[82 Card]

GR, I agree with the assessment and will add one more, suburban sprawl.  Obviously, this doesn't cause the fires, but it does does magnify the impact of fires.  As the interface between people and the forrest increases, that puts more people at risk for the direct impact of the fires (the impact of smoke is another thing).  It also increases the risk of fires starting (more electrical equipment running through fires) and (this part is, I think theoretical) more pressure not to pursue some of the forrest management techniques like controlled burns; the last thing any forestry service needs would be property loss due to a deliberately set fire.

BC

Where I live (just east of he Oakland hills), the hazard is from dense growth of trees where none existed before. My house is about 80 years old. Historic photographs of the area, including a couple on my street, show that there were very few trees in the area when my house was built. The brobdingnagian oak trees in my front yard were not there. Most of the trees that the city now won't let us cut are newer than the houses. Fortunately, most of the trees I have are oak and bay, which are not particularly explosive. However, many houses have rows of far more explosive trees like pine. Even with the oak and bay, it's a constant struggle to keep vegetation away from the house and the trees limbed up. We end up concentrating on different parts every year. Last year, we concentrated on clearing limbs over the house and limbing up in our little forest. This year we worked mostly on making sure that the road doesn't get blocked. It's probably all in vain. If a big fire comes through, the place will be toast. I'd like to think the Class A roof I put on and other work will help. But if a big fire storm comes through, it's over.

[82 Card]

GR, I agree with the assessment and will add one more, suburban sprawl.  Obviously, this doesn't cause the fires, but it does does magnify the impact of fires.  As the interface between people and the forrest increases, that puts more people at risk for the direct impact of the fires (the impact of smoke is another thing).  It also increases the risk of fires starting (more electrical equipment running through fires) and (this part is, I think theoretical) more pressure not to pursue some of the forrest management techniques like controlled burns; the last thing any forestry service needs would be property loss due to a deliberately set fire.

BC

Where I live (just east of he Oakland hills), the hazard is from dense growth of trees where none existed before. My house is about 80 years old. Historic photographs of the area, including a couple on my street, show that there were very few trees in the area when my house was built. The brobdingnagian oak trees in my front yard were not there. Most of the trees that the city now won't let us cut are newer than the houses. Fortunately, most of the trees I have are oak and bay, which are not particularly explosive. However, many houses have rows of far more explosive trees like pine. Even with the oak and bay, it's a constant struggle to keep vegetation away from the house and the trees limbed up. We end up concentrating on different parts every year. Last year, we concentrated on clearing limbs over the house and limbing up in our little forest. This year we worked mostly on making sure that the road doesn't get blocked. It's probably all in vain. If a big fire comes through, the place will be toast. I'd like to think the Class A roof I put on and other work will help. But if a big fire storm comes through, it's over.