California; We are not over the hump. This is the beginning

[itsrobert]

Pretty much, unless a home, people, important infrastructure is endangered the Government is letting the fires burn. The thinking is that they need to put their resources where it's most needed. However, the rains will come in a few weeks and by February/March California will be facing horrific floods caused by the fact they left the vegetation burn. This is fail to plan and a plan to fail.

[malaise]

1. And you're surprised?

The only thing Bushco and his goons can plan is a clusterfuck.
Sp.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. Bushco has very little to do with fighting these fires

[MonkeyFunk]

2. There's actually little they CAN do

some of these fires are so large, there's no way to fight them. Water dropped on them evaporates before it reaches the fire.

The best they can do is try to save some structures and let the fire burn itself out.

[kestrel91316]

4. The vegetation NEEDS to burn. Previous fire suppression in

chapparel is one contributing factor in the size and severity of our fires in recent years.

Fire followed by flood is NORMAL in this SoCal ecosystem.

[itsrobert]

5. Right,

But it doesn't need to all burn at once. The normal ecosystem is fires will burn naturally until it runs out of fuel when it hits land that was only burned the a year or two before. Even weeks or months before. Fire suppression is what's keeping them not burning naturally.

[Richard D]

6. There's even plants . . .

. . . that have seeds that will lie dormant for decades or even centuries until a fire burns over them, then they will sprout and grow. It's an amazing eco-system. Where the land has burned will have amazing growth of flowers and new plants in a few months. It will be beautiful there. It's the silver lining to this dark cloud.

[Critters2]

8. This is true of native prairie plants.

I have friends with a field of native prairie, and they do controlled burns every couple of years, or some of the seeds won't germinate.

[tabatha]

7. Chaparral.

This is not necessarily true.

New chaparral growth, just three years after a fire and if dry enough, can burn.
Invasive grasses that recover within a year after a fire, also contribute to fires.
Invasive plants cannot deal with dry summers, and after a rush of growth in spring, dry out in summer.
A year after a fire they can contribute again to wildfires - that is they are inflammable.

It is important that chaparral that has burned in a fire not to burn for another 15-20 years, so that it can recover.
Shrubs do not recover as fast as grasses do, and repeated short-interval burns will hamper recovery of chaparral.

One good thing about very hot fires, is that chaparral, given time can recover, but invasive plants cannot - they only recover in the case of a not-very-hot fire.

Here is a book about the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Californias-Ecosystems-Neil-Sugihara/dp/0520246055

[Richard D]

9. I was at a lecture . . .

. . . where this was addressed. Pictures were shown of areas that had burned too often. They basically turn into waste land with little growing there other than non-native weeds.

[knight_of_the_star]

10. Its because there aren't enough resources

If there were there to really take the fires out then you bet they would, but there isn't the manpower to pull it off.