Leaf Raking??

[Lesh]

If We Rake The Forest, What Do We Do With The Leaves?

A. Most of California's forests are Federally managed...so that's coming from the Federal treasury

B. It's a near impossible task in terms of available machinery and manpower

 

[petro]

If We Rake The Forest, What Do We Do With The Leaves?

A. Most of California's forests are Federally managed...so that's coming from the Federal treasury

B. It's a near impossible task in terms of available machinery and manpower

About a week late and a dozen threads behind with that canned soundbite.

Today's outrage dujour is Trump is gassing children with diapers at border. Please keep up and check with your NPC handlers.

 

[OldLady]

If We Rake The Forest, What Do We Do With The Leaves?

A. Most of California's forests are Federally managed...so that's coming from the Federal treasury

B. It's a near impossible task in terms of available machinery and manpower

I don't think they mean raking leaves. That would actually screw things up--the rotting leaves are what build up soil or something, and many many important critters live in and under them. I think it's just trying to keep the undergrowth from growing that they're talking about. Actually, if you leave a forest alone for long enough, Mother Nature takes care of that herself, but it takes a long, long time. It actually discourages wildlife who live on the low lying leaves of the young growth. I've been a piece of pine forest that has been left alone/protected for a couple hundred years and it's amazingly free of scrub and what we call "willy wags." Flat, pretty much empty forest floor, with nothing growing on it except a few wildflowers, and of course, the towering trees. I think it's the lack of sunlight that does it, but I can't remember.

Anyway, to let a forest alone that long is pretty much impossible anymore. Someone will cut it. It's like holding back the tide, though, to keep a young/growing forest free of undergrowth.

 

[Weatherman2020]

If We Rake The Forest, What Do We Do With The Leaves?

A. Most of California's forests are Federally managed...so that's coming from the Federal treasury

B. It's a near impossible task in terms of available machinery and manpower

A. Most of the CA Forest is not Federal.

B. The issue is trees, not leaves.

 

[bodecea]

If We Rake The Forest, What Do We Do With The Leaves?

A. Most of California's forests are Federally managed...so that's coming from the Federal treasury

B. It's a near impossible task in terms of available machinery and manpower

A. Most of the CA Forest is not Federal.

B. The issue is trees, not leaves.

The fires we just had were wildfires in chaparral area, not forests.

 

[Lesh]

The fires we just had were wildfires in chaparral area, not forests.

your ignorance is noted dumbass

The statement suggests that California's forest-management problems are at fault. But the majority of California's forests are federally held. Of the state's 33 million acres of forest, federal agencies, including the Forest Service and the Interior Department, own and manage 57 percent.Nov 12, 2018

Trump’s Misleading Claims About California’s Fire ‘Mismanagement’

 

[Lesh]

If We Rake The Forest, What Do We Do With The Leaves?

A. Most of California's forests are Federally managed...so that's coming from the Federal treasury

B. It's a near impossible task in terms of available machinery and manpower

I don't think they mean raking leaves. That would actually screw things up--the rotting leaves are what build up soil or something, and many many important critters live in and under them. I think it's just trying to keep the undergrowth from growing that they're talking about. Actually, if you leave a forest alone for long enough, Mother Nature takes care of that herself, but it takes a long, long time. It actually discourages wildlife who live on the low lying leaves of the young growth. I've been a piece of pine forest that has been left alone/protected for a couple hundred years and it's amazingly free of scrub and what we call "willy wags." Flat, pretty much empty forest floor, with nothing growing on it except a few wildflowers, and of course, the towering trees. I think it's the lack of sunlight that does it, but I can't remember.

Anyway, to let a forest alone that long is pretty much impossible anymore. Someone will cut it. It's like holding back the tide, though, to keep a young/growing forest free of undergrowth.

They DON'T mean raking leaves. I used that as a thread title because of Trump's stupid claim.

Read the OP. It talks about what it would take to manually remove brush and dead wood. A near impossible task.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The fires we just had were wildfires in chaparral area, not forests.

your ignorance is noted dumbass

The statement suggests that California's forest-management problems are at fault. But the majority of California's forests are federally held. Of the state's 33 million acres of forest, federal agencies, including the Forest Service and the Interior Department, own and manage 57 percent.Nov 12, 2018

Trump’s Misleading Claims About California’s Fire ‘Mismanagement’

I spent over 5 decades in California. Most of it in rural areas. Until about 10-15 years ago the State and local governments conducted control burns and maintained fire breaks. That way when a fire started it ran out of fuel quickly.

In addition, the forest areas were logged in strategic methods to also control fuel.

Now the money is spent on illegals and a train to nowhere.

 

[Lesh]

Almost 60% of the forests are FEDERAL genius.

And both Federal and state still do controlled burns.

The problem is warmer temps...higher winds...longer burn seasons...encroachment of populated areas.

 

[bodecea]

The fires we just had were wildfires in chaparral area, not forests.

your ignorance is noted dumbass

The statement suggests that California's forest-management problems are at fault. But the majority of California's forests are federally held. Of the state's 33 million acres of forest, federal agencies, including the Forest Service and the Interior Department, own and manage 57 percent.Nov 12, 2018

Trump’s Misleading Claims About California’s Fire ‘Mismanagement’

I spent over 5 decades in California. Most of it in rural areas. Until about 10-15 years ago the State and local governments conducted control burns and maintained fire breaks. That way when a fire started it ran out of fuel quickly.

In addition, the forest areas were logged in strategic methods to also control fuel.

Now the money is spent on illegals and a train to nowhere.

You keep harping on the forest area....what does "chaparral fire" make comprehension so difficult for you?

 

[Weatherman2020]

The fires we just had were wildfires in chaparral area, not forests.

your ignorance is noted dumbass

The statement suggests that California's forest-management problems are at fault. But the majority of California's forests are federally held. Of the state's 33 million acres of forest, federal agencies, including the Forest Service and the Interior Department, own and manage 57 percent.Nov 12, 2018

Trump’s Misleading Claims About California’s Fire ‘Mismanagement’

I spent over 5 decades in California. Most of it in rural areas. Until about 10-15 years ago the State and local governments conducted control burns and maintained fire breaks. That way when a fire started it ran out of fuel quickly.

In addition, the forest areas were logged in strategic methods to also control fuel.

Now the money is spent on illegals and a train to nowhere.

You keep harping on the forest area....what does "chaparral fire" make comprehension so difficult for you?

Look, I’ve been thru half a dozen Calif wildfires, I don’t need your crap. A Forest isn’t just pine trees.

 

[pismoe]

If We Rake The Forest, What Do We Do With The Leaves?

A. Most of California's forests are Federally managed...so that's coming from the Federal treasury

B. It's a near impossible task in terms of available machinery and manpower

--------------------------------------------------------- with out looking at the link the answer to your question is that you would MULCH the leaves . Thats what i do , rake the yard or a portion on my 10 acres of maple into a pile and then let the leaves ROT , or put them into the raised beds in my garden or put the leaves around plants for the winter . Now with huge TONS of leaves , sticks and other forest debris raked out of forests on a huge scale you would reduce them to chips and small organic material and put in piles ready to be SOLD to gardners eirther by the truck load or in Bags of various sizes Lesh .

 

[pismoe]

and in forests that i have been through in different areas the dead wood is seen to be collected by workers into piles and then burnt or loaded on trucks to be removed and then run through big CHIPPERs . And then piled and left to rot , or bagged or sold by the bag at Garden centers and large yards when huge piles of chipped debris can be stored Lesh

 

[Stormy Daniels]

If We Rake The Forest, What Do We Do With The Leaves?

Who cares!? It's shovel ready jobs! Toss them in the ocean, they're biodegradable!

 

[pismoe]

and the use of the word RAKED , well the debris can be raked , swept , collected , gathered or many other descriptive words for GATHERING the debris together as a first step before planned removal from forests Lesh .

 

[pismoe]

and where i am from , huge hardwood trees were cut down for the straight logs for making pallets . But the tops were left in the woods to rot or local people were told where the TOPS were and the huge TOPS were cut up and local people burned then in their wood stoves for heat and it was FREE . Sadly , nowadays these tops are quite often sold to someone to be sold as 'not free' firewood Lesh ,

 

[Lesh]

with out looking at the link the answer to your question is that you would MULCH the leaves . Thats what i do , rake the yard or a portion on my 10 acres of maple into a pile and then let the leaves ROT

"Without looking at the link"...

Next time educate yourself before you open your trap

You DON'T rake the leaves in a ******* forest stupid. You burn off or remove debris

And trying to remove debris manually for thousands of SQUARE MILES of forest is pretty labor intensive...not to mention that the machinery that would be needed...doesn't exist in sufficient numbers

Next time read the link

 

[pismoe]

no reason to get frantically mad Lesh . I just gave my experience plus when the TRUMP said RAKE he was just saying , get rid of the Debris Lesh .

 

[pismoe]

If We Rake The Forest, What Do We Do With The Leaves?

A. Most of California's forests are Federally managed...so that's coming from the Federal treasury

B. It's a near impossible task in terms of available machinery and manpower

---------------------------------------- see you question in RED that is just above , i answered you question Lesh .