Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Paul Murphy's avatar

Umm blame Canada? Well, yes and umm, no.

Historically the Canadian (and American) idea that forest fires should not be tolerated traces back to the idea that trees constitute a valuable resource that should be protected - so everyone "back then" (WW1 era) knew about the role of fire in forest renewal, but generally agreed that resource protection outweighed long term renewal.

Since then, however, we've kept the "fight all fires" idea, but stopped most lumbering - meaning that the forestry roads are not being built or maintained. As a result fires are harder to fight and, where "preservation" agendas have won out, both larger and hotter due to the fuel buildup.

So yes, you can blame Canada because not killing trees to sell lumber to Americans is seen as a good thing in Ottawa and Vancouver, while fighting fires to preserve the lumber resource is seen as an automatic must do in Victoria, Quebec city, Toronto and Edmonton. The one position is stupid, the other stupider, but that's Canada.

And no, you can't blame Canada because much of the U.S. behaves in nearly the same way: trying hard to kill forestry industries while fighting forest fires to protect the resource those industries would depend on if allowed to prosper.

Alan Foster's avatar

Smoke - Chinada's biggest export.

Is Chinada a sister country with L.A.? Or is it Cuba?

23 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?