I feel like I read a few years back that aggressive suppression of wildfires leads to more and bigger fires.

The fuel piles up and eventually something sets it off, then there’s no stopping it.

In California national parks, they will start controlled fires on occasion just because fires can be beneficial to growth. The plant debris can block light and stuff, and burning it turns to ash that helps add nutrients back into the soil.

IDK if that’s done elsewhere in the country or the world.

There are also plants specifically adapted for wildfires. Sequoias (and I think redwoods) need them to open their cones and they can’t propagate in their own leaf litter, they need to be cleared by fire.

I have a buddy that worked comm’s at the remote firefighter camps. He always said this was the biggest issue the smoke jumpers/FF’s talked about.

Right but that still doesn’t obviate the need to put out fires and keep firefighters safe.

Yes, it’s been well known, especially in California. Other places around the world are only learning this now apparently due to climate change.

There’s better/worse times to burn off excess vegetation and get the natural fire cycle restarted. During Santa Anas (hot dry strong winds) and drought, it would be better to quash a small fire quickly before it becomes several enormous ones. Then you could go back after some winter rains and set a controlled burn.

See a qualified forester for the specific area. There are many different forests and they have different needs so no universal statement can be made.

Most of the forests in north America need regular fires and have been harmed by centuries of white men putting them out. However that means centuries of overgrowth and so starting one now is a too hot fire that isn't helpful either. The great plains need to burn yearly as well.

A proper fire should leave lots of charcoal behind that gets beat into the soil and naturally permanently sequesters tons of carbon. So this is a factor in global warming.

The problem is a few people have money for lawyers and anytime an expert proposes a fire they get a judge to issue an injunction and stop it until it is too late to safely burn. I'm not sure what to do about this but it is something to oppose.

Correct.

How about 500 drones all holding up a section of hose from a river or lake to get at steep hills with a constant spray

Would drone carry like 2 tablespoons of water

These are big drones that carry 100 pounds of fire retardant. It will be interesting to see how well they work.

Lmao. The censorship is off the charts

Fyi the filters are instance based, so the person you replied to and probably some of the people who downvoted you have no idea what you’re talking about. Only we can see it because we’re on .ml

Thanks for the tip, I didn’t know that!

My understanding is the drones are meant to give firefighters eyes on an incident before they arrive on-scene. Emergency calls can be notoriously inaccurate, from giving wrong locations to not describing things clearly.

If firefighters can see what they’re responding to even 5 minutes before they get there they can start preparing in advance. Maybe they need to call in additional or different resources. Maybe the actual incident is down a different dead-end street. If the drone has an infrared camera then it also might tell them where fire hotspots are, or the location of victims, etc.

What!? That money should be used for forest raking! Tech Bros win yet again. /s

I bet 5 AI Tokens that one of these shiters will somehow crash and start a wildfire…

Maybe consider investing more in fire fighting equipment… or also crazy idea: use satellites that monitor wild fires… oh wait they already did that… or maybe forbid using gas turbine powered AI datacenters that heat up the planet…