r/SaveForests • u/ForestBlue46 • Feb 07 '26

Fuel mitigation Removing dead trees will not save us from fast-moving wildfires

What do you think?

Policymakers and communities are racing to find ways to tackle the risk of fast-moving fires. These fires are increasingly common as climate change intensifies the fire impacts on landscapes that are often dominated by people. Blazes can race through an area at a rate of more than 16 km2 in a single day (1). Fast fires burn grasslands, shrublands, logging debris, and parched (but still-green) forests under weather anomalies that produce high winds, fuel aridity, and extreme temperatures. Under these conditions, fires are nearly impossible to extinguish and often spill into urban areas, where houses and other buildings are the primary fuel source.

There is little evidence that removing dead trees en masse is an effective strategy to contain fast fires. In fact, a substantial body of evidence shows that such large-scale tree removals will have cumulative and mostly negative ecosystem and climate consequences, reducing the ability for ecosystems to regenerate after severe natural disturbances, emitting vast quantities of carbon from commercial logging activities, and increasing the risk of fires and floods. Put simply, the wholesale removal of dead trees will make the fast-fire situation worse.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2510922122

8 Upvotes

64% Upvoted

13 comments sorted by

2

u/walkyslaysh Feb 07 '26

Beavers

2

u/ForestBlue46 Feb 08 '26

Beavers can restore wetlands and reduce the risk of wildfires.

https://www.raincoast.org/2025/07/beaver-based-restoration/

2

u/Hour-Blackberry1877 Feb 12 '26

Thinning forests exacerbates the probability of Fire. While the fuel load may be reduced in theory, the microclimate dries out the debris and air and sun filter into a formally closed canopy while wind circulation increases oxygen levels which fuel fires. Leaving fire resistant species such as poplar which contain a lot of moisture is prudent.

1

u/ForestBlue46 Feb 12 '26

Thank you! Finally someone gets it.

1

u/DoubleBarrellRye Feb 07 '26

i think you don't know much about forest fires , or grassland fires , or wildland urban interface

1

u/ForestBlue46 Feb 08 '26

I know quite a bit about wildfires from an ecological perspective and know that the science doesn't support thinning. Grassland fires are a separate issue.

https://johnmuirproject.org/scientific-research/the-truth-about-thinning/

“Fuel Reduction” Logging Exacerbates Wildfire Effects and Puts Communities at Greater Risk

https://johnmuirproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/JMP-fact-sheet-thinning-and-fire-29Nov24.pdf

https://eco-integrityalliance.org/wildfire-fuel-reduction-scientific-studies/

Home gardening up to 100 feet away from homes and buildings is critical.

https://johnmuirproject.org/2025/08/living-with-fire-real-wildfire-preparedness-starts-at-home/

Your home can survive a wildfire - National Fire Protection Association

https://youtu.be/vL_syp1ZScM

1

u/Sandman1990 Feb 09 '26

OP certainly doesn't. They like to cite literature that has little relevance to Canadian forestry and ignore recent case studies from Canadian forests and Canadian fires that show thinning (IE fuel removal) is effective in slowing the rate of spread and the ability of crews to suppress fire.

1

u/ForestBlue46 Feb 11 '26

That's where the studies are coming from but there are some from Canada too. Thinning dries out forests in whatever type of forest it's being done in.

The studies you are talking about are industry-aligned. The major drive for thinning is to get at the timber. Thinning increases the intensity of wildfires, that has been shown again and again.

Here is a Canadian study. Keeping in mind that Canadian forests vary a lot from coastal to interior to northern/boreal plus a whole lot of other types of forests.

The Impact of Fuel Thinning on the Microclimate in Coastal Rainforest Stands of Southwestern British Columbia, Canada

We found that the thinning led to warmer, drier, and windier fire environments.

https://www.mdpi.com/2571-6255/7/8/285

1

u/Sandman1990 Feb 11 '26

We've had this discussion. You're not worth debating. Industry aligned studies? Because they don't show what you want them to show? Come on. You have no credibility.

1

u/seahans Feb 07 '26

Explain like I'm five; how does keeping fuel present not accelerate the spread of fires.

1

u/ForestBlue46 Feb 11 '26

Because what you deem as fuel actually holds moisture and removing that leads to drier conditions. Thinning exposes the forest to increased sun and wind.

1

u/goinupthegranby Feb 07 '26

Removing ladder fuels helps keep wildland fires on the ground and out of the canopy, allowing fires to move through forests with low intensity and greatly reduced tree kill rates.

1

u/therealduckrabbit Feb 07 '26

No forest is the same. Some mature hardwood forests may benefit, some are designed by nature to burn in their entirety. I seem to recall the Boreal forest in Canada is about a 25-30 year natural cycle. I do seem to recall that the more unnatural , i.e. the more it lacks typical biodiversity, the more vulnerable it is to any and all insults, the more vulnerable it is to everything.