Democrats Take California To Hell

5f592eab2400000610921fb1.jpeg



Apocalyptic Orange Haze And Darkness Blanket California Amid Fires
But we can't log the forest in a sustainable manner like we did for generations, cuz, spotted owls. Is there CO2 in all that fire smoke?

Now for the heroes.

View attachment 387140

View attachment 387141

God bless those Cali NG rotorheads. Reportedly, CalFire was telling the trapped people to wade into a local pond to escape the flames. Yes, that's right, while they were screaming for rescue, Cal officials actually told them to go jump in a lake. The National Guard said “Not today, fellows”. Heroes one and all.
.Bravo Zulu National Guard..

Takes Guts to do it.............Even in the water......you still have to breath...........fires that bad will cook your lungs quick.

Yes.........the NG saved them.
 
The responsibility lies with those who for over 20 years have failed to respond to global warming, have fought to pass the buck, claimed it's a hoax, and just normal weather patterns. The above is not a hoax and is certainly not normal. You're going to find the reward for your hard work is going to be a bitter bill to swallow. .
No. It lies with the California state government that has been warned for years to maintain its forests. They didn't.
Your statement is a lie.


No, it's not. Support your contention.

The bureau of land management is responsible for federal forest land; not the State of California. The federal lands are some of the areas that are burning. So your blob is responsible for any fire on federal land.

PS: They don't "comb" the federal lands either. The NFS/NPS/BLM laughed off the suggestion as did every one else.
Cleaning up the forest, ie. removing deadwood, brush, and thinning the forest is mitigation just like building higher levees and dykes to prevent flooding due to sea rise. It does not solve the problem. Cleanup will have unintended ecological consequences on wildlife and our forest in general. Plus there is another issue. In America, there are over 800 million acres of forest and the cost of cleaning them and keeping them clean would be externally costly. Currently the plan is to cleanup selected areas where risk to lives and property seem high but this is just a guessing game and as droughts, temperatures, and winds continue to worsen, cleanup which only helps prevent the spread, will become less effective. Cleanup does have a place in managing forests areas around populated places, but we need real solutions to the underlying problem.
Logging is a free way to help that situation......While it doesn't end it....it most certainly helps................

You don't have to clear it all..........build fire breaks near population centers and concentrate there.........so the fire runs out of fuel and dies out before killing it.

ROADLESS ACT........prevents the forestry service from building roads............How can they build fire breaks when they can't even build a dirt road there...............

They are HOSED BY THE LAWS..........and the lawsuits of the green weenies who have allowed a tinder box situation over the last few decades.

Mother Nature is now educating them on why they are stupid.
 
WTF do forest fires and floods have to do with Democrats or hell?

The greenie-dems in calif wont allow the cleaning up of deadwood in the forests. That leaves so much fuel that the fires become unstoppable!

Yet another brilliant democrat move! Almost as good as putting covid patients into nursing homes!
Cleanup the forest
WTF do forest fires and floods have to do with Democrats or hell?

The greenie-dems in calif wont allow the cleaning up of deadwood in the forests. That leaves so much fuel that the fires become unstoppable!

Yet another brilliant democrat move! Almost as good as putting covid patients into nursing homes!
If you have ever been in a heavy forested area away from the cities, you would understand there is hell of lot more involve than running around and picking up a few dead limbs here and there. There are 33 million acres in California and over 170 million in western states. I have spend a large part of my life hiking in the Northwest. When you get away from the cities, the forest are dense, with few trails and occasional forest service road. You don't walk through these forests except on trails, you climb, crawl, and cut your way through. Cleaning up the forest is limited to areas around property developments and roads because of cost.

When you clean out a natural forest of deadwood, dead vines. and bushes, thinning out overpopulated area, you end up with a manicured forest which is what see in some state, county, and cities parks around cities. There are many forest parks like this in Europe. There're very nice to walk through but they are not natural. They are devoid of most wildlife, lack the erosion protection from bushes and ground cover, and have to be cleaned and manured regularly.







That's true, but the Sierra Club and their like have made it impossible to clear away deadfall. That's why these fires are getting worse and worse.
No, what's making fires worse is drought, high temperatures and the winds. This climate-change connection is straightforward: warmer temperatures dry out fuels. In areas with abundant and very dry fuels, all you need is a spark. Fires in California have increased by 400% since 1972 and this trend is not likely change. Cleaning out the forests is not a long term solution. As climate conditions worsen over the 21st century, we would need to clean more deeply removing more trees and more potential fuel until their is little on no forest left. That is not a solution. It's ok for temporary mitigation around populated areas but it is not a solution to problem.
 
WTF do forest fires and floods have to do with Democrats or hell?

The greenie-dems in calif wont allow the cleaning up of deadwood in the forests. That leaves so much fuel that the fires become unstoppable!

Yet another brilliant democrat move! Almost as good as putting covid patients into nursing homes!
Cleanup the forest
WTF do forest fires and floods have to do with Democrats or hell?

The greenie-dems in calif wont allow the cleaning up of deadwood in the forests. That leaves so much fuel that the fires become unstoppable!

Yet another brilliant democrat move! Almost as good as putting covid patients into nursing homes!
If you have ever been in a heavy forested area away from the cities, you would understand there is hell of lot more involve than running around and picking up a few dead limbs here and there. There are 33 million acres in California and over 170 million in western states. I have spend a large part of my life hiking in the Northwest. When you get away from the cities, the forest are dense, with few trails and occasional forest service road. You don't walk through these forests except on trails, you climb, crawl, and cut your way through. Cleaning up the forest is limited to areas around property developments and roads because of cost.

When you clean out a natural forest of deadwood, dead vines. and bushes, thinning out overpopulated area, you end up with a manicured forest which is what see in some state, county, and cities parks around cities. There are many forest parks like this in Europe. There're very nice to walk through but they are not natural. They are devoid of most wildlife, lack the erosion protection from bushes and ground cover, and have to be cleaned and manured regularly.







That's true, but the Sierra Club and their like have made it impossible to clear away deadfall. That's why these fires are getting worse and worse.
No, what's making fires worse is drought, high temperatures and the winds. This climate-change connection is straightforward: warmer temperatures dry out fuels. In areas with abundant and very dry fuels, all you need is a spark. Fires in California have increased by 400% since 1972 and this trend is not likely change. Cleaning out the forests is not a long term solution. As climate conditions worsen over the 21st century, we would need to clean more deeply removing more trees and more potential fuel until their is little on no forest left. That is not a solution. It's ok for temporary mitigation around populated areas but it is not a solution to problem.
3614px-Fire_triangle_2.svg.png

 
The responsibility lies with those who for over 20 years have failed to respond to global warming, have fought to pass the buck, claimed it's a hoax, and just normal weather patterns. The above is not a hoax and is certainly not normal. You're going to find the reward for your hard work is going to be a bitter bill to swallow. .
No. It lies with the California state government that has been warned for years to maintain its forests. They didn't.
Your statement is a lie.


No, it's not. Support your contention.

The bureau of land management is responsible for federal forest land; not the State of California. The federal lands are some of the areas that are burning. So your blob is responsible for any fire on federal land.

PS: They don't "comb" the federal lands either. The NFS/NPS/BLM laughed off the suggestion as did every one else.
Cleaning up the forest, ie. removing deadwood, brush, and thinning the forest is mitigation just like building higher levees and dykes to prevent flooding due to sea rise. It does not solve the problem. Cleanup will have unintended ecological consequences on wildlife and our forest in general. Plus there is another issue. In America, there are over 800 million acres of forest and the cost of cleaning them and keeping them clean would be externally costly. Currently the plan is to cleanup selected areas where risk to lives and property seem high but this is just a guessing game and as droughts, temperatures, and winds continue to worsen, cleanup which only helps prevent the spread, will become less effective. Cleanup does have a place in managing forests areas around populated places, but we need real solutions to the underlying problem.
Logging is a free way to help that situation......While it doesn't end it....it most certainly helps................

You don't have to clear it all..........build fire breaks near population centers and concentrate there.........so the fire runs out of fuel and dies out before killing it.

ROADLESS ACT........prevents the forestry service from building roads............How can they build fire breaks when they can't even build a dirt road there...............

They are HOSED BY THE LAWS..........and the lawsuits of the green weenies who have allowed a tinder box situation over the last few decades.

Mother Nature is now educating them on why they are stupid.
Logging might have some use but the major effort would be removing dry fuel, underbrush, deadwood, shrub suffering from years of drought. Tree removal would be mostly dead and damaged trees, not exactly the kind of growth loggers are interested. in. Many of these areas being ravages by fires are hundreds of relatively small forests separated by hundreds of acres of dry fields, deadwood, shrub.
 
The responsibility lies with those who for over 20 years have failed to respond to global warming, have fought to pass the buck, claimed it's a hoax, and just normal weather patterns. The above is not a hoax and is certainly not normal. You're going to find the reward for your hard work is going to be a bitter bill to swallow. .
No. It lies with the California state government that has been warned for years to maintain its forests. They didn't.
Your statement is a lie.


No, it's not. Support your contention.

The bureau of land management is responsible for federal forest land; not the State of California. The federal lands are some of the areas that are burning. So your blob is responsible for any fire on federal land.

PS: They don't "comb" the federal lands either. The NFS/NPS/BLM laughed off the suggestion as did every one else.
Cleaning up the forest, ie. removing deadwood, brush, and thinning the forest is mitigation just like building higher levees and dykes to prevent flooding due to sea rise. It does not solve the problem. Cleanup will have unintended ecological consequences on wildlife and our forest in general. Plus there is another issue. In America, there are over 800 million acres of forest and the cost of cleaning them and keeping them clean would be externally costly. Currently the plan is to cleanup selected areas where risk to lives and property seem high but this is just a guessing game and as droughts, temperatures, and winds continue to worsen, cleanup which only helps prevent the spread, will become less effective. Cleanup does have a place in managing forests areas around populated places, but we need real solutions to the underlying problem.
Logging is a free way to help that situation......While it doesn't end it....it most certainly helps................

You don't have to clear it all..........build fire breaks near population centers and concentrate there.........so the fire runs out of fuel and dies out before killing it.

ROADLESS ACT........prevents the forestry service from building roads............How can they build fire breaks when they can't even build a dirt road there...............

They are HOSED BY THE LAWS..........and the lawsuits of the green weenies who have allowed a tinder box situation over the last few decades.

Mother Nature is now educating them on why they are stupid.
Logging might have some use but the major effort would be removing dry fuel, underbrush, deadwood, shrub suffering from years of drought. Tree removal would be mostly dead and damaged trees, not exactly the kind of growth loggers are interested. in. Many of these areas being ravages by fires are hundreds of relatively small forests separated by hundreds of acres of dry fields, deadwood, shrub.
And who caused that..........hmm...........they put them under......dared them to log..........passed no roads acts...........sued them at every corner.

Thick trees die.........not enough nutrients to go around...........thinned forests .....grow stronger and taller and are hard to burn..................controlled burns get rid of fuel in better controlled conditions................

This isn't rocket science.........you protect population centers by doing this in these places.............Cali has neglected this for decades now..............that is why they burn like this.
 
The responsibility lies with those who for over 20 years have failed to respond to global warming, have fought to pass the buck, claimed it's a hoax, and just normal weather patterns. The above is not a hoax and is certainly not normal. You're going to find the reward for your hard work is going to be a bitter bill to swallow. .
No. It lies with the California state government that has been warned for years to maintain its forests. They didn't.
57% of the forested land in Calfornia falls under the Bureau of Land Management (feds) with the state only controlling less than five percent, the rest is under private ownership..
 
The responsibility lies with those who for over 20 years have failed to respond to global warming, have fought to pass the buck, claimed it's a hoax, and just normal weather patterns. The above is not a hoax and is certainly not normal. You're going to find the reward for your hard work is going to be a bitter bill to swallow. .
No. It lies with the California state government that has been warned for years to maintain its forests. They didn't.
Your statement is a lie.


No, it's not. Support your contention.

The bureau of land management is responsible for federal forest land; not the State of California. The federal lands are some of the areas that are burning. So your blob is responsible for any fire on federal land.

PS: They don't "comb" the federal lands either. The NFS/NPS/BLM laughed off the suggestion as did every one else.
Cleaning up the forest, ie. removing deadwood, brush, and thinning the forest is mitigation just like building higher levees and dykes to prevent flooding due to sea rise. It does not solve the problem. Cleanup will have unintended ecological consequences on wildlife and our forest in general. Plus there is another issue. In America, there are over 800 million acres of forest and the cost of cleaning them and keeping them clean would be externally costly. Currently the plan is to cleanup selected areas where risk to lives and property seem high but this is just a guessing game and as droughts, temperatures, and winds continue to worsen, cleanup which only helps prevent the spread, will become less effective. Cleanup does have a place in managing forests areas around populated places, but we need real solutions to the underlying problem.
Logging is a free way to help that situation......While it doesn't end it....it most certainly helps................

You don't have to clear it all..........build fire breaks near population centers and concentrate there.........so the fire runs out of fuel and dies out before killing it.

ROADLESS ACT........prevents the forestry service from building roads............How can they build fire breaks when they can't even build a dirt road there...............

They are HOSED BY THE LAWS..........and the lawsuits of the green weenies who have allowed a tinder box situation over the last few decades.

Mother Nature is now educating them on why they are stupid.
Logging might have some use but the major effort would be removing dry fuel, underbrush, deadwood, shrub suffering from years of drought. Tree removal would be mostly dead and damaged trees, not exactly the kind of growth loggers are interested. in. Many of these areas being ravages by fires are hundreds of relatively small forests separated by hundreds of acres of dry fields, deadwood, shrub.
It all helps. On thinning. CA wasn't really impacted by people until the CA Gold Rush in 1849. Prior to that it is estimated that 4.5M acres burned every year and that tree density was about 40 tees to the acre. Frequently burned areas at that density aren't really destructive fires. It mainly cleans up all the dead-fall and weakened or diseased trees.

After the Gold Rush, fire suppression started pretty much immediately and with practice got more and more effective, until for the last seventy years or so, fires have been limited to about 250,000 acres, so lots of CA hasn't burned in 50 years, and forest densities of 400 trees or more per acre are common, plus all that dead-fall you mentioned. In the last three years, annual burn off has jumped to 2.5M acres with horrific loss of life and property.

One of the nice things about thinning is that the logging operations defray costs, when we more actively managed our forests, not only did we not have these destructive uncontrollable fires, but forest management brought money into the State General Fund via wood sales. Another good thing is that the logging access roads are put in by the loggers, are built to handled large loaded vehicles and are perfectly suited for fire fighting access.

But, to your point, cleaning up the dead fall will also require access roads and would certainly be a big big help.
 
WTF do forest fires and floods have to do with Democrats or hell?

The greenie-dems in calif wont allow the cleaning up of deadwood in the forests. That leaves so much fuel that the fires become unstoppable!

Yet another brilliant democrat move! Almost as good as putting covid patients into nursing homes!
Cleanup the forest
WTF do forest fires and floods have to do with Democrats or hell?

The greenie-dems in calif wont allow the cleaning up of deadwood in the forests. That leaves so much fuel that the fires become unstoppable!

Yet another brilliant democrat move! Almost as good as putting covid patients into nursing homes!
If you have ever been in a heavy forested area away from the cities, you would understand there is hell of lot more involve than running around and picking up a few dead limbs here and there. There are 33 million acres in California and over 170 million in western states. I have spend a large part of my life hiking in the Northwest. When you get away from the cities, the forest are dense, with few trails and occasional forest service road. You don't walk through these forests except on trails, you climb, crawl, and cut your way through. Cleaning up the forest is limited to areas around property developments and roads because of cost.

When you clean out a natural forest of deadwood, dead vines. and bushes, thinning out overpopulated area, you end up with a manicured forest which is what see in some state, county, and cities parks around cities. There are many forest parks like this in Europe. There're very nice to walk through but they are not natural. They are devoid of most wildlife, lack the erosion protection from bushes and ground cover, and have to be cleaned and manured regularly.







That's true, but the Sierra Club and their like have made it impossible to clear away deadfall. That's why these fires are getting worse and worse.
No, what's making fires worse is drought, high temperatures and the winds. This climate-change connection is straightforward: warmer temperatures dry out fuels. In areas with abundant and very dry fuels, all you need is a spark. Fires in California have increased by 400% since 1972 and this trend is not likely change. Cleaning out the forests is not a long term solution. As climate conditions worsen over the 21st century, we would need to clean more deeply removing more trees and more potential fuel until their is little on no forest left. That is not a solution. It's ok for temporary mitigation around populated areas but it is not a solution to problem.








I talked to an official with the Nevada Division of Forestry one day last year when we had all sorts of fires going on and he said that drought only increases the rapidity of a fire. I asked about fire frequency specifically and he said the 1950's were the worst decade for wildfire. Since then he says the majority of the problems are because the homes are encroaching in to areas where they never were previously.

As far as the deadfall goes he would vehemently disagree with you. I actually drove him from Reno International to South lake for a conference on wildfire and we talked about the terrible fire that happened in South lake about a decade ago and he said he severity of the fire was directly attributable to lack of deadfall clearance that was brought about by the Sierra Club and Tahoe based environmental groups. He really educated me on those issues because he says the problems still exist and the Tahoe Basin is a bomb waiting to go off.

As far as your claim about cleaning out the forests, how do you figure? Trees get planted, deadfall gets removed. An endless cycle.
 
The responsibility lies with those who for over 20 years have failed to respond to global warming, have fought to pass the buck, claimed it's a hoax, and just normal weather patterns. The above is not a hoax and is certainly not normal. You're going to find the reward for your hard work is going to be a bitter bill to swallow. .
No. It lies with the California state government that has been warned for years to maintain its forests. They didn't.
Your statement is a lie.


No, it's not. Support your contention.

The bureau of land management is responsible for federal forest land; not the State of California. The federal lands are some of the areas that are burning. So your blob is responsible for any fire on federal land.

PS: They don't "comb" the federal lands either. The NFS/NPS/BLM laughed off the suggestion as did every one else.
Cleaning up the forest, ie. removing deadwood, brush, and thinning the forest is mitigation just like building higher levees and dykes to prevent flooding due to sea rise. It does not solve the problem. Cleanup will have unintended ecological consequences on wildlife and our forest in general. Plus there is another issue. In America, there are over 800 million acres of forest and the cost of cleaning them and keeping them clean would be externally costly. Currently the plan is to cleanup selected areas where risk to lives and property seem high but this is just a guessing game and as droughts, temperatures, and winds continue to worsen, cleanup which only helps prevent the spread, will become less effective. Cleanup does have a place in managing forests areas around populated places, but we need real solutions to the underlying problem.
Logging is a free way to help that situation......While it doesn't end it....it most certainly helps................

You don't have to clear it all..........build fire breaks near population centers and concentrate there.........so the fire runs out of fuel and dies out before killing it.

ROADLESS ACT........prevents the forestry service from building roads............How can they build fire breaks when they can't even build a dirt road there...............

They are HOSED BY THE LAWS..........and the lawsuits of the green weenies who have allowed a tinder box situation over the last few decades.

Mother Nature is now educating them on why they are stupid.
Logging might have some use but the major effort would be removing dry fuel, underbrush, deadwood, shrub suffering from years of drought. Tree removal would be mostly dead and damaged trees, not exactly the kind of growth loggers are interested. in. Many of these areas being ravages by fires are hundreds of relatively small forests separated by hundreds of acres of dry fields, deadwood, shrub.
And who caused that..........hmm...........they put them under......dared them to log..........passed no roads acts...........sued them at every corner.

Thick trees die.........not enough nutrients to go around...........thinned forests .....grow stronger and taller and are hard to burn..................controlled burns get rid of fuel in better controlled conditions................

This isn't rocket science.........you protect population centers by doing this in these places.............Cali has neglected this for decades now..............that is why they burn like this.
Thinning the forest is only one step in forest fuel reduction. Without mechanical removal of smaller trees and reduction of canopy density, followed by prescribed burning to reduce ground fuels, it accomplishes nothing in reduction of wildfires. In fact, mechanical thinning alone INCREASES fire spread by putting more fine fuels on the ground. Since thinning by removing competition between trees and brush increases rapid regrowth of vegetation, there must be follow-ups of recurring burns and thinning to be effective. With hundreds of millions of acres of forest, in the west, not to mention the many millions of fields and pastures that provide a birthplace for many our larges fires, the cost of fuel reduction programs are huge.

Fuel reduction is just a meditating measure not a solution. As the temperatures keep rising, droughts and winds will continue to increase the killing of more vegetation thus increasing the fuel supply. Until we will bite bullet and deal with the real cause, climate change, there will be no solution just expensive stop gap measures.

1600297263057.png


 
Last edited:
The responsibility lies with those who for over 20 years have failed to respond to global warming, have fought to pass the buck, claimed it's a hoax, and just normal weather patterns. The above is not a hoax and is certainly not normal. You're going to find the reward for your hard work is going to be a bitter bill to swallow. .
No. It lies with the California state government that has been warned for years to maintain its forests. They didn't.
57% of the forested land in Calfornia falls under the Bureau of Land Management (feds) with the state only controlling less than five percent, the rest is under private ownership..
And liberals pressed for acts like the roadless act......sue to not allow people to burn.....close it off to logging...how you gonna log without a road........

Can't build fire breaks when you are sued everytime.............Now your state is doing this.........after decades of YELLING ..............SAVE THE FORESTS........SAVE THE BEATLES.............

Now......Mother Nature is doing it for you .........oh well.....
 
The responsibility lies with those who for over 20 years have failed to respond to global warming, have fought to pass the buck, claimed it's a hoax, and just normal weather patterns. The above is not a hoax and is certainly not normal. You're going to find the reward for your hard work is going to be a bitter bill to swallow. .
No. It lies with the California state government that has been warned for years to maintain its forests. They didn't.
Your statement is a lie.


No, it's not. Support your contention.

The bureau of land management is responsible for federal forest land; not the State of California. The federal lands are some of the areas that are burning. So your blob is responsible for any fire on federal land.

PS: They don't "comb" the federal lands either. The NFS/NPS/BLM laughed off the suggestion as did every one else.
Cleaning up the forest, ie. removing deadwood, brush, and thinning the forest is mitigation just like building higher levees and dykes to prevent flooding due to sea rise. It does not solve the problem. Cleanup will have unintended ecological consequences on wildlife and our forest in general. Plus there is another issue. In America, there are over 800 million acres of forest and the cost of cleaning them and keeping them clean would be externally costly. Currently the plan is to cleanup selected areas where risk to lives and property seem high but this is just a guessing game and as droughts, temperatures, and winds continue to worsen, cleanup which only helps prevent the spread, will become less effective. Cleanup does have a place in managing forests areas around populated places, but we need real solutions to the underlying problem.
Logging is a free way to help that situation......While it doesn't end it....it most certainly helps................

You don't have to clear it all..........build fire breaks near population centers and concentrate there.........so the fire runs out of fuel and dies out before killing it.

ROADLESS ACT........prevents the forestry service from building roads............How can they build fire breaks when they can't even build a dirt road there...............

They are HOSED BY THE LAWS..........and the lawsuits of the green weenies who have allowed a tinder box situation over the last few decades.

Mother Nature is now educating them on why they are stupid.
Logging might have some use but the major effort would be removing dry fuel, underbrush, deadwood, shrub suffering from years of drought. Tree removal would be mostly dead and damaged trees, not exactly the kind of growth loggers are interested. in. Many of these areas being ravages by fires are hundreds of relatively small forests separated by hundreds of acres of dry fields, deadwood, shrub.
And who caused that..........hmm...........they put them under......dared them to log..........passed no roads acts...........sued them at every corner.

Thick trees die.........not enough nutrients to go around...........thinned forests .....grow stronger and taller and are hard to burn..................controlled burns get rid of fuel in better controlled conditions................

This isn't rocket science.........you protect population centers by doing this in these places.............Cali has neglected this for decades now..............that is why they burn like this.
Thinning the forest is only one step in forest fuel reduction. Without mechanical removal of smaller trees and reduction of canopy density, followed by prescribed burning to reduce ground fuels, it accomplishes nothing in reduction of wildfires. In fact, mechanical thinning alone INCREASES fire spread by putting more fine fuels on the ground. Since thinning by removing competition between trees and brush increases rapid regrowth of vegetation, there must be follow-ups of recurring burns and thinning to be effective. With hundreds of millions of acres of forest, in the west, not to mention the many millions of fields and pastures that provide a birthplace for many our larges fires, the cost of fuel reduction programs are huge.

Fuel reduction is just a meditating measure not a solution. As the temperatures keep rising, droughts and winds will continue to increase the killing of more vegetation thus increasing the fuel supply. Until we will bite bullet and deal with the real cause, climate change, there will be no solution just expensive stop gap measures.

View attachment 389551

Fire breaks work........you don't have to do the whole thing.........and you do it near population centers.

Learn or burn............the forests there are dead and dense because of decades of mismanagement..........doing nothing then wonder why the state is burning down.
 
The responsibility lies with those who for over 20 years have failed to respond to global warming, have fought to pass the buck, claimed it's a hoax, and just normal weather patterns. The above is not a hoax and is certainly not normal. You're going to find the reward for your hard work is going to be a bitter bill to swallow. .
No. It lies with the California state government that has been warned for years to maintain its forests. They didn't.
Your statement is a lie.


No, it's not. Support your contention.

The bureau of land management is responsible for federal forest land; not the State of California. The federal lands are some of the areas that are burning. So your blob is responsible for any fire on federal land.

PS: They don't "comb" the federal lands either. The NFS/NPS/BLM laughed off the suggestion as did every one else.
Cleaning up the forest, ie. removing deadwood, brush, and thinning the forest is mitigation just like building higher levees and dykes to prevent flooding due to sea rise. It does not solve the problem. Cleanup will have unintended ecological consequences on wildlife and our forest in general. Plus there is another issue. In America, there are over 800 million acres of forest and the cost of cleaning them and keeping them clean would be externally costly. Currently the plan is to cleanup selected areas where risk to lives and property seem high but this is just a guessing game and as droughts, temperatures, and winds continue to worsen, cleanup which only helps prevent the spread, will become less effective. Cleanup does have a place in managing forests areas around populated places, but we need real solutions to the underlying problem.
Logging is a free way to help that situation......While it doesn't end it....it most certainly helps................

You don't have to clear it all..........build fire breaks near population centers and concentrate there.........so the fire runs out of fuel and dies out before killing it.

ROADLESS ACT........prevents the forestry service from building roads............How can they build fire breaks when they can't even build a dirt road there...............

They are HOSED BY THE LAWS..........and the lawsuits of the green weenies who have allowed a tinder box situation over the last few decades.

Mother Nature is now educating them on why they are stupid.
Logging might have some use but the major effort would be removing dry fuel, underbrush, deadwood, shrub suffering from years of drought. Tree removal would be mostly dead and damaged trees, not exactly the kind of growth loggers are interested. in. Many of these areas being ravages by fires are hundreds of relatively small forests separated by hundreds of acres of dry fields, deadwood, shrub.
And who caused that..........hmm...........they put them under......dared them to log..........passed no roads acts...........sued them at every corner.

Thick trees die.........not enough nutrients to go around...........thinned forests .....grow stronger and taller and are hard to burn..................controlled burns get rid of fuel in better controlled conditions................

This isn't rocket science.........you protect population centers by doing this in these places.............Cali has neglected this for decades now..............that is why they burn like this.
Thinning the forest is only one step in forest fuel reduction. Without mechanical removal of smaller trees and reduction of canopy density, followed by prescribed burning to reduce ground fuels, it accomplishes nothing in reduction of wildfires. In fact, mechanical thinning alone INCREASES fire spread by putting more fine fuels on the ground. Since thinning by removing competition between trees and brush increases rapid regrowth of vegetation, there must be follow-ups of recurring burns and thinning to be effective. With hundreds of millions of acres of forest, in the west, not to mention the many millions of fields and pastures that provide a birthplace for many our larges fires, the cost of fuel reduction programs are huge.

Fuel reduction is just a meditating measure not a solution. As the temperatures keep rising, droughts and winds will continue to increase the killing of more vegetation thus increasing the fuel supply. Until we will bite bullet and deal with the real cause, climate change, there will be no solution just expensive stop gap measures.

View attachment 389551

 
The responsibility lies with those who for over 20 years have failed to respond to global warming, have fought to pass the buck, claimed it's a hoax, and just normal weather patterns. The above is not a hoax and is certainly not normal. You're going to find the reward for your hard work is going to be a bitter bill to swallow. .
No. It lies with the California state government that has been warned for years to maintain its forests. They didn't.
Your statement is a lie.


No, it's not. Support your contention.

The bureau of land management is responsible for federal forest land; not the State of California. The federal lands are some of the areas that are burning. So your blob is responsible for any fire on federal land.

PS: They don't "comb" the federal lands either. The NFS/NPS/BLM laughed off the suggestion as did every one else.
Cleaning up the forest, ie. removing deadwood, brush, and thinning the forest is mitigation just like building higher levees and dykes to prevent flooding due to sea rise. It does not solve the problem. Cleanup will have unintended ecological consequences on wildlife and our forest in general. Plus there is another issue. In America, there are over 800 million acres of forest and the cost of cleaning them and keeping them clean would be externally costly. Currently the plan is to cleanup selected areas where risk to lives and property seem high but this is just a guessing game and as droughts, temperatures, and winds continue to worsen, cleanup which only helps prevent the spread, will become less effective. Cleanup does have a place in managing forests areas around populated places, but we need real solutions to the underlying problem.
Logging is a free way to help that situation......While it doesn't end it....it most certainly helps................

You don't have to clear it all..........build fire breaks near population centers and concentrate there.........so the fire runs out of fuel and dies out before killing it.

ROADLESS ACT........prevents the forestry service from building roads............How can they build fire breaks when they can't even build a dirt road there...............

They are HOSED BY THE LAWS..........and the lawsuits of the green weenies who have allowed a tinder box situation over the last few decades.

Mother Nature is now educating them on why they are stupid.
Logging might have some use but the major effort would be removing dry fuel, underbrush, deadwood, shrub suffering from years of drought. Tree removal would be mostly dead and damaged trees, not exactly the kind of growth loggers are interested. in. Many of these areas being ravages by fires are hundreds of relatively small forests separated by hundreds of acres of dry fields, deadwood, shrub.
And who caused that..........hmm...........they put them under......dared them to log..........passed no roads acts...........sued them at every corner.

Thick trees die.........not enough nutrients to go around...........thinned forests .....grow stronger and taller and are hard to burn..................controlled burns get rid of fuel in better controlled conditions................

This isn't rocket science.........you protect population centers by doing this in these places.............Cali has neglected this for decades now..............that is why they burn like this.
Thinning the forest is only one step in forest fuel reduction...
Nobody claimed it was more than that.
Without mechanical removal of smaller trees
How else would you remove them? You can't talk them to leaving.
and reduction of canopy density
Removing trees does remove canopy.
prescribed burning to reduce ground fuels
Of course.
... it accomplishes nothing in reduction of wildfires.
Fake News. Removal of fire fuel load and improving of fire fighting access, as well as the cutting of fire breaks is the very essence of forest fire management.
... In fact, mechanical thinning alone INCREASES fire spread by putting more fine fuels on the ground...
Thinning means reduction of tree density, by tree removal. Nobody is suggesting you grind the trees up and spray them about, that's just stupid. Where did you come up with this nonsense?
... Since thinning by removing competition between trees and brush increases rapid regrowth of vegetation...
This is the old "thinning, thickens" nonsense. Think!
... there must be follow-ups...
Were you under the delusion that there is a "one and done" answer to managing a growing forest? Of course there is follow up, forests are growing, the growth has to be managed, if you don't want all just going up in smoke in an unmanaged destructive forest fire.
... millions of fields and pastures...
Fields and pastures? We aren't going to reduce tree density in "fields and pastures".
The cost of fuel reduction programs are huge.
You think fighting all these fires is free? How many homes and lives have been destroyed in CA in the last three years? How much do you think has been spent of fire fighting? That's the whole problem, we are spending billions on fire fighting rather than millions on forest management.
... Fuel reduction is just a meditating measure not a solution...
No, it's a solution. 3 ways to combat fire: remove fuel, oxygen, and/or heat.

1600307966963.png

As the temperatures keep rising, droughts and winds will continue to increase the killing of more vegetation thus increasing the fuel supply.
Which is why the fuel load needs to be reduced through tree removal, controlled burns, with fuels separated by fire breaks, and accessible by serviceable fire fighting access.
... Until we will bite bullet and deal with the real cause, climate change, there will be no solution just expensive stop gap measures...
What we are doing now is not only very expensive, but deadly and destructive as well. Do you know how much wild life is destroyed in a Forest Fire? We have from now until next fire season to either do something to improve the situation, or we can all beat our gums and do nothing until next fire season. What is your preference?

As for climate change, name two states that have taken the strides that CA and OR have. I'd match their record against any other two states in the nation, but, how much CO2 is released in these massive forest fires? I'll tell you how much. Just two forest fires in 2018 released as much CO2 as ALL of the fossil fuel generation in the State of CA for an entire year. Just 2 fires. CA has SEVENTEEN Wild Fires burning in just the North West corner of the state.

People are dying, we don't really have time for the luxury of smug self-righteous moral preening.

1600308688075.png
If you take a look at the last 1200 years of CA Climate history, 200 hundred year droughts are on the table. With sensible forest management and water policy these dry spells are perfectly manageable. Right now a full half of the surface water from annual rain/snow runs into the ocean, that is, we can double our water supply as our water needs grow.

Should that at some point prove to be insufficient, water projects can be brought down from the Columbia River to Lake Shasta, and Lake Shasta is already connected to the State wide water distribution system.

Along with that, another potential water project route is from the Snake River, down through Nevada to Hoover Dam, and from Hoover Dam, all of Southern California is supplied. Every water project is drought protection, flood protection and power generation, or a win/win/win!

So lots of good options for those willing to put their hands to the tasks, and lots of terrible outcomes if we keep doing what we are doing.

So what do you favor? Real world solutions, or worthless reactionary virtue signalling?
 
Last edited:
The responsibility lies with those who for over 20 years have failed to respond to global warming, have fought to pass the buck, claimed it's a hoax, and just normal weather patterns. The above is not a hoax and is certainly not normal. You're going to find the reward for your hard work is going to be a bitter bill to swallow. .
No. It lies with the California state government that has been warned for years to maintain its forests. They didn't.
Your statement is a lie.


No, it's not. Support your contention.

The bureau of land management is responsible for federal forest land; not the State of California. The federal lands are some of the areas that are burning. So your blob is responsible for any fire on federal land.

PS: They don't "comb" the federal lands either. The NFS/NPS/BLM laughed off the suggestion as did every one else.
Cleaning up the forest, ie. removing deadwood, brush, and thinning the forest is mitigation just like building higher levees and dykes to prevent flooding due to sea rise. It does not solve the problem. Cleanup will have unintended ecological consequences on wildlife and our forest in general. Plus there is another issue. In America, there are over 800 million acres of forest and the cost of cleaning them and keeping them clean would be externally costly. Currently the plan is to cleanup selected areas where risk to lives and property seem high but this is just a guessing game and as droughts, temperatures, and winds continue to worsen, cleanup which only helps prevent the spread, will become less effective. Cleanup does have a place in managing forests areas around populated places, but we need real solutions to the underlying problem.
Logging is a free way to help that situation......While it doesn't end it....it most certainly helps................

You don't have to clear it all..........build fire breaks near population centers and concentrate there.........so the fire runs out of fuel and dies out before killing it.

ROADLESS ACT........prevents the forestry service from building roads............How can they build fire breaks when they can't even build a dirt road there...............

They are HOSED BY THE LAWS..........and the lawsuits of the green weenies who have allowed a tinder box situation over the last few decades.

Mother Nature is now educating them on why they are stupid.
Logging might have some use but the major effort would be removing dry fuel, underbrush, deadwood, shrub suffering from years of drought. Tree removal would be mostly dead and damaged trees, not exactly the kind of growth loggers are interested. in. Many of these areas being ravages by fires are hundreds of relatively small forests separated by hundreds of acres of dry fields, deadwood, shrub.
And who caused that..........hmm...........they put them under......dared them to log..........passed no roads acts...........sued them at every corner.

Thick trees die.........not enough nutrients to go around...........thinned forests .....grow stronger and taller and are hard to burn..................controlled burns get rid of fuel in better controlled conditions................

This isn't rocket science.........you protect population centers by doing this in these places.............Cali has neglected this for decades now..............that is why they burn like this.
Thinning the forest is only one step in forest fuel reduction. Without mechanical removal of smaller trees and reduction of canopy density, followed by prescribed burning to reduce ground fuels, it accomplishes nothing in reduction of wildfires. In fact, mechanical thinning alone INCREASES fire spread by putting more fine fuels on the ground. Since thinning by removing competition between trees and brush increases rapid regrowth of vegetation, there must be follow-ups of recurring burns and thinning to be effective. With hundreds of millions of acres of forest, in the west, not to mention the many millions of fields and pastures that provide a birthplace for many our larges fires, the cost of fuel reduction programs are huge.

Fuel reduction is just a meditating measure not a solution. As the temperatures keep rising, droughts and winds will continue to increase the killing of more vegetation thus increasing the fuel supply. Until we will bite bullet and deal with the real cause, climate change, there will be no solution just expensive stop gap measures.

View attachment 389551

Fire breaks work........you don't have to do the whole thing.........and you do it near population centers.

Learn or burn............the forests there are dead and dense because of decades of mismanagement..........doing nothing then wonder why the state is burning down.

These are wildfires, not just forest fires. They are uncontrolled fires which occur in fields, grass and brush as well as in the forest itself. In California most of these fires get started in fields of dead grass and bushes which have been subject to years of drought and rising temperatures. Thinning the forest will not stop the fires and without additional steps will actually increase the fires.

With years of drought, weeks of daytime temperatures running 90 to 110. average wind speeds running 25 to 30 mph and gusting to as high as 200 mph in fire storms, no amount of thinning the forest is going stop these fires. Thinning the forest is only small part of fuel removal projects.
 
Last edited:
The responsibility lies with those who for over 20 years have failed to respond to global warming, have fought to pass the buck, claimed it's a hoax, and just normal weather patterns. The above is not a hoax and is certainly not normal. You're going to find the reward for your hard work is going to be a bitter bill to swallow. .
No. It lies with the California state government that has been warned for years to maintain its forests. They didn't.
Your statement is a lie.


No, it's not. Support your contention.

The bureau of land management is responsible for federal forest land; not the State of California. The federal lands are some of the areas that are burning. So your blob is responsible for any fire on federal land.

PS: They don't "comb" the federal lands either. The NFS/NPS/BLM laughed off the suggestion as did every one else.
Cleaning up the forest, ie. removing deadwood, brush, and thinning the forest is mitigation just like building higher levees and dykes to prevent flooding due to sea rise. It does not solve the problem. Cleanup will have unintended ecological consequences on wildlife and our forest in general. Plus there is another issue. In America, there are over 800 million acres of forest and the cost of cleaning them and keeping them clean would be externally costly. Currently the plan is to cleanup selected areas where risk to lives and property seem high but this is just a guessing game and as droughts, temperatures, and winds continue to worsen, cleanup which only helps prevent the spread, will become less effective. Cleanup does have a place in managing forests areas around populated places, but we need real solutions to the underlying problem.
Logging is a free way to help that situation......While it doesn't end it....it most certainly helps................

You don't have to clear it all..........build fire breaks near population centers and concentrate there.........so the fire runs out of fuel and dies out before killing it.

ROADLESS ACT........prevents the forestry service from building roads............How can they build fire breaks when they can't even build a dirt road there...............

They are HOSED BY THE LAWS..........and the lawsuits of the green weenies who have allowed a tinder box situation over the last few decades.

Mother Nature is now educating them on why they are stupid.
Logging might have some use but the major effort would be removing dry fuel, underbrush, deadwood, shrub suffering from years of drought. Tree removal would be mostly dead and damaged trees, not exactly the kind of growth loggers are interested. in. Many of these areas being ravages by fires are hundreds of relatively small forests separated by hundreds of acres of dry fields, deadwood, shrub.
And who caused that..........hmm...........they put them under......dared them to log..........passed no roads acts...........sued them at every corner.

Thick trees die.........not enough nutrients to go around...........thinned forests .....grow stronger and taller and are hard to burn..................controlled burns get rid of fuel in better controlled conditions................

This isn't rocket science.........you protect population centers by doing this in these places.............Cali has neglected this for decades now..............that is why they burn like this.
Thinning the forest is only one step in forest fuel reduction. Without mechanical removal of smaller trees and reduction of canopy density, followed by prescribed burning to reduce ground fuels, it accomplishes nothing in reduction of wildfires. In fact, mechanical thinning alone INCREASES fire spread by putting more fine fuels on the ground. Since thinning by removing competition between trees and brush increases rapid regrowth of vegetation, there must be follow-ups of recurring burns and thinning to be effective. With hundreds of millions of acres of forest, in the west, not to mention the many millions of fields and pastures that provide a birthplace for many our larges fires, the cost of fuel reduction programs are huge.

Fuel reduction is just a meditating measure not a solution. As the temperatures keep rising, droughts and winds will continue to increase the killing of more vegetation thus increasing the fuel supply. Until we will bite bullet and deal with the real cause, climate change, there will be no solution just expensive stop gap measures.

View attachment 389551

Fire breaks work........you don't have to do the whole thing.........and you do it near population centers.

Learn or burn............the forests there are dead and dense because of decades of mismanagement..........doing nothing then wonder why the state is burning down.
These are wildfires, not just forest fires. They are uncontrolled fires which occur in fields, grass and brush as well as in the forest itself. In California most of these fires get started in fields of dead grass and bushes which have been subject to years of drought and rising temperatures. Thinning the forest will not stop the fires...
Fake News. Reducing fire fuel, separating fuel load with fire breaks and providing good fire fighting access are all steps that will making fire fighting much more effective, reducing the destructiveness of these fires.
.... and without additional steps will actually increase the fires...
Fake News. It will NOT increase the fires.
... With years of drought, weeks of daytime temperatures running 90 to 110. average wind speeds running 25 to 30 mph and gusting to as high as 200 mph in fire storms, no amount of thinning the forest is going stop these fires...
Fake News. Removing fuel load, breaking up fuel load with fire breaks and good fire fighting access are essential.
... Thinning the forest is only small part of fuel removal projects....
Tree removal and controlled burns.
 
The responsibility lies with those who for over 20 years have failed to respond to global warming, have fought to pass the buck, claimed it's a hoax, and just normal weather patterns. The above is not a hoax and is certainly not normal. You're going to find the reward for your hard work is going to be a bitter bill to swallow. .
No. It lies with the California state government that has been warned for years to maintain its forests. They didn't.
Your statement is a lie.


No, it's not. Support your contention.

The bureau of land management is responsible for federal forest land; not the State of California. The federal lands are some of the areas that are burning. So your blob is responsible for any fire on federal land.

PS: They don't "comb" the federal lands either. The NFS/NPS/BLM laughed off the suggestion as did every one else.
Cleaning up the forest, ie. removing deadwood, brush, and thinning the forest is mitigation just like building higher levees and dykes to prevent flooding due to sea rise. It does not solve the problem. Cleanup will have unintended ecological consequences on wildlife and our forest in general. Plus there is another issue. In America, there are over 800 million acres of forest and the cost of cleaning them and keeping them clean would be externally costly. Currently the plan is to cleanup selected areas where risk to lives and property seem high but this is just a guessing game and as droughts, temperatures, and winds continue to worsen, cleanup which only helps prevent the spread, will become less effective. Cleanup does have a place in managing forests areas around populated places, but we need real solutions to the underlying problem.
Logging is a free way to help that situation......While it doesn't end it....it most certainly helps................

You don't have to clear it all..........build fire breaks near population centers and concentrate there.........so the fire runs out of fuel and dies out before killing it.

ROADLESS ACT........prevents the forestry service from building roads............How can they build fire breaks when they can't even build a dirt road there...............

They are HOSED BY THE LAWS..........and the lawsuits of the green weenies who have allowed a tinder box situation over the last few decades.

Mother Nature is now educating them on why they are stupid.
Logging might have some use but the major effort would be removing dry fuel, underbrush, deadwood, shrub suffering from years of drought. Tree removal would be mostly dead and damaged trees, not exactly the kind of growth loggers are interested. in. Many of these areas being ravages by fires are hundreds of relatively small forests separated by hundreds of acres of dry fields, deadwood, shrub.
And who caused that..........hmm...........they put them under......dared them to log..........passed no roads acts...........sued them at every corner.

Thick trees die.........not enough nutrients to go around...........thinned forests .....grow stronger and taller and are hard to burn..................controlled burns get rid of fuel in better controlled conditions................

This isn't rocket science.........you protect population centers by doing this in these places.............Cali has neglected this for decades now..............that is why they burn like this.
Thinning the forest is only one step in forest fuel reduction. Without mechanical removal of smaller trees and reduction of canopy density, followed by prescribed burning to reduce ground fuels, it accomplishes nothing in reduction of wildfires. In fact, mechanical thinning alone INCREASES fire spread by putting more fine fuels on the ground. Since thinning by removing competition between trees and brush increases rapid regrowth of vegetation, there must be follow-ups of recurring burns and thinning to be effective. With hundreds of millions of acres of forest, in the west, not to mention the many millions of fields and pastures that provide a birthplace for many our larges fires, the cost of fuel reduction programs are huge.

Fuel reduction is just a meditating measure not a solution. As the temperatures keep rising, droughts and winds will continue to increase the killing of more vegetation thus increasing the fuel supply. Until we will bite bullet and deal with the real cause, climate change, there will be no solution just expensive stop gap measures.

View attachment 389551

Fire breaks work........you don't have to do the whole thing.........and you do it near population centers.

Learn or burn............the forests there are dead and dense because of decades of mismanagement..........doing nothing then wonder why the state is burning down.
These are wildfires, not just forest fires. They are uncontrolled fires which occur in fields, grass and brush as well as in the forest itself. In California most of these fires get started in fields of dead grass and bushes which have been subject to years of drought and rising temperatures. Thinning the forest will not stop the fires...
Fake News. Reducing fire fuel, separating fuel load with fire breaks and providing good fire fighting access are all steps that will making fire fighting much more effective, reducing the destructiveness of these fires.
.... and without additional steps will actually increase the fires...
Fake News. It will NOT increase the fires.
... With years of drought, weeks of daytime temperatures running 90 to 110. average wind speeds running 25 to 30 mph and gusting to as high as 200 mph in fire storms, no amount of thinning the forest is going stop these fires...
Fake News. Removing fuel load, breaking up fuel load with fire breaks and good fire fighting access are essential.
... Thinning the forest is only small part of fuel removal projects....
Tree removal and controlled burns.

Do me a favor, tell me what you see in this picture of Yellowstone National Park:

1600474314151.png


All of those are downed trees. Her is a wider shot of the same image:

1600474416462.png


The NPS--administered by the blob--doesn't remove dead trees that are easily accessible from a major roadway...US Highway 20 by Yellowstone Lake. If you were to look at GSMNP or Kings Canyon, or Sequoia you'd find the same policy being enforced by the federal government.

And this is the NPS which surely has trees in it. However, the National Forest Service doesn't remove dead trees either unless it's a hazard to humans or infrastructure etc...

There are fire mitigation techniques being used by everyone. There are two reasons California and Oregon are being mentioned; politics and the fact that they, stupidly in my view, allow developers to build in wooded areas so when there are predictable fires (just like developers who build on the gulf coast when there are predictable tropical storms) you have life and property that are lost; not just trees.

We can do something about the latter. The former--the falsehood of the blob saying that California should do something that his own agencies are not--is just another lie told by him.
 
The responsibility lies with those who for over 20 years have failed to respond to global warming, have fought to pass the buck, claimed it's a hoax, and just normal weather patterns. The above is not a hoax and is certainly not normal. You're going to find the reward for your hard work is going to be a bitter bill to swallow. .
No. It lies with the California state government that has been warned for years to maintain its forests. They didn't.
Your statement is a lie.


No, it's not. Support your contention.

The bureau of land management is responsible for federal forest land; not the State of California. The federal lands are some of the areas that are burning. So your blob is responsible for any fire on federal land.

PS: They don't "comb" the federal lands either. The NFS/NPS/BLM laughed off the suggestion as did every one else.
Cleaning up the forest, ie. removing deadwood, brush, and thinning the forest is mitigation just like building higher levees and dykes to prevent flooding due to sea rise. It does not solve the problem. Cleanup will have unintended ecological consequences on wildlife and our forest in general. Plus there is another issue. In America, there are over 800 million acres of forest and the cost of cleaning them and keeping them clean would be externally costly. Currently the plan is to cleanup selected areas where risk to lives and property seem high but this is just a guessing game and as droughts, temperatures, and winds continue to worsen, cleanup which only helps prevent the spread, will become less effective. Cleanup does have a place in managing forests areas around populated places, but we need real solutions to the underlying problem.
Logging is a free way to help that situation......While it doesn't end it....it most certainly helps................

You don't have to clear it all..........build fire breaks near population centers and concentrate there.........so the fire runs out of fuel and dies out before killing it.

ROADLESS ACT........prevents the forestry service from building roads............How can they build fire breaks when they can't even build a dirt road there...............

They are HOSED BY THE LAWS..........and the lawsuits of the green weenies who have allowed a tinder box situation over the last few decades.

Mother Nature is now educating them on why they are stupid.
Logging might have some use but the major effort would be removing dry fuel, underbrush, deadwood, shrub suffering from years of drought. Tree removal would be mostly dead and damaged trees, not exactly the kind of growth loggers are interested. in. Many of these areas being ravages by fires are hundreds of relatively small forests separated by hundreds of acres of dry fields, deadwood, shrub.
And who caused that..........hmm...........they put them under......dared them to log..........passed no roads acts...........sued them at every corner.

Thick trees die.........not enough nutrients to go around...........thinned forests .....grow stronger and taller and are hard to burn..................controlled burns get rid of fuel in better controlled conditions................

This isn't rocket science.........you protect population centers by doing this in these places.............Cali has neglected this for decades now..............that is why they burn like this.
Thinning the forest is only one step in forest fuel reduction. Without mechanical removal of smaller trees and reduction of canopy density, followed by prescribed burning to reduce ground fuels, it accomplishes nothing in reduction of wildfires. In fact, mechanical thinning alone INCREASES fire spread by putting more fine fuels on the ground. Since thinning by removing competition between trees and brush increases rapid regrowth of vegetation, there must be follow-ups of recurring burns and thinning to be effective. With hundreds of millions of acres of forest, in the west, not to mention the many millions of fields and pastures that provide a birthplace for many our larges fires, the cost of fuel reduction programs are huge.

Fuel reduction is just a meditating measure not a solution. As the temperatures keep rising, droughts and winds will continue to increase the killing of more vegetation thus increasing the fuel supply. Until we will bite bullet and deal with the real cause, climate change, there will be no solution just expensive stop gap measures.

View attachment 389551









Yes, more fires but much, much, much less intense, and they don't get up into the crown (I think that's what he called it) of the forest which, when that happens, burns the forest up completely.
 
WTF do forest fires and floods have to do with Democrats or hell?

Hell would represent a shitty place to be.

Does that help.

Left wing policies have helped the forrest fires. My only hope is that somehow, Newsome's home burns to the ground.
 

Forum List

Back
Top