Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57
Yeah, I'd be interested to know your thoughts. You're blaming Democrats for fires in states where they have never had much or any control - e.g.: Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Idaho, have all had multiple 100 year fires in the last 20 years. California, Oregon, and Washington only became Democratic states in the 1990s-early 00s. Colorado and New Mexico circa the late 00s.
Republicans have been in control of the federal government for the majority of the time since 1980. Out of the last 40 years they've held the presidency for 24 of them, and both houses of congress for 20. Democrats only held both houses of congress for 17, 12 of which, the liberal wing was not in control (if it ever was at all). You claim environmental liberals have an awful lot of informal power when they are out of power. You'd think they'd be able to use that power more effectively than to cause fires.
So sure, I would like to hear who is to blame for increased intensity of wildfires around the world if not climate change, especially in a conservative authoritarian country like Russia where they put their left wing leaders in jail or poison them. Or Australia where their major left wing party has only been in power 6 years out of the last 27.
|
Your premise that we have increased intensity of wildfires around the world is incorrect. We have a INCREASED INTENSITY of
reporting of wildfires in the media.
Prior to 1990 there was little reporting about wildfires in Russia simply because the Soviet Union would not allow me. My travels in Siberia and talking to Russian foresters reveal that this is NOT a recent problem.
The environmental community has been very effective in Federal forest management policy issues. NO, they did NOT intend to burn down the Federal public lands in the west. Their lack of science background, coupled with an aversion to forest management led to policies that BURNED DOWN THE FEDERAL LANDS.
Nope, experts do agree and they have been in agreement for my entire 50 year professional forestry career.
In 1970 as 20 year old forestry student I went out with a fire ecology professor and we burned private property in Mendocino County. The landowner purchased his property a decade or two earlier and turned to the University to reduce the fire hazard on his property. The professor was using the students as a free fire crew, but it was amazing the difference a controlled burning program made in fire reduction.
Other research was going on about the fire ecology of Giant Sequoia's in the Sierra Nevada's and the increase in bio-mass particularly in Yosemite National Park, but including the other Sierra National Parks.
This has NOT been a surprise!!!
Anyway...here are the top three reasons.
Number 1. Increase in bio-mass in forested and shrub-steppe ecosystems. Our Forest Entomologist stated that we have "a epidemic of trees on the National Forests". We actually have a "epidemic of trees" throughout the west including private lands, park and tribal lands.
It takes fuel to create a rolling wild land fire. Way back in 1994, I calculated the bio-mass growing on ONE National Forest. The annual growth in bio-mass was 5% of the annual wood consumption in the United States....and that time there were 126 National Forests, that didn't count the trees growing on private or other lands!!!
The increase in shrub-steppe bio-mass is just as great, if not greater.
The shutdown of timber harvest on National Forest lands left many communities exposed to wildfires starting on public land and burning into communities.
Number 2. Increase of homes in the wild land interface. When I first moved to Wenatchee, we had fires, but they edge of town was ringed by orchards. Fires burned to the first row of orchards and them stopped.
As a realtor said during the Growth Management wars in the 90's "we need to provide housing for the poor people from Seattle that cannot find housing in Wenatchee". So we took out the orchards and replaced them with second homes and MegaMansions of the "poor" Seattle residents.
Throughout the west, this was the story. It is amazing the spread of homes into wild land areas since I started my career. OVER the ENTIRE West, everywhere!!
This complicates the fire fighting. I was there, when the fire-fighting agencies said they would fight the fire rather than protect homes. That lasted, for about two years until the politicians said "protect the homes at all costs".
So the fires got bigger and more expensive. And much more difficult to stop and control.
Number 3. Senator Cantwell. There is the ONE politician that has more responsibility for this mess than any other. She, herself, is responsible for much of the current mess.
The Forest Service, BLM and other Federal land management agencies worked really hard on strategy to protect adjacent communities by cutting trees and then doing the control burns to significantly reduce the fire hazard to towns.
It works, but Senator Cantwell stopped it.
Way back at the turn of the century George Bush proposed the Healthy Forests Initiative taking the science developed by Foresters and converting it to a program to protect towns close to public lands. Senator Cantwell single handed, killed it. She didn't like cutting trees, nor the smoke that the controlled burns produced. I guess she prefers the smell of smoke during the entire summer, rather than short periods in the spring and fall.
But she wasn't done yet. In 2002, she passed Legislation stripping protection and defense by the Department of Justice for Federal employees involved in fire fighting. AND she after went four well respected members of the Forest Service and had them sued personally for operating "outside the scope of their duties".
Well, that had a effect. In 2003, fire acreage burned sky rocketed as Federal employees backed off aggressive firefighting. Worse yet, many just quit and left firefighting not willing to expose their personal family net worth to a judge and a lawyer working on percentage. It is NOT worth going through the court case, let alone the consideration that you might lose.
For most Federal firefighters fire duties are NOT PRIMARY. You can turn down a fire assignment, you don't even have to train as a Forest Service employee to fight fire unless that is specifically YOUR JOB. And because of liability issues, many kept their Federal jobs, just quit taking fire assignments.
So much so that the Governor of Oregon just a couple of months ago stated that Federal firefighters were becoming fewer and fewer over the years and implied they were sheirking their responsibilities.
Yep, she should talk to Senator Cantwell if she wants to fix that problem.
Those are the big three issues why size of wild land fires how grown so much in the past 30 years. It is even more shocking from the inside of the business!!! My first "large" project fire was 300 acres in 1970. I have lost count of how many 100,000 acre plus fires I have been involved with since 1990 and I took very few fire assignments outside Washington state.
Climate change might be an issue. If you look at the historical climate of the west the last 100 years have been MUCH WETTER than historical. That contributed to the "epidemic of trees". As we move back to a more "normal" and drier climate the problem will be much greater in future years until we finally manage to burn the forests...twice.
Read this book if your at all interested in the historical climate of the West.....and BTW the "natural" climate change has been more rapid historical than the climate change issues predicted due to "man-caused" climate change.
If it makes you feel any better, the author and me both agree that there is a "man-caused" climate change component to climate change.
In my case, "natural climate" change swamps the entire contribution of man-caused climate change and we need to focus on how we want to deal with "natural climate" change. THAT IS WHERE THE PROBLEM EXISTS, and we are doing nothing to cope with that component.
I don't know if the author agrees with me. BUT read her book. Hey, she taught at UC Berkeley, a very good University with extremely smart graduates and professors.
Read it. It is somewhat "slow" if you don't have a science background. Totally, engrossing for those with a science background. Lots of great footnotes!!
https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520...-without-water
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
