Maybe pescribed burns are not a panacea

As Canada slogs though another record-breaking wildfire season, there is a thought-provoking and timely article by a couple of respected professors about how Canada could learn from Australia's experience.

See, many people who are complaining about Canada's increasingly grim and out-of-control forest fires (including, as it happens, Donald Trump, who rarely misses an opportunity to disparage a liberal administration and to downplay the effects of climate change) blame poor forest management and, specifically, too little use of prescribed (or "hazard reduction") burns.

As the eminent profs point out, though, prescribed burns - which are usually talked of as a no-brainer solution to both Australia's and Canada's increasingly extreme wildfires - are perhaps not as scientifically affirmed as most of us think.

In fact, it turns out there is very little robust scientific evidence of the effectiveness of prescribed burns in reducing fire hazards. In some places, prescribed burns can help for a few years; but afterwards, the regrowing vegetation can be even more flammable than before and so actually increase fire risks, sometimes for many decades. It is not uncommon for extensive prescribed burns to be followed by disastrous uncontrollable fires.

It is also often claimed that prescribed burns must be the way to go because, both in Australia and in Canada, it's the traditional Indigenous way, and, of course, anything Indigenous must necessarily be environmentally sustainable, right? In fact, Indigenous prescribed burns are traditionally very small and localized, mainly used for hunting, promoting food growth, and clearing pathways, rather than for
"asset protection". Modern, state-directed prescribed burns, on the other hand, tend to be on a huge scale and very high intensity. 

Analysis of ice-cores in Australia show that there have been many mega-fires over the last 2,000 years, regardless of traditional Indigenous cultural policies. Also, industrial logging practices in both Australia and Western Canada are also closely associated with elevated flammability and more intense wildfires. Data from Australia suggests that more people die from respiratory problems after large prescribed burns than than after wildfires! Prescribed burns can also give people a false sense of security.

Food for thought, indeed, and a challenge to the conventional wisdom. Maybe "fighting fire with fire" is not such a no-brainer after all.