Re:Scientists say sudden oak death epidemic is no longer sto...
by pfarnsworth on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @04:44PM
(#11624080)
But it no longer makes sense, since the scientists have already said that it's unstoppable. So dumping more money into trying to protect them seems like a waste of money, no?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Scientists say sudden oak death epidemic is no longer sto...
by ArtDev on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @04:50PM
(#11624129)
Giving up is a very poor plan. Dead trees make wildfires much much worse. California wildfires are terrible as it is.
Re:Scientists say sudden oak death epidemic is no longer sto...
by pfarnsworth on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @11:29PM
(#11625964)
Forest fires are a natural part of the cycle. In fact, it's forest fire "prevention" that causes even bigger forest fires than normal. If they simply let fires burn, it would naturally cleanse the forests of brush and dead trees and create much smaller forest fires.
Re:Scientists say sudden oak death epidemic is no longer sto...
by hinkley on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @11:58PM
(#11626068)
It's more that the specific type of forests that John Muir was so fond of were the result of intensive agroforestry by the tribes of California. They used fire as part of a fairly large toolbox, and you don't get that sort of forest without it.