I remember a conversation I had with 2 conservative friends. One was thinking about sending his son to school in Oklahoma because he was 1/16th Native American and that meant college would be free. I asked “I thought you conservatives were against entitlements”. His reply “This is different, I earned it”.
I wonder how bad the fires would be if fires were allowed to burn naturally in forests and fields as they had for millions of years. Removing the dead growth every few years is not only heathy but the enviornment is healthier and it promotes new growth.
1. Prescribed fire was originated by those “liberal” biologists and foresters to improve the health of the forests, and for decades, the number one opponents were the timber industry who claimed they’d lose all the FEDERAL and state trees they were getting on the cheap.(and the Republicans who refused to fund it, and largely still do.) I know because I was there.
2. Yes, most of California IS desert, but AGC has made conditions far worse in the last 20+ years, along with managing to please corporations, not the environment.
3. Having fought fire for decades, and been a helicopter crewman, these morons with their drones should get at least ten years in the pokey for “Reckless endangerment” if the “flight rules” still don’t cover the issue.
4. Smokey Bear is a U.S. Forest Service emblem and “employee”, not Cal Fire, NPS, or any other agency. Lisa is another who expropriates his “image” or infers it wrongly, proving they don’t know much about the agencies, or government in general, actually.
^^Last grizzly in California was killed in either 1921 or ‘23, forget now which for sure, that “Bear Flag Republic” didn’t last long. Which, at the time of the ’49’ers arrival, grizzlies were still common around the state, even in what is now called the “Los Angeles basin”. Didn’t take transplanted easterners long to start ruining California, and they’re still doing it today.
" just wondering if the fires would have been easier to contain had more logging been allowed over the past 40 years."Could be as there would be less fuel, but might also be much more erosion, less wildlife habitat, less beauty of nature for people to enjoy. Feel free to add.
^There are LOTS of bare hillsides where more logging HAS been allowed in the last 40 years. It’s the actual thinning and prescribed fire, not harvest, that haven’t been kept up with the impacts from climate change, resulting in among other things, droughts, beetle kills, and changes in forest ecosystems (plants and animals).
Timber companies had a good buddy in Reagan and Watt, and the impacts are still being felt, because a forest doesn’t recover in 20-30 years, even short-lived lodgepole stands.
“Sustained yield” would mean you don’t harvest a forest until it’s actually reached the stage it was at when first harvested. For some species, that’s only 300-400 years, for Sequia, that’s 2-4 THOUSAND years! That’s why clear cutting in most species, instead of selective cuts with thinnings, is pure stupidity, but what the timber companies still want.
charlie555: you need to read John Muir’s description of what the TIMBER companies were doing to our forests, leaving nothing but burned out stumps and land behind them after harvest, and wasting 50-80% of what they cut, especially in the redwoods. #1 cause of man-made fires in the woods btw, isn’t campers or arson, but timber operators. It used to be sheep herders and cattlemen challenging them for the honor of burning the woods down to provide forage.
kaffekup almost 9 years ago
Brock, yours is the only post needed on this mess. It sums up exactly all the things I was trying to understand about it.
moderateisntleft almost 9 years ago
I remember a conversation I had with 2 conservative friends. One was thinking about sending his son to school in Oklahoma because he was 1/16th Native American and that meant college would be free. I asked “I thought you conservatives were against entitlements”. His reply “This is different, I earned it”.
eugene57 almost 9 years ago
I wonder how bad the fires would be if fires were allowed to burn naturally in forests and fields as they had for millions of years. Removing the dead growth every few years is not only heathy but the enviornment is healthier and it promotes new growth.
kurt.zwicky almost 9 years ago
It is utterly astonishing to me to what extreme the right wing nuts go blaming liberals for the misfortune of the California wildfires.
Dtroutma almost 9 years ago
1. Prescribed fire was originated by those “liberal” biologists and foresters to improve the health of the forests, and for decades, the number one opponents were the timber industry who claimed they’d lose all the FEDERAL and state trees they were getting on the cheap.(and the Republicans who refused to fund it, and largely still do.) I know because I was there.
2. Yes, most of California IS desert, but AGC has made conditions far worse in the last 20+ years, along with managing to please corporations, not the environment.
3. Having fought fire for decades, and been a helicopter crewman, these morons with their drones should get at least ten years in the pokey for “Reckless endangerment” if the “flight rules” still don’t cover the issue.
4. Smokey Bear is a U.S. Forest Service emblem and “employee”, not Cal Fire, NPS, or any other agency. Lisa is another who expropriates his “image” or infers it wrongly, proving they don’t know much about the agencies, or government in general, actually.
Dtroutma almost 9 years ago
^^Last grizzly in California was killed in either 1921 or ‘23, forget now which for sure, that “Bear Flag Republic” didn’t last long. Which, at the time of the ’49’ers arrival, grizzlies were still common around the state, even in what is now called the “Los Angeles basin”. Didn’t take transplanted easterners long to start ruining California, and they’re still doing it today.
eugene57 almost 9 years ago
" just wondering if the fires would have been easier to contain had more logging been allowed over the past 40 years."Could be as there would be less fuel, but might also be much more erosion, less wildlife habitat, less beauty of nature for people to enjoy. Feel free to add.
Dtroutma almost 9 years ago
^There are LOTS of bare hillsides where more logging HAS been allowed in the last 40 years. It’s the actual thinning and prescribed fire, not harvest, that haven’t been kept up with the impacts from climate change, resulting in among other things, droughts, beetle kills, and changes in forest ecosystems (plants and animals).
Timber companies had a good buddy in Reagan and Watt, and the impacts are still being felt, because a forest doesn’t recover in 20-30 years, even short-lived lodgepole stands.
“Sustained yield” would mean you don’t harvest a forest until it’s actually reached the stage it was at when first harvested. For some species, that’s only 300-400 years, for Sequia, that’s 2-4 THOUSAND years! That’s why clear cutting in most species, instead of selective cuts with thinnings, is pure stupidity, but what the timber companies still want.
Dtroutma almost 9 years ago
charlie555: you need to read John Muir’s description of what the TIMBER companies were doing to our forests, leaving nothing but burned out stumps and land behind them after harvest, and wasting 50-80% of what they cut, especially in the redwoods. #1 cause of man-made fires in the woods btw, isn’t campers or arson, but timber operators. It used to be sheep herders and cattlemen challenging them for the honor of burning the woods down to provide forage.
Dtroutma almost 9 years ago
^BTW: that damage was what he’d already seen, in 1875!