Where do Americans get the idea that Germany doesn’t have forest fires because they go out and rake their forests clean? ( I think I smell a fox!) Can anyone find a link or article from actual Germans think about going out to tidy up the woods?
I’m more interested to the link or article from Americans who actually think Germans “tidy up the woods”. It’s not that I don’t believe you, but it sounds like such an unusual belief I’m curious about the people holding it.
I’ve only ever heard one particular American express this idea.
Did ric62 and you confuse Finland and Germany?
Me too. And as stupid and ill-informed he usually is, I still found this statement amazingly ludicrous.
Me#3
Tell him that’s why Germany accepted so many refugees - no-one else would do the job.
Moderator Note
Let’s keep the political comments out of GQ, please.
The country in question is Finland, not Germany, and the source of the “raking” apparently came from a conversation between President Trump and President Sauli Niinisto of Finland.
It is important to note however that President Niinisto did not say anything about raking. What President Niinisto actually said (according to the New York Times) was that the Finnish forest managers focus on removing dead trees from the forest floor where possible, and they have an advanced early warning system, including an aerial surveillance system. But, most importantly, they have a network of roads going through their forests. These roads not only provide convenient fire breaks, but also allow fire trucks to reach the areas that are burning very quickly. Note that these roads were mostly built to facilitate logging. They weren’t constructed to combat forest fires.
In a Finnish newspaper, President Niinisto said that he did not recall mentioning raking at all.
So, to be fair, while Trump has been fairly heavily mocked for his raking comment, it comes down to more of either a misunderstanding or a misstatement of the fact that the Finnish folks in charge of forest management do clear dead wood out of their forests. It’s not complete nonsense on Trump’s part. It’s severely mangled, but it’s based on truth.
But then, comparing California’s forests to Finland’s forests is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison in the first place. Finland is colder and wetter than California, and the types of trees in Finland aren’t as likely to catch fire in general (California has a lot of low-lying scrub and shorter trees which are more likely to burn).
Poking around on google, I could not find any sources about raking forests that were not related to Trump’s comment. There does not appear to be any widespread belief by anyone that anyone else goes out and regularly rakes the dead leaves out of their forests.
To be honest, I think that even ‘removing dead wood from forests’ is vastly overstated. I can’t speak for Finland’s forests, but I live in WV where we’re the third most heavily forested state in the country. The reality is that you’re not going to be removing deadwood from forest floors without incredible amounts of money and manpower. Trees fall constantly and branches are effectively falling every minute of the day. Removing trees that have just fallen across roads is something of an undertaking and it’s not uncommon to see the solution being just cut the part of the trunk that is actually on the road and wrestle it to the side. West Virginia has about 12 million acres of forest and a rough tree density of 60 per acre. That gives you about 750 million trees in our fair state. It’s hard to say exactly, but our forests are mostly maple which has an average lifespan of about 100 years. This is very back of envelope because much of our forest is timbered and average ages will be less and the trunks will be taken care of by loggers, but lets say half our forests are ‘wild’ and we have an average age of 100 years, that means that every year we should expect about 4 million trees to fall in the forest. I don’t want to state the obvious, but you probably need something like three guys over two days to remove a tree and 200 working days a year, so to remove all of those trees, you’re looking at something like 120 thousand workers. West Virginia has a working age population of about 1 million people, so to keep our forests ‘clean’ you’re talking 12% of our workforce needing to be involved in full-time tree removal and that’s just getting rid of full size trees. Realistically, ‘raking’ forests no matter how it’s used in context is laughably absurd. Controlled burns are much smarter, but of course have their own risks.
It may also be about defensible space around homes. You can clean up your yard of dead limbs and other combustibles to make it easier to defend your home from fires. It’s a big thing in Colorado mountains. And I’m sure California too.
But does anyone hear them?
Thanks, engineer_comp_geek and senoy for the excellent posts.
And damn you, HeyHomie for beating me to the joke by one post.
My entire knowledge in this area comes from a couple of sentences in a New York Times article, but I suspect that Finland’s removal of deadwood might be better classified as “logging”. They could easily be clearing out paths for logging equipment and removing dead wood so that they can more easily get trucks and equipment to where they need to go.
Rat?
The notion that Germans clean the forest has been around a long time. I recall as a youth hearing this about the Black Forest so we’re talking the 1950s. But it was mentioned in regards to villagers being very efficient about gathering firewood so the woods around the villages were very clean. I think part of this tale was the mention that they were not allowed to cut trees so picking up dead wood was the only way to get fuel.
This is so firmly embedded in my mind that every time I have heard the Black Forest mentioned throughout my life I picture a beautiful woods absolutely clear of any underbrush, just covered with a carpet of pine needles.
Dennis
I think there is merit to the concept of removal of dead/downed trees that are accessible and near communities and infrastructure. Perhaps the idea of creating defensible space around not only homes, but communities as a whole. My town has many green belts and trails maintained by the city. When a tree dies or falls down, it is usually left where it lies. Forever. And would only be removed if it posed a safety issue (fell across a trail or street). Meanwhile dead and downed trees and limbs pile-up and create the fire hazard. This climate is dry and vegetation does not decompose quickly. I think there is no comparison between CA and WV type forests and climate.
The most effective and efficient solution for removal of acres of dry debris is avoided at all costs (fire). But leaving everything there to pile-up creates a high danger of a catastrophic event, especially near homes and infrastructure. IMHO a good investment would be to do as was suggested above and remove dead trees that are near homes and roads, and create and maintain a large firebreak around mountain communities. Also, require thinning of trees within neighborhoods. There is no way to do this across the thousands of acres of forest in CA, but focusing efforts near communities would likely pay-off.
There’s a difference between a wood and a forest, and it sounds like you’re describing the former. Woods are managed areas that land owner would indeed keep clean. It would be used for harvesting lumber (for the land owner, of course) and hunting. Forests are larger unmanaged areas with natural tree growth. At least that’s how it is in the UK, I assume feudal Germany would have been the same.
If any ethnic/national group could be expected to be obsessive about keeping their forests clean and tidy, I’d pick the Germans.
Beaver?
I thought forest fires were necessary from time to time to clear out dead wood and return nutrients to the soil, kill pests, and cause jackpines to grow.
Regards,
Shodan