La Brea Fire Tops 20,000 acres, Jumps Sierra Madre Ridge

Good coverage, but rarely is it mentioned that the chaparral and related ecosystems are fire-dependent. Fire cleanses, renews, cycles biomass, triggers seed germination, and in the long run is absolutely necessary for the health of the system. These fires are just part of the natural world doing its thing. A fire is no more a tragedy than rain, drought, wind, or any other natural event. Wildfires only become problematic when they threaten manmade structures and communities. It always pains me to see the natural world left out of the discussion. Might we at least acknowledge that we are not the only species on the planet?

Good to get the story behind the numbers. Thanks.

Wildfires become problematic when they are repeated too often to allow full regeneration. Frequent fires in the same area result in type conversion mostly to alien vegetation. Thereafter natural ecosystems are destroyed. Chaparral is fire-adapted, I believe, but not necessarily fire-dependent. There is always more then one route to regeneration.

Oh goodie Santa Barbara will get another dusting of ashes!

My question is how much is it going to cost to fight this fire and can the county (not that there is a choice) afford to pay for it? The fire fighters must be so tired of this year after year. I would pay higher taxes to pay them and get the equipment we need to keep in this county.

Would I pay more in taxes? Of course I would. You get what you pay for in this world. I'm tired of people saying we just have to live without vital services and/or borrow and spend, to waste money on interest as well as to pass our bills on to the next generation. We got lucky with Jesusita. Do you feel lucky? Are we going to send the tea partiers out to fire; maybe they can pour their teacups over it? ;) I only wish that the magic fairy would come along and wave a wand and fight fires without costing us anything, but if anyone starts talking about that we know it's not tea they're drinking ! Someone please take the red pencil out of Arnie's hand and fund that DC-10. Or anything else our firefighters need. I trust their judgement over a bunch of politicians'.

Exactly. If it supposed to "senesce", how did it sustain vigorous growth for 90+ years.

Here is another link on myths:
http://www.californiachaparral.com/chapa...

Dear Indy Staff,

I think that the spirit of Owen's comment is absolutely correct, and concurs with most if not all of Robert Muller's article. The argument over whether indeed chaparral is fire "dependent", or simply well adapted to repeated burning over time is largely semantic. The fact remains that fire is a natural occurrence in the chaparral, grassland, oak woodland, and even riparian areas of the coastal desert we live in. (I hiked through a totally burned riparian area to my family's property immediately following the Jesusita fire - the creek was still running while the ground smoldered!)

To blame fire for the increase in non-native species is misguided. The European invasion of this continent was (is) 100% responsible for this. What would be valuable to explore and adjust would be the methods we use to manage fire now that we have the problems of non-native invasion. How about re-seeding burned areas with native bunch grasses and annuals instead of dumping trash ("hydromulch") or european grasses all over the landscape?

Thank you Owen, for your frequent and well-informed points of view. Please continue!

Thank you for the link, Tabatha!

Myth #6 is particularly pertinent to this discussion:

Can fire "sterilize" the soil and if it can, does it really matter? A hot fire can certainly kill biological life on the soil surface. But unless there are burning logs that maintain continuous amounts of heat over long periods of time, the amount of "soil sterilization" is relatively minor. Since trees and logs are not part of the chaparral ecosystem, chaparral fires are generally quite fast and the residence time for any heat on the surface is relatively short. In fact, hot fires actually serve an important purpose in shrubland ecosystems by destroying the seeds of invasive species. One sign of a healthy, chaparral ecosystem that is recovering from a fire are large areas of blackened ground (punctuated with resprouting shrubs and tiny shrub seedlings) remaining long after the first rainy season. Hot fires are a natural part of the chaparral. Contrary to popular opinion, we don't need to rush in and cover the ground with mulch or seed. A healthy ecosystem will recover quite well without our help.

Repeated fires in the same area WILL result in the increase of non-native species. This is because native chaparral takes a longer time to recover - as much as 15-20 years - whereas invaders by their very nature are fast colonizers.

There is more information about that on http://www.californiachaparral.com. There are articles about this in the Special Issue: CHAPARRAL. Fall 2007 issue of the California Native Plant Society's quarterly journal Fremontia.

Historically, native Americans repeatedly burned certain areas over and over again, to where the original ecosystems were destroyed, and those areas were ripe for the infestation of non-native vegetation when Europeans arrived. If native vegetation was so "strong" why is over 99% of grass in California non-native, even in areas that were not burned or turned into farmland?

I think any mulch applications after fires have been to halt mud slides, not to prevent alien vegetation growth.

Dr. Muller states in the Indy article referenced that, "...fire in chaparral is not a regular occurrence with a set periodicity." That is not the same as saying that fire does not play an important role in chaparral ecosystems but merely clarifies that the idea of a recurring 25-year or any other cycle is a myth. It may be that chaparral vegetation does not senesce at the rate we once thought it did, but that still doesn't make the role of fire a negative or unnecessary one. This is a very complex subject that is certainly open to new information based on good science. It is of course also the case that well-informed professionals often disagree (vehemently at times) about even the fundamentals of their area of expertise. Still, I don't think you will find a single well-informed botanist or ecologist, including Dr. Muller, who would say that fire is not a key element in the system.

But that's not what my comment was really driving at. The main point I wanted to make was that the original article is entirely anthropocentric and makes not one nod to wildness. It as if the only information that matters is how the "battle" is going and how many manmade things are at risk. I appreciate Ray Ford's coverage, but I would like to see him include the kind of ecological breadth that these very interesting comments have given it. Perhaps others will comment on that aspect of the discussion.