What causes so many forest fires in British Columbia, Canada?

British Columbia has many forest fires every year.

But what causes the fires in british columbia? Is it the hot, dry weather combined with lightning which causes the forest fires?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That would do it, wouldn't it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think it will.

In fact, wildfires are disturbingly easy to start. Either man or nature can cause one with little effort.

Lightning strikes or the sun's heat can spark a fire, especially in dry summer conditions. Human carelessness also can start a wildfire - - including campfires, smoking, fireworks or improper trash burning. Some wildfires are set deliberately; others can be caused by just bad luck. A train wheel sparking on the track may be all it takes to start the flames. Wildfires can move quickly, as fast as 14 mph (23 kph).

Links:

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/some-common-causes-of-wildfires
http://ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=D5DC5444-1
http://firewise.msu.edu/wildfire_causes
http://www.weatherwizkids.com/weather-wildfire.htm
http://www.nps.gov/fire/wildland-fire/learning-center/fire-in-depth/wildfire-causes.cfm
http://www.arborday.org/replanting/firecauses.cfm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lots and lots and LOTS of trees.

 

Beer and matches... Many fires are started so people can work.

 

In particular, pine trees.

They're made to burn.

 

Evergreens of all types and sizes!

 

Actually, what causes a lot of forest fires is putting out forest fires.

When forest fires come close to residential areas, it is deemed important to put them out. So, instead of letting them burn away the dead wood, needles, etc., that debris is rescued from the flames and it acummulates. Thus, there is more fuel for the next fire and the next.

Until man came along with his fancy houses, forest fires burned themselves out naturally. They didn't just keep burning as long as there were trees. But putting out the fires unnaturally upsets the whole balance and creates a new unnatural problem.

 

Umm, I have to disagree with you there. Burning off is done every year here to reduce fuel loads and there is strong historical data that big fires predate the invasion of Australia.

Even after invasion the bush was left pretty much alone to do its own thing and still we had fires like Black Friday
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(1939)

Even now lots of fires are left to burn and they still happen about every 5 -10 years (the time it takes for the bush to regenerate)

The areas your right about is that we don't care as much if there aren't homes and business involved so its those fires which are in the city fringes which get the most coverage, not those which burn for months in inaccessible national park and are just left to naturally burn off. The other area that man has had a major impact is climate change, with the increase in extreme hot days\weather conditions the risks from a fire which starts go WAY up

 

Forest fires are many times a very good thing and are only detrimental to humans who live there for they can lose their entire property and even their own lives. Fires remove most of the scrub and undergrowth that is on the forest floor and do kill the trees but not all of them leaving only the most hearty to survive.


Each summer, wildfires burn thousands of acres of forests to the ground. For centuries, fires were suppressed, leading to thick, dense forests that ultimately burn with such intensity that their smoke clouds are sometimes visible for hundreds of miles. Wildfires destroy homes, property and burn so much landscape that the scars are visible from space. Each year, we lose as much forested land to fires as we do to logging and conversion to farmland combined. Yet, far from being restricted to forests alone, wildfires are a global problem, affecting areas as diverse as the American West, the far northern tundra and temperate grasslands

Under ideal conditions, forest fires are beneficial. They clear dead wood and destroy only the lower branches, allowing sunlight to reach the forest floor. After a fire, healthy forests can quickly regenerate with new growth, allowing fire-resistant trees to flourish. Fires also add nutrients to the soil. And many species, including oak and pine, require the heat of fire to crack their tough seed shells.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...h4CYDw&usg=AFQjCNFhVfBXVtS1vnC-S6toYo00RMwwpg

 

You're not actually disagreeing with what I said; you're just giving an example that doesn't apply.

My point, again, is that people build subdivisions in the woods and if a forest fire comes anywhere near them, they struggle to put it out; the rubbish is left unburnt, accumulates from year to year and becomes a worse and worse fire hazard. Most of the news coverage is on those fires and most of the money goes into fighting those fires. Fires that don't threaten residences (particularly white, middle-class residences) are left to burn themselves out.

 

You obviously missed the point on fuel reduction in those areas including back burning during the winter

The class stuff you threw in is irreverent because its complete crap

I'm not in the CFS, but I am in St John on a response crew and we go to all the big fires to provide aid to the fire fighters and anyone else who needs it so I spend a fair amount of time at bush fires

Yep the news coverage is mainly on those fires in the city fringes because that's where lives are at risk but fires occur just as frequently (well a little less frequently because they don't have the man made causes so they only really burn from dry lightning) and just as intensely in the untouched areas as they do in the city fringe. This year there were some fires in the APY lands which burned for over 2 months

 

No, I'm making the same point - only there is no fuel reduction in the residential areas; that's the problem.

There's no reason to think there are more fires in the untouched areas than there have been for thousands of years - unless you count changes in climate, which I haven't commented on at all. The topic question is, "Why are there so many fires?" That's what I answered.

 

your wrong about fuel reduction in semi urban and urban environments (at least here you are maybe people are stupid over there)

As for your second comment your making an assumption that the opening post asks why its increased, he didn't he asked what causes it.

 

True but our firefighters go to the US and Canada to help during large bushfires in there fire season and the US sends fire fighters here to help with ours so I honestly can't imagine that our policies don't bleed into each others. You would have to be stupid if you were a high level fire fighter traveling to other countries to assist in there fires and you didn't take back what works and what needs improvement to improve your own policies.

 

I was referring to a specific case in Banff, Alberta, which is right next to British Columbia. The inference that putting out forest fires preserves fuel for future fires is not mine; I'm only recalling what was reported on the news.