US Forest Service caused largest wildfire in New Mexico history

[NewYorkExpress]

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/3504963-forest-service-finds-it-was-responsible-for-largest-fire-in-new-mexico-history/

The Forest Service says it was responsible for both the blazes that merged late last month and created the largest fire in New Mexico history.

The agency said Friday that its fire investigators determined the Calf Canyon Fire was started by a holdover fire, or sleeper fire, from a federal pile burn that concluded Jan. 29.

Though crews monitored the fire for a couple days following the conclusion of the burn, the Forest Service said, it remained dormant and survived three winter snow events before it reignited and escaped containment lines in April and was “significantly” spread by a wind event.

The Calf Canyon Fire then merged with the Hermits Peak Fire, which was also started by an escaped federal prescribed burn, to cause New Mexico’s biggest-ever fire.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This may be an unpopular opinion, but wildfires are healthy for nature, as they are an important part of the natural life cycle and are vital for regeneration of the landscape.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

This may be an unpopular opinion, but wildfires are healthy for nature, as they are an important part of the natural life cycle and are vital for regeneration of the landscape.

This definitely isn't wrong, and there is indeed a history of land management policies that have made some things worse than they otherwise would be by being overly aggressive in trying to prevent wildfires, but I would note it is an incomplete picture of things. Unless we're going to use eminent domain to reverse human settlement of certain fire-prone areas - which, idk, maybe we should, but that is definitely going to be a difficult sell politically - it's sort of inevitable that we need to contain at least some of the more threatening fires. Even more so when climate change is causing unnatural levels of drought in these areas and thus producing fires on greater scales than would otherwise happen.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This may be an unpopular opinion, but wildfires are healthy for nature, as they are an important part of the natural life cycle and are vital for regeneration of the landscape.

This definitely isn't wrong, and there is indeed a history of land management policies that have made some things worse than they otherwise would be by being overly aggressive in trying to prevent wildfires, but I would note it is an incomplete picture of things. Unless we're going to use eminent domain to reverse human settlement of certain fire-prone areas - which, idk, maybe we should, but that is definitely going to be a difficult sell politically - it's sort of inevitable that we need to contain at least some of the more threatening fires. Even more so when climate change is causing unnatural levels of drought in these areas and thus producing fires on greater scales than would otherwise happen.

Yeah, it's a given we should try to stop some fires, even if a "stop all wildfires, period" policy likely just creates overly large wildfires indirectly by giving them more fuel in the long term.

[John Dule]

This may be an unpopular opinion, but New Mexico is a state in the American southwest. I know that these are controversial views, but I have never courted popularity. I am a maverick.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This may be an unpopular opinion, but New Mexico is a state in the American southwest. I know that these are controversial views, but I have never courted popularity. I am a maverick.

I was referring to the views of the general public, not trying to make some bold statement to burnish some kind of forum reputation, if that is what you are insinuating by means of satire (I engage in that business too {only it's directed mainly at RL politicians}, I'd like to think I tend to recognize that stuff when I see it). There are a lot of nuances to environmental management that are reflected in governmental policy and aren't really necessarily understood by the broader electorate, and reflect the various elements of land usage and various needs that have to be fulfilled (see also: wildlife management in places like Yellowstone).

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

This is my field of study and one of my professors was a park ranger at Saguaro. This is the result of failed fire suppression policies from the last 100 years.

Forests in places like Arizona and New Mexico are so incredibly overgrown that their basically a “tender box” (his words). They need to be burned, but it’s now at great risk. There are some places that need to be burned but can’t for this reason. They’re going to burn and cause massive damage one day, whether by government forces or by citizens

[Hermit For Peace]

This is my field of study and one of my professors was a park ranger at Saguaro. This is the result of failed fire suppression policies from the last 100 years.

Forests in places like Arizona and New Mexico are so incredibly overgrown that their basically a “tender box” (his words). They need to be burned, but it’s now at great risk. There are some places that need to be burned but can’t for this reason. They’re going to burn and cause massive damage one day, whether by government forces or by citizens

It's certainly a conundrum.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

This is my field of study and one of my professors was a park ranger at Saguaro. This is the result of failed fire suppression policies from the last 100 years.

Forests in places like Arizona and New Mexico are so incredibly overgrown that their basically a “tender box” (his words). They need to be burned, but it’s now at great risk. There are some places that need to be burned but can’t for this reason. They’re going to burn and cause massive damage one day, whether by government forces or by citizens

It's certainly a conundrum.

It’s not even that, it just is. Burn, don’t burn, next spark and the whole thing burns

[dead0man]

This may be an unpopular opinion, but wildfires are healthy for nature, as they are an important part of the natural life cycle and are vital for regeneration of the landscape.

the dumbest part is, "science" has known since the 80s that it's better that forests burn from time to time, but changing a position of a federal agency takes about 75 years unless they can declare it an emergency....then it takes 6-48 months.

[Pres Mike]

This is my field of study and one of my professors was a park ranger at Saguaro. This is the result of failed fire suppression policies from the last 100 years.

Forests in places like Arizona and New Mexico are so incredibly overgrown that their basically a “tender box” (his words). They need to be burned, but it’s now at great risk. There are some places that need to be burned but can’t for this reason. They’re going to burn and cause massive damage one day, whether by government forces or by citizens

Why are forests in the Southwest so overgrown?

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

This may be an unpopular opinion, but wildfires are healthy for nature, as they are an important part of the natural life cycle and are vital for regeneration of the landscape.

Why would this be an unpopular opinion by any means?

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

This is my field of study and one of my professors was a park ranger at Saguaro. This is the result of failed fire suppression policies from the last 100 years.

Forests in places like Arizona and New Mexico are so incredibly overgrown that their basically a “tender box” (his words). They need to be burned, but it’s now at great risk. There are some places that need to be burned but can’t for this reason. They’re going to burn and cause massive damage one day, whether by government forces or by citizens

Why are forests in the Southwest so overgrown?

From the late 1800s to the late 1900s it was the policy of American land conservations to prevent fires at all costs. The problem is, fires have long been apart of the natural ecosystem. There are two big types of fires; brush fires and crown fires.

Brush fires are smaller and mostly burn away small bushes and saplings. Basically natural weed control.

Crown fires are much larger and much hotter. Most tree bark is fire resistant, so they’re immune to smaller fires. But without the smaller fires getting rid of the ground cover it leads to massive fires.

So in trying to stop brush fires lead to massive overgrowth of trees, bushes, etc. Now with all that extra growth it makes Crown fires, which were rare, much more common

TLDR; it’s from short sighted environmental policies

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/oct/15/heartland-institute/no-wildfires-werent-bigger-1920s-and-30s-today/

That’s a politifact article that goes into it some

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

This may be an unpopular opinion, but wildfires are healthy for nature, as they are an important part of the natural life cycle and are vital for regeneration of the landscape.

Why would this be an unpopular opinion by any means

Cause fires burn down peoples homes as well. Also the public generally doesn’t like fire

[Aurelius]

This may be an unpopular opinion, but wildfires are healthy for nature, as they are an important part of the natural life cycle and are vital for regeneration of the landscape.

Why would this be an unpopular opinion by any means

Cause fires burn down peoples homes as well. Also the public generally doesn’t like fire

Add to that the long history of fires in remote areas deemed not a threat and allowed to burn out, then gaining unexpected strength and threatening populated areas. The Tamarack fire in CA last year is an example of this.

This is a really difficult problem and there's no easy solution.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

This may be an unpopular opinion, but wildfires are healthy for nature, as they are an important part of the natural life cycle and are vital for regeneration of the landscape.

Why would this be an unpopular opinion by any means

Cause fires burn down peoples homes as well. Also the public generally doesn’t like fire

True. Perhaps my privilege of being an AP Environmental Science student is being exposed here.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This may be an unpopular opinion, but wildfires are healthy for nature, as they are an important part of the natural life cycle and are vital for regeneration of the landscape.

Why would this be an unpopular opinion by any means?

I haven't seen any polling, but I suspect that it would be news that at least a lot of people in the outer reaches of many Western US metropolitan areas wouldn't want to hear.
EDIT: I was ninja'ed by people who put what I was thinking better than I could