Poor Management of Forests, Not Global Warming, To Blame for Widespread Wildfires

[LMP]

Well a well placed explosion would use up all the available oxygen in the area, snuffing the fire out.

If we blow up all the forest, there won't be any forest fires.

 

[jk7707]

Sounds great. So when is Trump going to increase the budget of the Forest Service/Bureau of Land Management/National Park Service 1000% to afford to do any of this? But in the end this is a stupid strategy. Outside of clear cutting entire forests (which is exactly what was going on up until around 1970) you're never going to be able to reduce the fuel load enough to prevent these types of fires when it doesn't rain for months at a time.

Prescribed burns and thinning help, but it is literally impossible to use those tactics over any significant portion of the public land out west. It is too labor and money intensive.

 

[AgonyandIrony]

Well a well placed explosion would use up all the available oxygen in the area, snuffing the fire out.

Im so high this sounds brilliant.

Also y'all conservative fuckers need to understand climate change is real considering how we are trying desperately to find a way to save our city from being Jazz Atlantis within fifty years.

 

[lifelessheap]

In California the game is rigged in favor of environmentalists. Public land can't be logged or thinned because anybody or any group is allowed to sue to stop it. So the environmentalists sue any and every time someone tries to log. So public forests can't be helped. They sue even when people just want to harvest dead and diseased trees. So dead trees rot, and the diseased trees spread their diseases and pests to healthy trees and things get worse. So more and more fuel accumulates and is the major contributing factor for creating these super fires.

Furthermore, the amount of carbon released in these fires is devastating. It is like adding hundreds of millions of car on the roads. It is a global warming factor. It is a major source of pollution and harmful chemicals. And worst of all it is such an amazing waste of our resources. Think of all the lumber and firewood that is lost. Insane. Think of the homes lost, and the lives lost and the communities that have been erased from Earth.

Private land is almost as bad. It is SO hard to harvest your own trees. You have to get permits, you have to 'hoot' your property (and pay for it) to make sure there are no owls. You can be shut down anytime or be denied a permit for almost any reason. They made it an incredible hassle to log your own property.

Hell, people who own land are terrified of protected owls. Do you know how many have been shot and buried because land owners don't want their property restricted because of an owl? The laws made the owls a target. lmao.

 

[Edgy Brah]

I always wondered about the people native to California and their pre-colonial hunting methods. In Australia all trees are evergreen due to the use of fire to hunt. Some trees need the fire to drop their seed.
With that the landscape changed so much that when white settlers stopped regular burning the fuel load in forests got so big that when a fire did start it would turn into a savage firestorm that would not only burn houses down but also catch people unawares and cause deaths.
Is that a problem in the US?

 

[Bald1]

In California the game is rigged in favor of environmentalists. Public land can't be logged or thinned because anybody or any group is allowed to sue to stop it. So the environmentalists sue any and every time someone tries to log. So public forests can't be helped. They sue even when people just want to harvest dead and diseased trees. So dead trees rot, and the diseased trees spread their diseases and pests to healthy trees and things get worse. So more and more fuel accumulates and is the major contributing factor for creating these super fires.

Furthermore, the amount of carbon released in these fires is devastating. It is like adding hundreds of millions of car on the roads. It is a global warming factor. It is a major source of pollution and harmful chemicals. And worst of all it is such an amazing waste of our resources. Think of all the lumber and firewood that is lost. Insane. Think of the homes lost, and the lives lost and the communities that have been erased from Earth.

Private land is almost as bad. It is SO hard to harvest your own trees. You have to get permits, you have to 'hoot' your property (and pay for it) to make sure there are no owls. You can be shut down anytime or be denied a permit for almost any reason. They made it an incredible hassle to log your own property.

Hell, people who own land are terrified of protected owls. Do you know how many have been shot and buried because land owners don't want their property restricted because of an owl? The laws made the owls a target. lmao.

Not allowing people to harvest standing dead is the dumbest idea I heard today. And I had a pretty interesting day. These people need a gold star or something.

 

[lifelessheap]

Not allowing people to harvest standing dead is the dumbest idea I heard today. And I had a pretty interesting day. These people need a gold star or something.

Remember, they are environmentalists! They are cult members against any, 'deforestation.' Even if it is dead or diseased trees.

And thus they ruin the our forests, and the environment.

 

[Bald1]

Remember, they are environmentalists! They are cult members against any, 'deforestation.' Even if it is dead or diseased trees.

And thus they ruin the our forests, and the environment.

Yes, we should never deforest our forests of easily ignited tinder. That attitude, and putting out smaller fires that regularly clear out other easily ignited old undergrowth is clearly good for the forests.

Won't somebody think of the forests!!

I'm actually a sane environmentalist, but going balls out against any human interaction or diefying nature to the point of staying away from it is not only impractical but counterproductive.

 

[lifelessheap]

Yes, we should never deforest our forests of easily ignited tinder. That attitude, and putting out smaller fires that regularly clear out other easily ignited old undergrowth is clearly good for the forests.

Won't somebody think of the forests!!

I'm actually a sane environmentalist, but going balls out against any human interaction or diefying nature to the point of staying away from it is not only impractical but counterproductive.

But you are logical and sensible, and the law in California allows any nutter a chance to sue and stop muh 'deforestation.'

 

[roofuststuntbum]

I have been hearing for a while now that wild fires are getting worse because we don't let them burn.

That a Forrest fire is nature's broom.

I got allot of friends who work in logging, and tree service. I think they know what they are talking about.

Respect.
I got quite a few friends that log.
People don't maintain their woodland property.
Selectively dropping old growth and letting new growth come up
Fires are a natural thing to rehabilitate woodlands.
People just overpopulate, then bitch about it when a fire happens.

 

[Bald1]

But you are logical and sensible, and the law in California allows any nutter a chance to sue and stop muh 'deforestation.'

Lol. I made it 30 seconds in then tapped out due to 2nd hand embarrassment. Some people just love to go overboard, sans dignity, with whatever their cause is. If a tree fell on those people, would anybody care?

 

[irish_thug]

Im so high this sounds brilliant.

Also y'all conservative fuckers need to understand climate change is real considering how we are trying desperately to find a way to save our city from being Jazz Atlantis within fifty years.

Nola has always been underwater, nothing new there.

 

[jk7707]

Respect.
I got quite a few friends that log.
People don't maintain their woodland property.
Selectively dropping old growth and letting new growth come up
Fires are a natural thing to rehabilitate woodlands.
People just overpopulate, then bitch about it when a fire happens.

THIS. The fires have gotten more frequent (thanks to people starting most of them) but even without us they would happen. It becomes national news when you have a bunch of houses burning down. But no one mentions that most of those houses weren't there ten years ago.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

How to stop massive fires:
Don't build in places that catch fire
Let the fires burn all the dry stuff instead of fighting it
Give it a few years

However that's not economical, just like letting the Netherlands or New Orleans go underwater.

 

[tonni]

It absolutely true that forests are poorly "managed". Actually, the management is the problem in itself. When companies and governments "plant" forests for reforestation, they often do so in rows and they remove the shrubberies. and bushes. This eliminates wind breaks, which makes it easier for fires to spread, not harder.

Thinning forests makes the forest vulnerable to fires.

edit: this comment is mostly referring to planted forests, where everything is in rows. Those are most of the forests in Europe which I am most accustomed with.

 

[AgonyandIrony]

Nola has always been underwater, nothing new there.

True. But we are looking at a very real preventable situation where NOLA might be underwater in fifty years.

This stupid argument about people afraid to eat crow about climate change is killing people and will continue to do so.

 

[lifelessheap]

It absolutely true that forests are poorly "managed". Actually, the management is the problem in itself. When companies and governments "plant" forests for reforestation, they often do so in rows and they remove the shrubberies. and bushes. This eliminates wind breaks, which makes it easier for fires to spread, not harder.

Thinning forests makes the forest vulnerable to fires.

So removing fuel for fires is a bad thing? I think you need your head checked.

You are an ignorant turd when it comes to forest fires in Ca.

 

[tonni]

So removing fuel for fires is a bad thing? I think you need your head checked.

You are an ignorant turd when it comes to forest fires in Ca.

Actually, no. In Southern Europe there is a dry, hot climate and this is of course the primary course for forest fires. Planting trees in rows, however, creates wind tunnels which fuel any possible fire.

Removing ladder fuels alone does not prevent forest fires.

Just use that big head of yours and think about this: where would a fire more easily spread? Where there is a windbreak, or where the wind can blow freely through tunnels?

There's no need to get rude because you disagree over something in any case.

 

[tonni]

I have been hearing for a while now that wild fires are getting worse because we don't let them burn.

That a Forrest fire is nature's broom.

I got allot of friends who work in logging, and tree service. I think they know what they are talking about.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...gement-helps-lay-the-conditions-for-wildfires

You could be very right.

 

[irish_thug]

True. But we are looking at a very real preventable situation where NOLA might be underwater in fifty years.

This stupid argument about people afraid to eat crow about climate change is killing people and will continue to do so.

The eating crow goes both ways though. Aren't the ice caps supposed to be honest by now?

For the record I'm not a climate change denier. I just question the delivery of, and honesty behind, the message sometimes.