They Know How To Prevent Megafires, Why Won’t Anybody Listen? (floors, move)

[Tulemutt]

A somewhat lengthy, in-depth investigation ... for those who like to consider information substantively:

https://www.propublica.org/article/t...anybody-listen

[CA4Now]

Very sobering article. Thanks for posting it.

[Tulemutt]

One of the things that really stuck out, for me, was the comparison of how many (millions) of acres of California forest that typically burned annually in pre-history times - compared to the relatively few acres allowed to burn now.

Wow.

[Bill the Butcher]

Did you found one more thing you and Trump agree on Mutt? Forest management. The other being immigration?

As a Central Valley resident I do think precautions need to be considered when it comes to air quality for prescribed burns. Obviously, huge fires like the ones we just had/have wreck the air in the valley for multiple weeks. So it is worth a shot to see if prescribed burns can be better for the valley air. Although with the amount they are saying should be burned annually hard to imagine that would be the case.

It would be nice if we could use more manual department of corrections inmate labor to remove the under brush and then burn it in biomass plants. If it's going to burn maybe we can at least get some energy out of it and burn it in a more controlled manner that would pollute less PM 2.5 with filters. Not sure if the energy equation would pencil out or not with the energy used to bring in diesel trucks to haul away the brush or not.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Bill the Butcher

Did you found one more thing you and Trump agree on Mutt? Forest management. The other being immigration?

As a Central Valley resident I do think precautions need to be considered when it comes to air quality for prescribed burns. Obviously, huge fires like the ones we just had/have wreck the air in the valley for multiple weeks. So it is worth a shot to see if prescribed burns can be better for the valley air. Although with the amount they are saying should be burned annually hard to imagine that would be the case.

It would be nice if we could use more manual department of corrections inmate labor to remove the under brush and then burn it in biomass plants. If it's going to burn maybe we can at least get some energy out of it and burn it in a more controlled manner that would pollute less PM 2.5 with filters. Not sure if the energy equation would pencil out or not with the energy used to bring in diesel trucks to haul away the brush or not.

Nah. I don’t agree with Chump on anything. Not immigration and not forest management either. His view on immigration is xenophobic ... I don’t care who people are: from what socio, economic, racial, religious et al backgrounds - I like all sorts of folks just fine ... I just don’t like so many all at once in close proximity to each other. California would be fine with maybe up to ¼ the population we have. I could even endure ½ current population without kvetching. And if they were mostly poor Mexicans I’d be completely fine with it.

As to forest management: lol at Chumpster’s “sweeping the forest floors” POV. He’s just a stupid, clueless dork. The amount of wildlands / forest acreage in California to “sweep” is beyond “sweepability”. Furthermore, as to California’s responsibility for management, um the majority by far of California forest is national, not state.

But your ponder about air pollution is a real concern. I have thought about that as well. How to balance the need for natural forest burning with the level and location of our populations is a real trick to figure.

[Mr5150]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

One of the things that really stuck out, for me, was the comparison of how many (millions) of acres of California forest that typically burned annually in pre-history times - compared to the relatively few acres allowed to burn now.

Wow.

120 years of fire suppression has caused overgrowth of forests and fuel build up. We have roughly 100x the number of trees per acre in some areas than in 1880.
Back in the day, we had fires pass through and do little more than clean out duff and small trees with little damage to the forests.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Nah. I don’t agree with Chump on anything. Not immigration and not forest management either. His view on immigration is xenophobic ... I don’t care who people are: from what socio, economic, racial, religious et al backgrounds - I like all sorts of folks just fine ... I just don’t like so many all at once in close proximity to each other. California would be fine with maybe up to ¼ the population we have. I could even endure ½ current population without kvetching. And if they were mostly poor Mexicans I’d be completely fine with it..

Open borders and low population density don't go together.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

Open borders and low population density don't go together.

Who said anything about open borders? And why is this forest management thread turning into an immigration thread?

Stop.

[wannabeNC]

Sounds like a choice between planned burning and unplanned burning - going to burn one way or another due to massive fuel load. Is there a 3rd alternative?

[Veritas Vincit]

Prescribed burns got a bad rap because they occasionally get out of control and turn into uncontrolled wildfires. Not going to be popular option among land owners if your property could get literally burned by the feds. The guys at the BLM can't control the wind, and wind is everything when it comes to fires.