Firebreaks vs no firebreaks

A rather strange article in the Magic Valley Times-News in Idaho appears to advocate the construction and maintenance of fire breaks as well as the position that frequently they are ineffective in stopping the spread of fires. It may just be the way the reporter wrote the article, but it says the Bureau of Land Management “is looking to increase its fire fuel break efforts for up to 60 miles in the Jarbidge area”, but also indicates they are sometimes ineffective and quotes a BLM fire ecologist as saying: “There’s a rub though. At what point do you just leave the area alone and focus on rehab [after a fire]? It’s just a matter of time that all this will burn again.”

 

Thanks go out to Dick

Typos, let us know HERE, and specify which article. Please read the commenting rules before you post a comment.

Author: Bill Gabbert

After working full time in wildland fire for 33 years, he continues to learn, and strives to be a Student of Fire.

One thought on “Firebreaks vs no firebreaks”

  1. I think the fire ecologist is exactly right; we need to be more honest with the public about fire breaks and the fire program itself. Green strips aren’t very effective if you are fighting a fire in 55 mph winds, which often happens in this area of Idaho. I have seen fires jump two lanes of concrete interstate, so BLM needs to be honest in saying that fuels treatments are NOT a catch-all to preventing large-scale wildfires. If the public is informed, then they are less likely to be angry with BLM or other agencies when fires go beyond fire breaks/become large-scale incidents and threaten homes, grazing allotments, etc.

    0
    0

Comments are closed.