Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Forest Service officials close all California national forests

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 236 posts

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#81

Post by maxerickson »

ch4s3 wrote: post #60
burlesona wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a thought experiment, I wonder what it would cost to build a European village scale town for 22k people (the population of SLT) and then literally build a moat around it as a firebreak.

Probably more effective to mandate less flammable construction, and stop forcing insurance companies to cover homes that have burned multiple times.

How does the insurance thing work?

(my broad understanding is that property insurance is a relatively functional market where they won't underwrite a policy that doesn't make sense)

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#82

Post by julienchastang »

larkinrichards wrote: post #16

Was planning to hike the JMT starting tomorrow from cottonwood meadow and ending on the 22nd. Permits canceled at 6pm tonight. Anyone got recommendations for a last minute 20 day off grid vacation? Have car, supplies, ready to go.

> Anyone got recommendations for a last minute 20 day off grid vacation?

Any number of Wilderness Areas in the Rocky Mountain West. Prepare for inclement weather as you might encounter an early season snowstorm.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#83

Post by fasteddie31003 »

Johnny555 wrote: post #74
fasteddie31003 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Phos Chek is probably better than the long term effects from a wildfire. I would recommend looking more into consiquentalists ethics. 2. The mountains have excesses of water in the spring which could easily be sequestered for wildfire season. 3. I own land and live in a wildfire prone area. I will not be moving out to live in a human shit ridden city. I am prefer nature over close human habitation.

So you're more of a "Let's sacrifice the fish before I'll sacrifice my lifestyle" person?

Yes, I would sacrifice the Sacramento River Smelt for more water for agriculture and humans. Again, I'm more of a consequentialist. I'm for forest management, which means cutting down some trees. Many modern environmentalist deontologists will call me a racist for suggesting we need to cut down some trees for the greater good.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#84

Post by germinalphrase »

fasteddie31003 wrote: post #66
Johnny555 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to apply Phos-Chek from ground based units Phos Chek is not great for the environment, especially to aquatic life. So ideally there'd be some solution that doesn't use more of it. agricultural level irrigation at the ready The fires are exacerbated by California's long term drought, if there's large quanties of water laying around, then they probably wouldn't have such a bad fire season. Inhabited locations i…

1. Phos Chek is probably better than the long term effects from a wildfire. I would recommend looking more into consiquentalists ethics. 2. The mountains have excesses of water in the spring which could easily be sequestered for wildfire season. 3. I own land and live in a wildfire prone area. I will not be moving out to live in a human shit ridden city. I am prefer nature over close human habitation.

Your nature may be (re)turning into a desert, unfortunately.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#85

Post by BurningFrog »

burlesona wrote: post #39
fasteddie31003 wrote: post #21

The US National Forrest and Calfire have been on the losing side of this fire so far. All the technology that produces memes that spread across the globe in seconds and launches and lands orbital rockets flawlessly cannot stop this fire. This has been a dry summer which can be attributed to global warming. I for one am not a defeatist that will let global warming beat me. We need to think of solutions to fires like t…

As a thought experiment, I wonder what it would cost to build a European village scale town for 22k people (the population of SLT) and then literally build a moat around it as a firebreak.

While the forest around them burns, what would the townspeople breathe?

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#86

Post by jniedrauer »

larkinrichards wrote: post #16

Was planning to hike the JMT starting tomorrow from cottonwood meadow and ending on the 22nd. Permits canceled at 6pm tonight. Anyone got recommendations for a last minute 20 day off grid vacation? Have car, supplies, ready to go.

For a really remote option, look into the GDT. Probably best if you already have experience on a trail like the CDT.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#87

Post by jimt1234 »

Johnny555 wrote: post #50
fasteddie31003 wrote: post #21

The US National Forrest and Calfire have been on the losing side of this fire so far. All the technology that produces memes that spread across the globe in seconds and launches and lands orbital rockets flawlessly cannot stop this fire. This has been a dry summer which can be attributed to global warming. I for one am not a defeatist that will let global warming beat me. We need to think of solutions to fires like t…

We need to apply Phos-Chek from ground based units Phos Chek is not great for the environment, especially to aquatic life. So ideally there'd be some solution that doesn't use more of it. agricultural level irrigation at the ready The fires are exacerbated by California's long term drought, if there's large quanties of water laying around, then they probably wouldn't have such a bad fire season. Inhabited locations i…

> I think there should be a re-evaluation of whether or not to let people build or rebuild in especially fire-prone areas.

This is already happening, not by government, but rather by the insurance markets. My friend has lived in a fire-prone area of Southern California for years. His home owners insurances rates have more than tripled in the last few years. He just recently moved (yep, Idaho).

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#88

Post by bcrosby95 »

maxerickson wrote: post #81
ch4s3 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably more effective to mandate less flammable construction, and stop forcing insurance companies to cover homes that have burned multiple times.

How does the insurance thing work? (my broad understanding is that property insurance is a relatively functional market where they won't underwrite a policy that doesn't make sense)

Insurers aren't perfect. For example, the Northridge earthquake was so expensive it caused insurance companies to exit the California earthquake insurance market. Now the state provides earthquake insurance with high deductibles.

I wouldn't be surprised to see wildfires go a similar route in California if the situation isn't resolved.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#89

Post by BurningFrog »

COGlory wrote: post #22
larkinrichards wrote: post #16

Was planning to hike the JMT starting tomorrow from cottonwood meadow and ending on the 22nd. Permits canceled at 6pm tonight. Anyone got recommendations for a last minute 20 day off grid vacation? Have car, supplies, ready to go.

Go north. Montana, Idaho, etc. Wind River range is absolutely breathtaking. Just be grizzly aware.

Plenty of fires up there too.

Probably still much open wilderness.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#90

Post by code_duck »

fasteddie31003 wrote: post #66
Johnny555 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to apply Phos-Chek from ground based units Phos Chek is not great for the environment, especially to aquatic life. So ideally there'd be some solution that doesn't use more of it. agricultural level irrigation at the ready The fires are exacerbated by California's long term drought, if there's large quanties of water laying around, then they probably wouldn't have such a bad fire season. Inhabited locations i…

1. Phos Chek is probably better than the long term effects from a wildfire. I would recommend looking more into consiquentalists ethics. 2. The mountains have excesses of water in the spring which could easily be sequestered for wildfire season. 3. I own land and live in a wildfire prone area. I will not be moving out to live in a human shit ridden city. I am prefer nature over close human habitation.

Wildfires have many transformative and beneficial effects for an ecosystem when they happen naturally and haven’t been made unnaturally large by 100 years of eager suppression.
Post reply on HN