Yes, a law was passed last year, a law that wasn’t funded or implemented. A law that is at a minimum 30 years too late.
Fires In The West
- Thread starter mso489
- Start date
- Status
Yes, a law was passed last year, a law that wasn’t funded or implemented. A law that is at a minimum 30 years too late.
USFS fuels techs were screaming bloody murder about the insanity of putting out low-level "housekeeping" fires as a matter of policy since at least the 1970's. (I'm sure---I was there)
Politicians---the law makers---only cared about what the vastly ignorant public wanted, though, which was smileyface Smokey the Bear finger-wagging and Walt-Disney-minded save Bambi nonsense; and what the well-intentioned but equally ignorant "Eco-Warrior" tree huggers wanted.
The result is today the fuel load per acre in many areas is many times higher---in some cases two orders of magnitude higher---than is natural. And the result of that is when it burns, the fire CROWNS, travels at insane speeds, the heat is sufficient to sterilize the soil, and the ecosystem is thrown out of balance for decades afterward. Areas are created that look like apocalyptic scenes from a war movie.
Needless to say, all human habitation in the path of such fires is completely destroyed.
In short, in many ways, Humanity isn't ready for primetime.
Forest management is one of those ways.
I don't know the details about how it got there. Otherwise then a long time ago deciding that every fire had to be fought and that issue getting worse because people are building in worse places. The details I don't really know. But forests are meant to burn but in smaller more semi regular ways. You know a patch here a patch there, not the a giant swath like that. It clears out the underbrush fuel you fight everything you get a lot more fuel which leads to more fire not less and more destructive fires too.
strange we can make the world the way we think we want it and then it bites us in the bum.
Here’s another fun fact. Due to the bureaucracy involved any “controlled burn” takes approximately two years to plan, gain approval and implement.
lightning and careless people take seconds. The war is lost.
lightning and careless people take seconds. The war is lost.
I vote to ban all "gender reveal" parties in tinder dry grasslands. When did gender reveal parties become a thing?
Newson has shut down a number of state parks in the wake of the gender reveal fire, now blanketing LA with smoke. Too many critically dumb people around in this environment to keep them open.
Newson has shut down a number of state parks in the wake of the gender reveal fire, now blanketing LA with smoke. Too many critically dumb people around in this environment to keep them open.
we could just clear all the forests. That would take care of it and create a whole bunch of new problems.
People in crowded areas are naturally drawn to areas that have never been inhabited in the modern sense. Wilderness is so beautiful and alluring. The forests and grasslands have been "taking care of themselves" for ages and look perfectly in balance ... as uninhabited areas. Then people show up to live in harmony with nature, we think. I'd never heard of a gender reveal party. The prospective aunties would all call each other up, usually after the birth, and tell whether it was a boy or girl. The new dad would pass out cigars. It sounds sufficient to me. That was before ultrasound.
Yes, National Parks, too, but I was referring to CA state parks. Lots of them @ Tahoe.
You can put your location in your Profile—(please!—because people will forget!) and which will save questions in the future as to where you live when you later mention local stores, weather, tobacco prices, availability, regulations, location of photos, etc., etc..
Under your avatar, (top right, left most of three symbols) you choose "Account Details", which brings up "My Account". "My Location" is halfway down. Whatever you're comfortable with- town, city, county, state.
OMG. What if the poor child decides it is of another gender entirely? Multicolored smoke bombs?
mince, if I understand correctly, one of the big fires coursing across California now or recently was set off by a barbecue or campfire associated with a party to announce the gender of a couples' pregnancy as determined by ultrasound. It was supposed to be a fun gathering to break the suspense over whether they would have a boy or girl. And then oops, the entire landscape burst into flame for miles around swallowing houses and towns in its path, and no one is asking if the kid is a girl or boy anymore. It sounds a bit California to me (the party, not the fire) but this is no time to start critiquing the local social innovations. Only you can prevent forest fires.
Forest *thinning*, or removal of smaller diameter, younger trees is the recommended approach. Sometimes companies will do this to sell the wood chips.
Not logging or raking.
Not logging or raking.
I can see how thinning would reduce the risk, but not by a lot. If there were wide swaths of clear cut areas in our national forests and private land, I think that would go further in reducing the multi-ten thousand acres fires. A bit ugly, but effective. No?
Perhaps Tim can say how wide it needs to be. I'd guess 1/4 mile, after seeing a grass fire jump an interstate.
Might be too late for just the thinning. Probably is. That's an interesting thought. Seriously.
What Effects Tree Thinning Has On Wildfires
NPR's Ari Shapiro talks to Matthew Hurteau, a forest ecologist at University of New Mexico, about the effectiveness of tree clearing and thinning in preventing wildfires or mitigating their intensity.
www.npr.org
What a clever idea. I assume they'll be banned in California this time next year (smoke bombs, that is, not gender reveal parties)
- Status