General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWould you support the use of drones to locate small fires before they turn into huge wildfires?
Seems like the perfect use for them.
Might even catch a few arsonists in the process too.
Don
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)or during a chemical spill, where I need to scout large patches of ground fast... oh I would have given a lot for one of them during a few situations.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)unless there is a let it burn policy. Someone explained that to me once, I still didn't get it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)follow the normal burn cycles. Brooks and creeks that had gone dry from overgrowth are back.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)when it is a normal burn cycle or arson?
joshcryer
(62,280 posts)We have a good idea of when and where lightning strikes these days, so if there's a fire associated with strikes, it is sometimes allowed.
Note: this policy isn't really being followed with the latest burn seasons because when they've been happening it's during high fire danger, very hot days, and lots of wind. I'm pretty sure they're not doing that then, it would be suicidal.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)is that we have had a no burn policy for close to 100 years. So the Forest Service started experimentally to let fires burn in isolated areas, instead of the policy of get if off by ten in the morning.
By the way, in isolated areas lightning gets those fires going very often, as in extremely often. It is part of the cycle.
In San Diego we know manzanita needs a hot fire for it's seeds to sprout.
joshcryer
(62,280 posts)...the only way to have a let it burn policy is after we've cleared a massive amount of undergrowth. Until we do that we're kind of stuck now putting them out and dealing with massive, incredible wildfires. And of course the Forest Service wants funding for undergrowth clearing but it never gets it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)they wanted to stop funding the Smokey the Bear program (which in the light of some of the emerging science might not be that bad of an idea)... because it was TOO EXPENSIVE.
If I had my way, I'd fund them at 120% of what they ask, would be a worthy employment program too.
joshcryer
(62,280 posts)You might have some 4 wheelers with trailers but you can't take anything much bigger into the deep forest. It would employ tens of thousands of people and take years, but it's a worthy goal. Then implement let it burn, long term the forest is healthier for it, and the cost savings from not having to put out these massive wildfires is apparent.
joshcryer
(62,280 posts)This resulted in artificial undergrowth. Total fire suppression sounded like a good idea but it has resulted in weaker forests because now wildfires have massive undergrowth to consume which otherwise would've burned up if the Forest Service wasn't putting out each and every fire.
The Forest Service really just needs more money to clear out undergrowth and deadwood that would naturally be burned up in medium to small fires without adversely affecting entire forests but they don't have the resources to do it and can only do so selectively around where homes are.
cilla4progress
(24,790 posts)It's never the thing itself..it's how it's used!
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)it's armed to execute anyone on the unitary executive's secret kill list, in case they're spotted.
joshcryer
(62,280 posts)And only if those civilians are not directly within the government appratus. ie, scientists getting a grant would be OK, but a "Directorate of Drone Surveillance for Fires," I wouldn't trust.
NNN0LHI
(67,190 posts)What could possibly go wrong?
Don
joshcryer
(62,280 posts)ErikJ
(6,335 posts)and dangerous insect infestation. The greatest danger to forests is NOT fire -it is man fooling with nature!
NewMoonTherian
(883 posts)The trouble is we'll never achieve 100% suppression, and trying to do so will lead to catastrophic fires.
Sorry. I know what you meant. I just had to be a smartass real quick. Carry on
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)As long as no weapons were installed and they could NEVER be used for law enforcement surveillance.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)instead of militarizing the forests with black helicopters, drones, and SWAT teams.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)War on drugs...
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)Warpy
(111,406 posts)to the point the drones won't crash and start fires, themselves.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Far more reliable and much better conversationalist.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It's bad enough to have helicopters overhead so much of the time here in LA. Please don't add drones too. The noise of the helicopters is wearing. I can only imagine what drones are like.
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)Imagine; no cold pizza due to traffic jams. The drone would get it to you hot and steaming.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)If you have them roaming around high up, I can imagine that they would be a danger to passenger and freight planes.
I don't think these things are perfect, and I suspect it might cause more havoc than it would alleviate. Satellites can detect astonishing levels of detail now.
lostnote12
(159 posts)......I tend to believe that Dov Zackheims UAV manufacturing interests have been rewarded conspicuously enough already.....