fathompinball

The really threatening fires we had here were in 1988, 1994, 1997, 1999.

>They were much more measured and careful than the idiots who arrived after the 1500s

I doubt it. There just weren't nearly as many of them.

> We forget so quickly. We used to burn the forests out of indifference and perceived abundance.

A quick look at some papers indicates that prehistoric California burned much more acreage than the modern variety.

>California is in a megadrought.

To be fair, we had big, honkin', town-killin' fires back when it rained and snowed more than average for decades.

It's hard to tell how much is due to drought, how much to a shift from snow to rain, how much is home development, how much is homeless people torching off areas (more than you'd like to think).

>at least those megafires will decrease the likelihood of fires in the comming years.

I wouldn't be so sure. It looks like a lot of the fires don't wipe out the fuel load, a lot of burnable stuff grows back quickly, it doesn't take all that many years for everything to grow back.

Living in one of the uber-flammable areas, it's funny how fast all of the plants grow. This entire locality is (2nd (or 3rd (or 4th))) generation trees.