How environmentalists destroyed California’s forests

[daftandbarmy]

California is not alone ... millions of misinformed, but well meaning, people around the globe are (ironically) responsible for policies that are destroying the forests:

How environmentalists destroyed California’s forests
Short-sighted eco-measures helped cause the devastation we see today

The environmentalists have killed the environment they said they wanted to save. In their hubris, they deluded themselves into believing that they were right and just, and any opposition to their enlightened, stunning and brave activism, was the reactionary wrongthink of greedy capitalists or ignorant yokels.

https://spectator.us/how-environmentalists-destroyed-california-forests/?fbclid=IwAR3Rc22BjVBmrkkRpSfKCSRPESmxqoqGa6q6R1LdRJa2WFE8-MgDCuGJLIY

 

[QV]

Fire is a constant in the mountains of California. There’s always plenty from dry summer thunderstorms. But now that spark, whatever caused it, catches on to a landscape overloaded with dead trees and dry ladder fuels. Every year it gets worse.

I guess they should have "raked and swept" their forest floors after all.

 

[OldSolduer]

I guess they should have "raked and swept" their forest floors after all.

Twenty to thirty years ago in the Calgary area, forestry experts said that because no controlled burns were allowed to clear away deadfall that wild fires would ensue.
Now I can't say for certain this is the cause of ALL wild fires but it certainly contributes.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Twenty to thirty years ago in the Calgary area, forestry experts said that because no controlled burns were allowed to clear away deadfall that wild fires would ensue.
Now I can't say for certain this is the cause of ALL wild fires but it certainly contributes.

Not a new idea either; first nations people were doing prescribed burns as part of their land management since forever.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/indigenous-land-stewardship-native-education-college-vancouver-1.5319029

(Read a better article specifically about this recently, but couldn't find it)

 

[YZT580]

I can't begin to imagine the number of kilowatt hours of electricity that are going up in smoke.  If that same underbrush had been fed into a chipper on a routine basis they could have kept millions of people supplied with power at a fraction the cost of installing wind mills or solar fields.  But those in charge will never admit it.  Instead they blame the automobile and global warming and pass legislation to ensure that their mistakes are never corrected. 

 

[OldSolduer]

I can't begin to imagine the number of kilowatt hours of electricity that are going up in smoke.  If that same underbrush had been fed into a chipper on a routine basis they could have kept millions of people supplied with power at a fraction the cost of installing wind mills or solar fields.  But those in charge will never admit it.  Instead they blame the automobile and global warming and pass legislation to ensure that their mistakes are never corrected.

Highlighted because south of Winnipeg there is a field of those stupid windmills - a blight on the landscape.

In the Palm Springs area in California the view has been destroyed because of those stupid ugly windmills.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Fuel accumulation on the ground allows fire to persist and do more damage to trees.  A grass fire can otherwise move quickly through stands of trees without doing much more than charring the outer bark.

 

[YZT580]

and fire is necessary for jack pines (I believe) to propagate.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Twenty to thirty years ago in the Calgary area, forestry experts said that because no controlled burns were allowed to clear away deadfall that wild fires would ensue.
Now I can't say for certain this is the cause of ALL wild fires but it certainly contributes.

The two main causes of poor forest management practises resulting in big and scary fire seasons, AFAIK are: 1) public pressure to stop prescribed burning in the summer because of the smoke, and 2) public pressure to stop prescribed burning because, every so often, one burn gets away and takes a few houses down.

 

[FJAG]

Fuel accumulation on the ground allows fire to persist and do more damage to trees.  A grass fire can otherwise move quickly through stands of trees without doing much more than charring the outer bark.

This is called the "Smokey the Bear Effect". Decades of programs to stop fires through "Smokey the Bear" campaigns (Only you can prevent forest fires/wildfires) has led to a tremendous buildup of fuel which wipes out forests rather than just the (normally) small amounts of underbrush and leaving the trees healthy and soil prepared for new growth.

:cheers:

 

[Scott]

Two more key words: urban interface - it's grown and continues to.

Loads of people moving into forested areas that haven't been managed properly.

And this - I fought forest fires in several provinces from 1998 to 2011. The fire behaviour I see and hear about now pales in comparison to what it was twenty years ago. So there's the big ugly old climate change that has affected things as well.

And when weather and fuel are two of the things that make a small fire big...can't do fuck all about topography, but as mentioned - people live there now.

 

[ArmyRick]

I have a brief blurb on this on the Land Healing Farm thread. Lots of good points and observations here.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I'm currently working in Shilo. Part of that job is to dispose of duds, including just about every caliber of smoke and illum rounds from 60mm mortar to 155mm and even LUU 2 B/D and variants. We try not to set the prairie on fire as best we can, but stuff happens. FF crews are always on hand, but if a fire gets away it has nowhere to go because of a huge network of 30m wide firebreaks all over the area. Every inch of this place has burned at some point, but the prairie springs back healthier than ever in two years. Even the bastard poison ivy thrives after a fire.

 

[Good2Golf]

Even the bastard poison ivy thrives after a fire.

Bringing you 2020 since...forever.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Two more key words: urban interface - it's grown and continues to.

Loads of people moving into forested areas that haven't been managed properly.

Exactly. Some of my best clients are in the Forest Service and have some good data to show the vast increase in people living in - previously vacant - forest lands over the past three or four decades. Not just for recreational purposes either.

As a result they are now building emergency management policies that focus on 'In-vacuation' as opposed to 'E-vacuation', where they plan to move people into urban areas as opposed to - like we saw at the Ft McMurray fire - forcing them to drive out along very vulnerable-to-fire road systems.

 

[Donald H]

Fuel accumulation on the ground allows fire to persist and do more damage to trees.  A grass fire can otherwise move quickly through stands of trees without doing much more than charring the outer bark.

That's exactly right Brad, but it fails to address the problem. Here's a suggestion for a change of attitude in California that will address the problem.

When private businesses are left to deal with the problem, nothing will happen because there is no incentive or profit to be made in cleaning up the fuel accumulation.

But when government bears the responsibility the job will get done. Unfortunately, government has to spend taxpayers' money to get it done and that will result in raising taxes.

Would federal government pay money to get it done? Not likely! Does the state government spend money to get it done? NO, for a couple of reasons.

Does Canada spend money to get the same thing done? Yes, in B.C. it gets done because it's mandated that private business has to get it done. (the situatin being slightly different but this serves to make the point.

Government can be our friend!

 

[Brad Sallows]

Bullsh!t.  If better land management is desired, put land in private hands.  People look after stuff they own.  Politicians look after whatever wins votes.  If the votes are with the people who don't want any forest management ("let nature etc"), then there will be no forest management.  That's California.  To claim that government can solve the problem in some imaginary future after government has manifestly failed to solve the problem in the concrete past and present is risible.

 

[Donald H]

Bullsh!t.  If better land management is desired, put land in private hands.  People look after stuff they own.  Politicians look after whatever wins votes.  If the votes are with the people who don't want any forest management ("let nature etc"), then there will be no forest management.  That's California.  To claim that government can solve the problem in some imaginary future after government has manifestly failed to solve the problem in the concrete past and present is risible.

It's not working Brad and it's the same for their health care system. Compare theirs to the rest of the world. Or use any of the other examples of America's brand of greedy capitalism not working.

This gets right to the heart of our ideological differences.

America is embarking on a journey in which it will attempt to stand as being different from the rest of the world. If Trump wins I see it as being another experiment in fascism to test if it can work.

 

[Brad Sallows]

America has been different from the rest of the world for almost 250 years.  You're a little late trying to create your story.

Fascism is something some European, Asian, and South American countries are at risk for.  China is closer to fascism (particularly its state-owned and state-directed corporatism, and strong pro-Chinese nationalism) than the US ever will be.

 

[Weinie]

It's not working Brad and it's the same for their health care system. Compare theirs to the rest of the world. Or use any of the other examples of America's brand of greedy capitalism not working.

This gets right to the heart of our ideological differences.

America is embarking on a journey in which it will attempt to stand as being different from the rest of the world. If Trump wins I see it as being another experiment in fascism to test if it can work.

Hmmmm....... that's interesting. You quoted a few days ago that:

No, that's not what I said. I said I cautiously lean toward Trump, and that was related to how Trump might be better for Canada. If you think I've been dishonest about Trump then you can tell me how.

So are you cautiously leaning towards fascism?