> "Historically, fires operated in a way that tended to be less severe in valley bottoms and lower slopes," Taylor added. "Now, because of fire suppression, they tend to burn at a higher severity and you lose that habitat." The practice of not allowing any fires means that more leaf litter and branches—the components of forest fuel—can accumulate on the floor, while small trees that would have burned in the past can grow large enough to carry fires into the crowns of the taller trees that had escaped the impact of less severe fires in the past, putting the landscape in jeopardy. [0]
[0] http://news.psu.edu/story/270206/2013/03/26/research/suppres... [1] http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/static/documents/2012/06/13/St...
The people at that department are doing some incredible research like mapping forest floors from drones/airplanes with radar.
There are some scientists talking about some newly discovered effects on soil by fireforests. There are two types of ashes after a fireforest: White and Black. White cinders are completely burned. Can be permeated by rain and contain minerals and nutrients easily taken by plants. Black ashes are incompletedly burned and have instead an hydrophobic efect. They make the soil reject the new water. Soil turns into a brick and water can now only move trough crevices, (unavailable to the other "90%" of the soil for months or years).
So, fireforests can be good, but there are some undesired collateral effects also. A better way would be that some people stop deliberately creating fireforests for profit, and I'm not talking about environmental managers here.
I was of the understanding that fires are a healthy thing for a forest, though I must admit that it's been decades since I've lived in California, and that the local climates and ecologies are quite different.