Who is Leaving the Bay Area Due to Years of Wildfire Smoke? (Santa Rosa: homes, neighborhoods)

[Natnasci]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I was in the San Juan Islands that summer, as I am most every year ... don’t know how Vancouver got only “about 3 very smokey days” ... I was getting headaches on my boat within sight of Vancouver and Victoria for at least a week and a half ... I’d say possibly more than 2 weeks.

Smoke lasted more than 3 days yes, but there were only 3 VERY smokey days in Vancouver. Smokier than what we got his year.

[Tedster24]

Just dress for the weather.

[jhoffschein]

Here is an article in the NY Times on the dangers of drinking water for counties near burn areas. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/02/s...gtype=Homepage

[jhoffschein]

And here is a recent article in The Atlantic Monthly by a North Bay woman, about her family's
decision to move to Minnesota to escape the fires and smoke on the West Coast. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-coast/616493/

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by jhoffschein

And here is a recent article in The Atlantic Monthly by a North Bay woman, about her family's
decision to move to Minnesota to escape the fires and smoke on the West Coast. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-coast/616493/

Heh ... well, I sincerely hope you find Minnesota to your liking. There is beauty and opportunity there, as so with nearly every place on the planet, given an open mind and spirit.

Personally, I left Minnesota behind in the mid-1960s. I’ll stick with the fires and earthquakes of California / west coast - over the bugs and weather of the upper midwest. Do take especial care against Lyme disease from the ticks if you are an outdoorsman! ... and frostbite, of course. Both are avoidable with due care and discipline. Ice fishing is great, if you know how to keep warm

[apple92680]

Originally Posted by jhoffschein

And here is a recent article in The Atlantic Monthly by a North Bay woman, about her family's
decision to move to Minnesota to escape the fires and smoke on the West Coast. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-coast/616493/

You (conveniently) forgot to mention that she lives in Portland, Oregon, not the Bay Area.

I read the article in its entirety and, to be honest, it sounded very melodramatic. None of us like smoke or wildfires, obviously. People like her, however, who fancy themselves "the literati" and the elite, have played a huge role in forestry mismanagement in this state (I actually do have a "conservative side" and this is it), as well as in Oregon and Washington, by supporting policies that are adverse to proper forest management.

There was a documentary on PBS on the program "Tending Nature" about how Native Americans in pre-European California would let forest fires burn the tender on forest floors, thereby never allowing overgrowth. It was very effective in managing forest overgrowth. The new attitude is that we must dowse every single blaze because we overbuilt and sprawled out into places where fire is part of the natural cycle. Instead of identifying lack of forest management and sprawl as contributing issues, people like her go beserk and scream "climate change" and "I'm moving..." rather than be realistic.

While I do believe in climate change, I also believe that California has always been a state that is very unique in its climatology and topography. It's the only state in which an area can be saturated in fog and humidity and then another area 30 miles away can be dry and crisp.This is why special considerations have to be taken into account with how to manage California's wild areas, and that doesn't mean a "hands off, no controlled burn" policy.

Then, I read where the author is moving to Minnesota which, as I write this, is under a "Fire Danger Advisory" due to high winds, low humidity and dry brush. Will she get there and blame that on climate change too?

[ZeApelido]

Originally Posted by apple92680

You (conveniently) forgot to mention that she lives in Portland, Oregon, not the Bay Area.

I read the article in its entirety and, to be honest, it sounded very melodramatic. None of us like smoke or wildfires, obviously. People like her, however, who fancy themselves "the literati" and the elite, have played a huge role in forestry mismanagement in this state (I actually do have a "conservative side" and this is it), as well as in Oregon and Washington, by supporting policies that are adverse to proper forest management.

There was a documentary on PBS on the program "Tending Nature" about how Native Americans in pre-European California would let forest fires burn the tender on forest floors, thereby never allowing overgrowth. It was very effective in managing forest overgrowth. The new attitude is that we must dowse every single blaze because we overbuilt and sprawled out into places where fire is part of the natural cycle. Instead of identifying lack of forest management and sprawl as contributing issues, people like her go beserk and scream "climate change" and "I'm moving..." rather than be realistic.

While I do believe in climate change, I also believe that California has always been a state that is very unique in its climatology and topography. It's the only state in which an area can be saturated in fog and humidity and then another area 30 miles away can be dry and crisp.This is why special considerations have to be taken into account with how to manage California's wild areas, and that doesn't mean a "hands off, no controlled burn" policy.

Then, I read where the author is moving to Minnesota which, as I write this, is under a "Fire Danger Advisory" due to high winds, low humidity and dry brush. Will she get there and blame that on climate change too?

Have you looked at a fire history map over the last 20 years? Everything is getting toasted, and many parts toasted a 2nd time.

Is California supposed to burn every forest once per 10 years as a "preventative" measure?

[sav858]

Originally Posted by ZeApelido

Have you looked at a fire history map over the last 20 years? Everything is getting toasted, and many parts toasted a 2nd time.

Is California supposed to burn every forest once per 10 years as a "preventative" measure?

What areas have been burned twice? I was wondering about that because it seemed like the Glass Fire was torching the same area as the 2018 North Bay/Tubbs fire but there wasn’t actually that much overlap and was burning areas next to and in between previous ones.

[ZeApelido]

Originally Posted by sav858

What areas have been burned twice? I was wondering about that because it seemed like the Glass Fire was torching the same area as the 2018 North Bay/Tubbs fire but there wasn’t actually that much overlap and was burning areas next to and in between previous ones.

https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=38.7...ire%2Cmodis_vp

[sav858]

Originally Posted by ZeApelido

https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=38.7...ire%2Cmodis_vp

Interesting, I don't see a ton of overlap but definitely areas that have burned twice in the last 5-20 years. I would think maybe the rate of spread might be lower in those areas previously burned possibly.