Live data from Hacker News

Forest Service officials close all California national forests

latimes.com

121–130 of 236 posts

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#121

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.

Is there an argument to be made for just letting the fires burn? Don't the fires have a positive effect on the soil?

Yes, fire is an essential part of these ecosystems.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I for one am not a defeatist that will let global warming beat me. Thinking about it in terms of victory and defeat isn't very helpful IMO. The reality is pretty clear: humans need to adapt to climate change. We are already past the point of no return, and in places like California the effects of climate change are mounting at a faster rate than we can realistically mitigate them. > We need to think of solutions to…

Climate Change is only a small contributor of forest fires in California, there was a pretty lengthy discussion on HN last month: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28122867 Direct source: https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/08/09/how-wildfire-restored-a...

> I think climate change is no more than 20 to 25% responsible for our current fire problems in the state...

A few percent is "small". Even if you agree with the claim, 20-25% would make climate change a significant contributor.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#123

Can anyone explain this? "So early on, Newsom identified some key wildfire prevention projects, and that includes things like forest thinning and prescribed burns, and they were meant to protect some of the most vulnerable communities in California. And he claimed 90,000 acres were treated, but we found that's not true. The state's own data shows that, in reality, it was less than 12,000 acres, so just a fraction of…

"we also found that the state's fire prevention work overall dropped by half last year" that is utterly not true by any stretch of the words .. it is literally political theater hit piece. see for yourselves... https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/04/13/governor-newsom-signs-land... https://fmtf.fire.ca.gov/press-publications/ the claim is that a particular State of Calif, Dept of Forestry perhaps, program was supposed to thi…

here is text from a 2019 ExecOrder (smaller than subsequent 2020 and 2021) which required a dozen branches of govt to file binding 45 day response: --

Executive Summary California experienced the deadliest and most destructive wildfires in its history in 2017 and 2018. Fueled by drought, an unprecedented buildup of dry vegetation and extreme winds, the size and intensity of these wildfires caused the loss of more than 100 lives, destroyed thousands of homes and exposed millions of urban and rural Californians to unhealthy air. Climate change, an epidemic of dead and dying trees, and the proliferation of new homes in the wildland urban interface (WUI) magnify the threat and place substantially more people and property at risk than in preceding decades. More than 25 million acres of California wildlands are classified as under very high or extreme fire threat, extending that risk over half the state. Certain populations in our state are particularly vulnerable to wildfire threats. These Californians live in communities that face near-term public safety threats given their location. Certain residents are further vulnerable given factors such as age and lack of mobility. The tragic loss of life and property in the town of Paradise during the recent Camp Fire demonstrates such vulnerability. Recognizing the need for urgent action, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-05-19 on January 9, 2019. The Executive Order directs the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), in consultation with other state agencies and departments, to recommend immediate, medium and long-term actions to help prevent destructive wildfires. With an emphasis on taking necessary actions to protect vulnerable populations, and recognizing a backlog in fuels management work combined with finite resources, the Governor placed an emphasis on pursuing a strategic approach where necessary actions are focused on California's most vulnerable communities as a prescriptive and deliberative endeavor to realize the greatest returns on reducing risk to life and property.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#124

Interesting times when a forest can be 'closed'.

The FS is not likely to try to actively patrol any and all access points to FS land. But they will put up barriers and signs, close facilities and so forth. If you are determined, I am sure you could get into most parts of most forests, but "forest closure" was never meant to imply otherwise.

And if you start a fire due to negligence in a "closed" federal forest you're in for an absolute world of hurt.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#125
post #107

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…

Why not make it clear that people building structures in fire-prone areas are on their own, and should design appropriately?

Entire towns are burning down. This isn’t just people out playing settler in the forest. South Lake Tahoe (currently under an evacuation order) has hotel towers.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#126

And they just evacuated the entire town of South Lake Tahoe. I hope the town survives. https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/more-evacuation-order... https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/lake-tahoe-residents-... https://www.sfgate.com/california-wildfires/article/Caldor-F...

Time lapses generated from two webcams around Tahoe: https://tahoesouth.com/things-to-do/lake-tahoe-webcams/

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#127

Can anyone explain this? "So early on, Newsom identified some key wildfire prevention projects, and that includes things like forest thinning and prescribed burns, and they were meant to protect some of the most vulnerable communities in California. And he claimed 90,000 acres were treated, but we found that's not true. The state's own data shows that, in reality, it was less than 12,000 acres, so just a fraction of…

"we also found that the state's fire prevention work overall dropped by half last year" that is utterly not true by any stretch of the words .. it is literally political theater hit piece. see for yourselves... https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/04/13/governor-newsom-signs-land... https://fmtf.fire.ca.gov/press-publications/ the claim is that a particular State of Calif, Dept of Forestry perhaps, program was supposed to thi…

An anti-Newsom "political theater hit piece" from Sac public radio and NPR. Likely.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#128

Can anyone explain this? "So early on, Newsom identified some key wildfire prevention projects, and that includes things like forest thinning and prescribed burns, and they were meant to protect some of the most vulnerable communities in California. And he claimed 90,000 acres were treated, but we found that's not true. The state's own data shows that, in reality, it was less than 12,000 acres, so just a fraction of…

"we also found that the state's fire prevention work overall dropped by half last year" that is utterly not true by any stretch of the words .. it is literally political theater hit piece. see for yourselves... https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/04/13/governor-newsom-signs-land... https://fmtf.fire.ca.gov/press-publications/ the claim is that a particular State of Calif, Dept of Forestry perhaps, program was supposed to thi…

It's sadly very accurate and apologies were made. https://www.capradio.org/articles/2021/06/23/newsom-misled-t...

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#129

I saw this map of roughly the last major fire in California: https://projects.capradio.org/california-fire-history/#6/38.... Looks like it's missing after 2019, but what sticks out to me is the difference in scale of past fires and current fires. If you imagine where the Dixie fire or last year's August Complex would fit in, they take up relatively huge amounts of the map. I'm sure at some point in the next 10-20 yea…

Is it really? We got into this mess because we'd initially assumed that wildfires were "bad" and that we needed to stop ALL of them. However, we later found out just how beneficial small fires can be for the long-term health of a forest. If we can actually allocate funds and people towards this, it won't be an issue anymore.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#130

Sad but probably efficient. I'm in bc where we've been devastated by forest fires, with cities burning and thousands evacuated. And yet, every other time I get out into the forest I see idiots smoking their freaking joints. The soil is half buried in super dry pine needles, but people still want their kick.

Do you think that smokin' a joint is really enough to set off something like this? Because it's clearly a combination of things that are required to create a fire of this magnitude. Sure a joint could "start a fire" but a lot of other things could too. Maybe we just don't like to admit it but climate change is here and it's here for real.

> Do you think that smokin' a joint is really enough to set off something like this?

Yes, absolutely yes. One tiny ember can smolder for days until it meets the exact right piece of fuel and sets off a full-blown fire.

> Maybe we just don't like to admit it but climate change is here and it's here for real.

Right, and as a result we either need to be a) more vigilant about not being idiots or b) keep doing everything as if nothing has changed and be fine wth the damage caused.

Climate change is the underlying foundational issue here, but that isn't an excuse to not change our behavior.

Post reply on HN