Posted on 08/05/2013 6:31:46 AM PDT by Kaslin
I know the answer is never, but why?
I’m not one to pull a punch against the enviros, but this argument is a bit strange. Logging targets mature trees, not brush, whereas brush buildup is precisely what fuels the worst wildfires. Not sure how logging would help — in fact, you could argue that logging would make wildfires worse by opening the canopy for more young growth and brush.
While I have no great love for environmentalists, radical or otherwise, they do not write laws or set policy.
It seems to me that the elected “leaders” who caved to the demands of the radical environmentalists are the ones truly at fault.
They don't care. They think humans are just parasites on 'Mother earth' and it would be better for the planet if we were just exterminated.
Sorry, but that statement simply is not true
I don’t understand why building homes in a forest makes forest fires move faster. Other than that, good article.
There were some nasty fires in WI and MI during the logging of the primeval mature forest era.
At the same time any of the other myriad of communist groups pat themselves on the back for achieving their goals in the US.
As you say; the problem is that there is a thick growth of fuel - both brush and dead trees - in modern managed forests. I'm guessing that this is because for decades any fires that start up naturally have not been allowed to run their course, and because no artificial clearing has been allowed.
Fires in natural forests burns through the 'easy' fuel - brush and dead trees. The fuel pockets aren't thick enough to 'connect' over large areas.
But in a toxically-managed forest the fuel builds up and up - and the fuel 'connects' across miles and miles. Any fire that start in such a forest rapidly become vicious, fast, huge - and profoundly unnatural.
This is a great article - really thought-provoking.
With logging comes access and the ability to get to a fire. During the process, slash is dealt with in one form or another. In this area, single tree selection is done with a precription that enhances age/size mix. We manage the land to prevent wildfire as well. Please find me anyone who wants his/her investment to go up in smoke. Also, ask any fire fighter whether they’d rather fight a ground fire or a crown fire. Separation helps.
I thought the article was implying that people knew it was unwise to build anything more expensive or irreplaceable than a log cabin in a wood because one day a natural fire might catch nearby.
I have no idea if that’s true though. I guess there might be a lot of reasons why single houses don’t appear in the middle of woods - infrastructure costs for instance.
In the past four years there have been major wildland fires in Arizona and New Mexico that either may not have occurred or the area burned would have been greatly minimized if it were not for environmental rules prohibiting logging or brush clearing. The Yarnell Hill fire is not one of them.
As in California coastal regions, heavy brush, commonly called chaparral, covered hillsides and small valleys. It has no economic value except maybe as forage and cover for deer and semi-arid mammals and birds. Traditionally it has been consumed by lightning caused fires - this area had not burned previously for over 40 years. During that time humans have built homes in an among the brush and huge boulders that make up the landscape here. Protecting these structures were the main purpose for deployment of the hotshots.
Unlike the implication in the article that over-zealous environmental policies were at fault here and led to the deaths of the firefighters, it is not the case. As is the case in the Colorado Springs fire earlier this summer, these were lands where humans had made homes in areas that traditionally burned from natural causes. Though environmental policies are to blame for many forest conflagrations, the main villains here are likely to be poor decision making by the firefighters exacerbated by prolonged drought and extreme heat
Makes sense. Roll out the government employees to save my home sort of thing. Stossell last night was interviewing a private fire fighting guy who says that his organization is paid up front and that the insurance costs then go down which pretty much pays for the rescue.
When the trees are damaged by the Bark Beetle, or by prior fires, the enviros still sue to prevent any harvesting of the remaining wood. A large fire along I-80 near the Calif/Nevada border had a 5 year lawsuit over the harvesting of fire damaged wood. There was a window of time in which the loggers could salvage some of the wood, and the enviros sued to prevent such actions. Now, all of that downed wood is fuel for more fires. Bark Beetle infestations are causing millions of board feet of lumber to be destroyed in N Calif & Oregon & Nevada.
They also have prevented many thousands of acres of grazing permits by ranchers to be utilized.
This creates a buildup of ‘ladder fuels’ which then get a head start & feed into the larger trees. Lightning cannot be controlled, but the correct salvage operations can be controlled.
Add to that the severe cutbacks by forest department workers and the grounding of planes which drop fire retardant slurry, and you have further disasters.
On top of that, the entire departments which are charged with stewardship of the nation’s forest and permeated with the greenies, who are misguided with ideas that are not true.
Simply because they are SOOOOOOOO much smarter than our dumb butts apparently. As long as no one is allowed to kill and clear the dead trees (yup, dead trees are already dead) and clear the fuel load, these clowns are fine with it. If it costs a few firefighters their lives, to them, it was worth it. Yeah, I know. It’s not really THE answer. But close.
With logging comes access and the ability to get to a fire.”””
Under Clinton, Bruce Babbitt started & implemented the “Roadless” policy in our national lands.
They deliberately put up hundreds of heavy gates —( I worked for a welder who made plenty of them)—and they dug deep holes in the existing roads that could swallow a fie truck.
They won’t let fire fighting equipment inside those areas or salvage logging.
If you can get a permit to salvage log, you must do it with horses.
The Roadless policies of Clinton & Babbitt have added greatly to the cost of fires in the USA.
I don't think the author is claiming that. I interpret the article as saying that the forest fires of 100 years ago were smaller, but so much more numerous that it would be too dangerous to build in the forest. Besides, there was no fire-fighting team to help you when one occurred.
That is a fascinating point.
I heard there’s also an issue with areas cleared by the construction work. The first thing that grows back are fast-burning grasses rather than typical chaparral flora. Don’t know how important that is.
This about “Crowning”.
The movement of fire through the crowns of trees or shrubs more or less independently of the surface fire.
Once a forest fire has “Crowned” Gone into the tops of old trees it creates it’s own wind and travels at speed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.