Posted on 01/12/2020 1:58:37 PM PST by RightGeek
Climate experts are apparently backing President Donald Trump’s repeated arguments that California’s wildfires were a result of poor land management rather than climate change, E&E reported Thursday.
Roughly 75% of damage stemming from California’s wildfires was a result of “the way we manage lands and develop our landscape,” Scott Stephens, a professor of fire science at the University of California, Berkeley, said Wednesday at a conference in Washington.
Wildfires used to burn through 4.5 million acres a year in the 18th century, when indigenous communities populated California’s countryside, Stephens noted. “Fire was almost as important as rain to ecosystems,” he added.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Has Scott Stephens been arrested yet for heresy?
He is telling it like it is for sure!!
Those of us who live in Kalifornia have known this from day one.
England is paying for the Southeast forest management ..most is privately owned ..not like out west were the greens control what the fed do..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6aGg7iZ8M
I’m not talking about prescribed burns, which I agree with you are important.
What I was talking about was the policy level concept, pushed by leftists, “Let the Fires Burn.” It means not doing the firefighting part of management.
Then complain weeds taking over are caused by global warming...
No one has brought up the homeless and the illegals living in the brush
L8r
Exactly!
So glad you posted this.
Depending on the forest, too much fire-suppression just makes the inevitable fires much more devastating. The “let it burn” strategy is better — in the remote boreal forest at least. Unfortunately, it’s not possible to just switch from a strategy of zealous fire suppression to one of “let it burn”. Overly mature forests, with an over-abundance of fuel just burn too hot (that’s what we’re seeing in the news). Those forests need to be thinned and cleared of underbrush first.
You bleeping wombats. Brilliant!
Smokey the Bear was NOT a friend of the forest.
The let it burn idea is straight out of the anarchist/communist playbook.
What these people never seem to learn is that there’s a reason they can’t sell their communist ideas without disguising them as something else.
Again: forest management means cleaning up the trees that have fallen down and selling the wood for profit. Prescribed burns are part of the cleanup.
“Let it burn” is a low IQ, communist idea.
The part the communists don’t like is where wood is sold for profit.
Communism the idea is a form of mental retardation.
The overly-zealous fire suppression strategy — along with prohibiting the creation of firebreaks; prohibiting the clearing of power-line right-of-ways; and prohibiting the thinning of forests — was strongly supported by an unholy alliance of “anarchists/communists”, tree-huggers, and NIMBY’s. Those misguided forest-management strategies, applied vigorously for over a century, have turned forests into tender-boxes. The “global-warming” excuse fogged the issue for the past couple of decades.
Finally, sensible strategies are being proposed. In some forests (Canada’s huge boreal forest being one) “let it burn” is the best approach. These forests evolved with periodic fires. Natural (boreal) forests burn every few decades — without hurting mature trees. Near settlements, where fire suppression is called for, creation of fire-breaks, thinning, and clearing of underbrush also works. The alternative is waiting for the inevitable out-of-control forest fire.
Most deadfall trees aren’t worth harvesting — especially at an industrial scale.
What you’re calling “fire suppression” is not fire suppression. It’s the enabling of wildfires.
The anarchist-communists love fires. The more the better.
And they love to “let it burn,” but are unable to articulate an intelligent reason for it.
If you “let it burn” without clearing the fallen trees there will be fires every year. Not once a decade.
What I’m calling “fire suppression” is suppressing fires by putting them out, or preventing them in the first place. Fallen trees seldom cause fires.
Ping to Brush fire controversy USA.
Forest management in California : Non existant, lip service only in California.Environmentalists there forced the practice to stop.
https://thefederalist.com/2018/11/16/misguided-environmentalism-blame-californias-wildfires/
If there is no fuel like fallen trees, the fire can’t burn.
The best possible condition of a forest is to have mankind actively managing the forest.
A primary task of management is to remove the fallen trees, without which the fires can’t burn.
There are extremely low IQ ideas out there that for some reason people with an IQ higher than that corresponding with the ideas somehow tend to believe.
One of these low IQ ideas is that humans need to be minimized and ultimately extinguished from the earth. It’s low IQ in that it’s a form of self-destruction.
Bear in mind that the strategy of extinguishing humanity has only one ultimate origin.
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.