Posted on 11/10/2018 7:14:38 PM PST by NoLibZone
The size and swiftness of this weekend's deadly Valley Fire in California was startling.
But could it (and the other fires currently raging out west) have been smaller if fires in previous years had been allowed to burn?
The authors of a new paper published today in Science certainly think so.
In looking at forest fires in the United States, the researchers found that the vast majority of wildfires were kept extremely small, with 98 percent limited to less than 300 acres. Keeping fires small has been a goal for decades, as firefighters tried to preserve the forest the best way they knew how.
Currently, the thousands of firefighters working to control firefighters try to suppress them, or contain them in a specific area where the fires can safely burn themselves out, by building earthen barriers, using water, or even setting small fires to use up fuel (sticks, trees, grasses) before the larger fire gets there. 98 percent of the time, this method works great. But then there's the last 2 percent. That 2 percent accounts for the monster fires, ones that burn through 97 percent of the land burned every year, and also accounts for 97 percent of the cost of fighting fires.
(Excerpt) Read more at popsci.com ...
That is what I’ve read. I’m an experts but
In did read that
I swear fixing typos on voice to text takes probably more time than just typing it out but I’m lying in bed and don’t feel like typing:-)
As far as I understand it, it destroyed an entire town. So sad.
Conversely they allow fires to burn or be started when it is unsafe, high mixing weather. Why so insane you might ask. Well, because if there is wind then the smoke blows away and that is healthy and desirable. Suffice to say, for liability reasons there is very little controlled fire under unsafe conditions.
There is also very little controlled fire allowed under safe conditions due to the regulations. Thus there is very lttle controlled burning, about 1/10 or 1/100 of what is actually needed depending on the past rainy seaon(s) that lead to dangerous amounts of brush.
These insane regulations apply to federal lands too, so don't let anyone tell you that it is not California's fault.
A totally unnuanced approach.
Plenty o peeps now live in and around forests. Some serious balance is needed to attend to the interactions between both.
Although I agree that some nuance is a good idea, I will say this:
A lot of people shake their head at folks who build houses on the Florida shore — “Don’t come crying to me, when a hurricane destroys your house!” they say.
Well, maybe building a house in the forests of California is similar.
There are costs, and insurance can help mitigate some of the risks, but for the government to step in and “rescue” people who build in risky environments seems a little wrong.
Why let them burn?
Just ckear cut them ahead of the fires....
High winds and low humidity
for Sunday here in San Diego.
Our Power company will Cut power to
Prevent A Possible “Spark.”
.
I am sick of California.
Interesting.
Thanks for posting.
The LA Basin’s unstainable overpopulation drives Calif. idiocy for everyone else?
Got it.
Now do not go and make sense like that. You muddy up the argument.
Corridor cuts, or block clear fell sites, can be safety zones for fire prevention.
In Marinette Co Wisconsin, they still maintain the fire lanes to get to these fire fast. But, in the USFS areas, many roads are being closed and ripped up. So, no access to these areas when fires break out. So what do they do? They hire contractors with bulldozers at 2500 to 4500 bucks a day to BUILD GD ROADS during the fire. That money stated above? Its paid if the machine is used or not. 400 bucks a day the operator gets. That is with room and board, meals and everything.
Big bucks in that. Dollars spent that wouldnt have to been spent if they simply cut and manage it.
And dont let anyone tell you they cant log most of these areas either. They have machinery that will go up 75% grades tethered. They also have brush grinders that can grind that brush on site and clear up to 40 acres a day.
Timberpro 4 way leveler can go up a 60% hill and put a brush hog on the thing and clear it out. They can clear a 40 foot swath.
Here are last year’s Murder by County stats for California:
County Number Murders
1 Sutter 6101 0
2 Sierra 6091 0
3 Mono 6051 0
4 Mariposa 6043 0
5 Inyo 6027 0
6 Colusa 6011 0
7 Calaveras 6009 0
8 Alpine 6003 0
9 Tuolumne 6109 1
10 Siskiyou 6093 1
11 Plumas 6063 1
12 Glenn 6021 1
13 Del Norte 6015 1
14 Amador 6005 1
15 Yuba 6115 2
16 Placer 6061 2
17 Lassen 6035 2
18 Trinity 6105 3
19 San Luis Obispo 6079 3
20 Nevada 6057 3
21 Imperial 6025 3
22 El Dorado 6017 3
23 Yolo 6113 4
24 San Benito 6069 4
25 Modoc 6049 4
26 Napa 6055 5
27 Marin 6041 5
28 Tehama 6103 6
29 Mendocino 6045 6
30 Lake 6033 6
31 Sonoma 6097 7
32 Kings 6031 7
33 Shasta 6089 8
34 Santa Cruz 6087 9
35 Madera 6039 9
36 San Mateo 6081 11
37 Humboldt 6023 11
38 Butte 6007 11
39 Santa Barbara 6083 16
40 Ventura 6111 20
41 Solano 6095 27
42 Merced 6047 29
43 Stanislaus 6099 32
44 Monterey 6053 34
45 Tulare 6107 36
46 Santa Clara 6085 40
47 San Francisco 6075 45
48 Contra Costa 6013 47
49 Kern 6029 59
50 Fresno 6019 59
51 Orange 6059 61
52 San Joaquin 6077 67
53 San Diego 6073 74 74
54 Sacramento 6067 80
55 Riverside 6065 93 93
56 Alameda 6001 102
57 San Bernardino 6071 110 110
58 Los Angeles 6037 526 526 30.996%
Total 1697 803 47.319%
Kinda makes your case for LA County being “unsustainable” and “idiotic.”
Notice that you have to go down 35 of the 58 counties to get to 10 murders, and the first 8 counties had zero! And with the exception of Alameda County, the Bay Area counties are quite low for an urban area. Oakland (Alameda County) has a large Black and Middle Eastern Component in East Oakland which accounts for it’s high numbers.
I’be interested in a plot of murders vs % ‘rat registrations for the Counties.
This also tracks with Conservative citizenry. You can see why the Northern part of the state want to secede and form a new State (Jefferson). The crazy thing here is where you need a CCW, you can't get one, and where you don't, you can for the asking. Unless somehow Liberalism falls out of vogue here, California will not survive intact for very many more years.
In regards to the headline, agreed!
No, allow logging again and active forest management.
Logging currently consists not only of lumber harvesting but taking waste wood (undergrowth, dead trees, brush, ect) to energy. You chip the crap and use it to produce energy. So not only do you get a cleaned of overburden forest but you get power from it too.
Yes. And loggers scrape out roads that give firefighters access if needed and provide firebreaks.
Letting a forest burn only works if that's been a longstanding practice. If underbrush has been allowed to build up, the whole forest will go up. If underbrush has been controlled, whether by humans or by lightning created fires, usually just the underbrush will burn. You'll see burn marks on the trunks of trees, but typically the trunks of larger trees won't ignite and the trees will survive.
Remove all the eucalyptus trees, clear out the dead wood and underbrush.
How about managing forests? You know, logging an amount equal to the new growth, maintaining roads for access by firefighters, removing and using downed and dead trees for lumber and firewood. Makes more sense than just letting them burn and pollute the air. Even back in the middle ages forests were more managed than now. Villagers removed brush trimmed trees, and opened meadows for wildlife. Let it grow wild and burn is not a reasonable plan.
Yes. The Germans manage the Black Forest and other wooded areas very carefully. Why we don’t is a mystery.
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.
