Forest Service officials close all California national forests

Post by DoreenMichele » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 4:04 AM UTC

klodolph wrote: post #147

guyzero wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure there's an appropriate design for something to survive a major forest fire.

That’s right. Most people have not ever seen large-scale fires and don’t know how powerful they are. As a fire grows larger, it grows in intensity and spreads faster. A campfire needs tending or it goes out. A bonfire will just burn until it runs out of fuel. A house fire will quickly turn into an inferno. Forest fires are hopefully like nothing you’ve ever seen—the sheer power of them is staggering.

Post by otterley » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 4:04 AM UTC

jayd16 wrote: post #97

jimt1234 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

Does the government subsidize fire insurance? I'm always taken aback when I see people rebuilding from a hurricane with subsidized wind and flood insurance. I understand why its nice for those that need it but has perverse incentives.

Post by OneEyedRobot » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 4:05 AM UTC

pbuzbee wrote: post #135

SwankyDanky wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I see it as a concern because (1) a large portion of wild lands are burning within a short span of time. I would guess (no evidence, just a hunch) that burning was more dispersed in time before modern fire prevention. I also feel that (2) climate change makes these fires much worse, and forests will have a much harder time rebounding.

Post by nradov » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 4:06 AM UTC

animal_spirits wrote: post #109

cdiamand wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They do. Many species of conifer seed don't even begin to germinate until exposed to the heat of a wildfire. Fire's are a part of the natural lifecycle of a west coast forest. Unfortunately the over suppression of fires over the last 120 years has over fueled these forests and we are witnessing the consequences now.

Post by einarvollset » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 4:08 AM UTC

mistrial9 wrote: post #119

gorwell wrote: post #111

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…