Forest Fires and Adaptation Options in Europe: Modeling Climate Change, Fuel Reduction and Suppression

Thanks to 2nd Law’s comments about Bayesian analysis, I went hopping down a bunny trail of decision science links, and ran across this. It addresses how Europeans might adapt to climate change vis a vis wildfires. It’s interesting to take a look at how these scientists approach the problem that we have been talking about …

Continue reading ‘Forest Fires and Adaptation Options in Europe: Modeling Climate Change, Fuel Reduction and Suppression’ »

Study: Colorado’s 14ers more popular than initially estimated

And now, for something completely different. From the Colorado Springs Gazette here.. The Colorado Fourteeners Initiative on Friday released a follow-up to a first-of-its kind study from 2016, which estimated the state’s 54 tallest mountains experienced 260,000 hiker days a year. Now, the nonprofit stewarding the mountain trails says that figure is closer to 311,000. …

Continue reading ‘Study: Colorado’s 14ers more popular than initially estimated’ »

Why We Disagree About Fuel Treatments: VII. Framing Again: the Watershed Projects

We have already talked about the Forests to Faucets partnership effort in Colorado here and here. I raised the question at the time (2012) and I think it’s still relevant.. why do watershed projects seem to have fewer critics? As I said then: I wonder why this water partnerships like this are a New Mexico/Colorado …

Continue reading ‘Why We Disagree About Fuel Treatments: VII. Framing Again: the Watershed Projects’ »

Reflections on the Biomass Monitor Debate 8/16/17 on Fuel Treatments

I found this discussion to be very interesting, and I think the Biomass Monitor is going to post a recording on their website here. It seems like everyone agrees that “more fire is needed” in dry western landscapes, as we discussed before. It also seems like (some) fire ecologists think that it is important to …

Continue reading ‘Reflections on the Biomass Monitor Debate 8/16/17 on Fuel Treatments’ »

Why We Disagree About Fuel Treatment: VI. Stewardship and Fireshed Assessments

Sometimes when I hear that “science says that fuel treatments don’t work” I wonder why the views of scientists who work on fuel treatments don’t seem to count as “science”. IMHO, there is altogether too much ready acceptance of (generally scientists) framing issues as “science” issues, and then claiming one discipline is key to the …

Continue reading ‘Why We Disagree About Fuel Treatment: VI. Stewardship and Fireshed Assessments’ »

Agreement Check-In: More Fire on the Landscape?

Good explanation of a current WFU here in the Journal (Cortez, Dolores, Mancos, Colorado). There was only one comment on yesterday’s post (thanks Forester 353!), so I want to run these questions again to see where people are. There seems to be a broad agreement among different people that we “need to put fire back …

Continue reading ‘Agreement Check-In: More Fire on the Landscape?’ »

Why We Disagree About Fuel Treatments: V. Getting Fire Back on the Landscape- PB, WFU and WPFC

There are different reasons that different groups of people, including scientists, want more fire on the landscape. Fuels specialists want to reduce fuels and make problem fires safer to fight. Ecologists want to have various good ecological kinds of things happen. At the same time, there are bad things that fires can do, to people, …

Continue reading ‘Why We Disagree About Fuel Treatments: V. Getting Fire Back on the Landscape- PB, WFU and WPFC’ »

New York Times on Fire: “Science” Without Fire Science

Thanks to readers who shared this NY Times article. The subheading is A “scientific debate is intensifying over whether too much money and too many lives are lost fighting forest fires”. The article says that the black=backed woodpecker is “a symbol of a huge scientific and political debate over the future of fire in American …

Continue reading ‘New York Times on Fire: “Science” Without Fire Science’ »

Why We Disagree About Fuel Treatments: IV. Framing the Issue: Living with Fire on the Landscape

Before we move on to “how have SPLATS worked in practice?,” we probably need to go back to the fundamental beliefs underlying our policy preferences. In political science or policy studies, this is known as the way the problem is “framed.” See this description, if you’re not familiar with the term. I think it’s important …

Continue reading ‘Why We Disagree About Fuel Treatments: IV. Framing the Issue: Living with Fire on the Landscape’ »