Insured Property Losses in Wildfires

[Fotoware58]

Here is yet another bit of evidence that proves wildfires are destructive and costly, in addition to the suppression costs and environmental damage. This is the top ten most expensive wildfires for the insurance companies. The dollar figures are in MILLIONS of dollars and are corrected for 2008 dollar values. If you add in the environmental costs, including timber loss, drinking water, wildlife habitat, business closures, health costs, etc, then you have a much bigger picture of just how costly wildfires really are. Hmmmmmm, just WHERE are those supposed "benefits of wildfire", eh?!?

img src=

[MercutioATC]

1. "Benefits of wildfire"? If that means natural benefits, they exist.

None of the detriments of fire that you list have anything to do with nature....at least not as issues of real harm.


Do wildfires cost people money (either in terms of loss of possessions or loss of potentially recoverable natural resources that can be turned into possessions)? Absolutely.

I doubt that this is what people who point out the natural benefits of wildfires are speaking of.

[Fotoware58]

2. Sooooo

when one third of all Oregon Spotted Owl nests burn in the Biscuit Fire, there's "no harm"?? Or when accelerated erosion impacts salmon habitat and adds increased flooding for decades? Or when soils are radically impacted from ultra high fire temperatures?? Or when massive tonnage of GHG's spew into our atmosphere?? Or when old growth trees are turned into permanent brushfields?!? Or when wildfires kill trees but leave the dead wood to fuel the next inevitable wildfire??!?

Please, tell us all of SPECIFIC "benefits" of wildfires.

Because I am NOT seeing them!

[MercutioATC]

3. So, your argument is that we should stop a natural process because it's harmful to nature?

Amazingly, Earth managed to survive for 4 1/2 billion years without anybody fighting wildfires.

Yes, sometimes those fires kill off endangered species. Sometimes, they exacerbate things we consider to be problems...like erosion. ...and it's worked pretty well for quite a while.

Fires provide positive effects. They encourage biodiversity. They eliminate disease and infestation.


I'm just suggesting that, perhaps, a wider perspective might be in order. Our actions influence OUR survival. They do not influence the survival of Earth as a planet.

[Fotoware58]

4. Nope!!

When fires turn diverse old growth forests into permanent brushfields, diversity is radically reduced! Here is an example of a Spotted Owl nesting site in Oregon's Biscuit Fire. Beneficial?!?! I think NOT!

img src=

Fires do NOT eliminate insect infestations! They ADD to them! The surviving but highly-susceptible trees of wildfires become homes for exploding populations of bark beetles. Especially when salvage projects are stopped, the bark beetles find easy prey when the cambium layers are "cooked" at ground level. The trees may take several years to die but become homes to several generations of hungry bark beetles. I KNOW this because my forte was in insect and fire salvage projects.

Sorry but, those aren't "benefits"! Even if they were, would they offset all those other horrific impacts?!?! Not a chance!

[MercutioATC]

5. So, disrupting natural cycles actually BENEFITS nature?

Do you actually believe that we are really making a significant difference one way or the other? More importantly, do you actually believe that the planet benefits from us "saving" it from itself?

[Fotoware58]

6. "Natural"???

When a lightning fire burns in an "unnaturally" overstocked and unhealthy forest, that doesn't make it part of a "natural cycle". I HAVE seen where big fires drop down out of the crowns of trees when they run into properly "managed" forests. Until we prepare the land for fire, these wildfires WILL continue to be catastrophic, devastating and totally "unnatural".

Like THIS on the Biscuit Fire, started by a lightning strike.

img src=

[MercutioATC]

7. How did that forest come to be "unnaturally" overstocked and unhealthy?

[Fotoware58]

8. In the context of the future....

does it REALLY matter?!?!?! Or do you want MORE of what is in THAT picture?!?!? "Un-stewardship" doesn't fix the problem!

[MercutioATC]

9. My contention is that "stewardship" is best limited to REDUCING our effect on nature.

...not circumventing natural processes.

[Fotoware58]

10. Sooooo

consequently, you are in favor of letting catastrophic wildfires, BOTH natural AND man-caused, burn unstoppably?? Because THAT is EXACTLY what is happening NOW and you are in favor of "letting nature take its course"! Nature WILL re-balance our forests, in ways us humans will surely NOT like. Nature doesn't care if old growth disappears or endangered species die. Nature cares not for ignorant humans. Nature also doesn't care if we spend a TRILLION dollars on putting out fires.

FACT: You cannot remove man from our environment, although many very much HATE man and his effects on nature, good or bad.

FACT: Man created much of our ancient forests through his manipulations on a grand scale. (Example, coastal Oregon mtns were burned to almost eliminate conifers, leaving only the biggest and most fire-resistant trees)

FACT: Leaving an "unnatural" forest to nature has resulted in forest disasters never before seen by man. (Example: The Biscuit Fire)

FACT: Forests are overstocked by as many as 1000 times more trees per acre than before the white man came. Also conveniently ignored by people like Joe Romm, Al Gore, Barack Obama.

FACT: You CANNOT preserve a forest back to a "natural" state in today's world. It will burn catastrophically before trees will reach their previous sizes and ages.

FACT: The influx of off-site flammable species into fire-adapted ponderosa pine forests has put huge acreages at risk of stand-replacing fires and the subsequent domination of those same flammable species. This will also result in the "unnatural" near-eradication of those same fire-adapted ponderosa pines through catastrpohic fires. The lodgepoles will seed back in and dominate the lands until the ponderosas can fully recover their fire-adapted advantages. This will take HUNDREDS of years without man's interventions, with more mega-fires in between.

FACT: Ancient Indians were good stewards of the forests. Why are you against good scientifically-sustainable forest management that seeks to follow the Indians wisdom??

FACT: YOU are living in a dreamworld, avoiding the facts and science of forest ecosystem science, AND the wisdom of ancient American Indians.

[Fotoware58]

11. Try reading

papers by Dr. Stephen Pyne, the world's most foremost respected scientist/historian on American fire-dominated lands, who explains how American Indians molded our nation's landscapes to be so beautiful, functional and resilient. I'll bet you didn't know that these "natural processes" you are talking about were actually anthropogenic in "nature". Only through simulating those activities by the Indians can we restore our forests back to their original splendor.

Instead of burning it ALL to the bare, hydrophobic minerally-depleted soils, as you advocate. Educate yourself instead of imposing disaster upon us all!

[Fotoware58]

15. AND...

could you tell me the last time man DIDN'T have an effect on nature?!?! The past is past but, you want to mortgage the future by doing nothing?

[MercutioATC]

16. You seem to be quite knowlegable about the subject.

We simply have very different views of the effect we have on the planet.

...and that's fine.

[Fotoware58]

17. I tend to call it....

DENIAL and "unstewarship". You, and others are quite willing to allow forests to be destroyed in favor of.....uh....uh....WTH ARE you in favor of??

Yeah, if we "let nature take its course" for 500 years without ANY intrusions by man, yes, we WOULD have a "natural" landscape. However, we ALL know that CANNOT ever happen.

We CAN manage our forests into landscapes that survive droughts, barkbeetles and fires, though, using sound and sustainable science. Why the obstruction and denial??? Is there are reason to disregard the obvious science?? Is there a reason to avoid the simple fact that the land CANNOT support the existing density and species composition of today's forests?!?!?

Restoration is simply not politically-palatable and we ARE seeing the horrendous results of ignoring ecosystem science. Some people don't even WANT to understand the science.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. If humans hadn't destroyed habitat and the owls themselves, one fire wouldn't be a credible threat

to their existence.

Forests adapted to wildfires a loong looooooong time ago. We should quit messing around with them. Stop fighting the small fires, and you won't have the mega-fires that wipe out entire counties.

And who gives a shit about property damage? There are literally dozens of ways to prevent that, but noooo people are stupid, planners are stupid, building codes are inadequate and drafted by the stupid... See a theme here?

[Fotoware58]

14. Try looking to the FUTURE!!

What was done IS done. Soooo, you want to continue to let fires turn into mega-fires, wiping out ALL traces of the previously overstocked forests??

Save the forests by burning them to the ground?!?!?

Kill people and ruin lives by letting urban fires destroy?

Evacuate the entire arid West because it's "fire habitat"?!?

Turn blackened trees into pure gold with the wave of a hand?!?!?





Ya know, ALL fires start out small!!!!!!


WAKE UP, AMERICA!!!! Let science be your savior, instead of idealistic dogma-drama!

[Fotoware58]

12. Stunning video of massive GHG's

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/02/time-lapse-pyrocumulus-for-the-la-wildfire/

Tell me that this fire has "resource benefits"!!!