’t) advocated for wider use of prescribed fire to reduce fuel load.
 
He did. His statement was based off of the National Forest Service's (or whatever agency that was) study of the problem. His points were completely valid but some people didn't like the way he said it...
Did he really say "rake", or did he say something else and people reinterpreted it for a gotcha?
 
That’s half the story.

Fire intensity is increasing because of an increase in fuel load and fire weather indices going through the roof earlier for longer. Also we are seeing more interface fires threatening suburban and urban areas because of these phenomena.
 
Back
Top