[Genuine Realist]

This latest fiery disaster has led me to do at least some cursory investigation into why California is being plagued with these monumental fires, and is likely to continue to be so. Some say climate change, and others say bad forestry policy. However, the persons writing on both issues tend to be so politicized as to make their articles polemical and useless. Objectivity is scarce. Finally, I found a piece of analysis by the California Legislative Analyst's Office which seems to me quite a nice summary of where we are and how we got here. (Although the California legislature is quite partisan, the analyst's office is not, and the article is a no-nonsense summary of the last decades of policy.) I'll link it here, and then summarize it as best I can.

[/url]
Improving California's Forest and Watershed Management
This report consists of five sections. First, we review the importance of and benefits provided by California’s ...
[url=https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3798]


1. Horrible Forestry Policy. Back in in 2018, in the midst of a major conflagration, Trump in his wonderfully Trumpian way blamed the debacle on California forestry policy. The policy has been really bad, but it has been bad for nearly 90 years, long enough for plenty of damnation of both parties if that's your pleasure. But mostly it's a really beautiful lesson in the law of unintended consequences.

Since the 1930's, the principal object of both Federal and State Forestry services has been to attack fires as soon as possible, as a policy objective, trying to have them fully contained by 10:00 a.m. the morning after discovery. That of course is exactly what firefighters are supposed to do. However, environmental legislation in the early 70's (e.g., the Endangered Species Act of 1973) also severely restricted forest husbandry by both controlled burns and logging permits. (If you're keeping partisan score, these came out of the Nixon Administration and Reagan's governorship. Nixon was actually quite environmentally friendly, e.g., the EPA was created in his first term). 

This legislation obviously had worthy aims, but a collateral effect was to limit severely logging activity, even that that might have been useful to keeping forests healthy and safe. When you eliminate fires with effective fire prevention - the sort of fire that burned for weeks and months in pre-history - AND pests through various means AND you limit human activity, what happens is that the trees, like any other natural organism, proliferate. You might compare it to what happens to deer herds when sentimentalists give them too much protection. The population expands to the point where it endangers itself, and you end up with controlled hunts to reduce the herd to numbers at which it can survive.

The tree population has expanded in the same way. According to the linked report, a healthy forest should have between 40 t0 60 trees per acre. California forests have between 100 to 200 AND massive amounts of small shrubbery, dried leaves and branches, and, of course, a lot of dead trees from the drought and losing the battle for survival. They are tinderboxes just waiting for the right match. Despite the 10 fold increase in population since the 30's, California forests have 30% more trees now than they did 90 years ago. They are, plainly and simply, too damn dense. A couple of commentators have made the ironic point that the excessive amount of carbon dioxide the trees emit actually contributes to global warming. This has nothing to do with which party controls the legislature or who's President. It has taken nearly a century of pretending this wasn't a problem to get here, and it's going to take a long time to undo it.

The legislative report that I have linked is dispassionate - but it does indicate that expenditures of immense proportions are going to have to be made to give the people of California any safety from this.

One thing I am for is creating fire breaks - big ones, so that fires can not spread as quickly and easily as they do. That probably is environmentally unfriendly, but it cannot be worse for the forests than these fires.  And while we don't want forests logged out of existence, it is obvious that MORE logging would actually be good for the environment. It's a happy medium, Aristotle's golden mean. While we were worried about doing too much, we haven't done enough.

2. Climate Change. I'm not going to discuss the science and the endless (needless) controversy. But I will go anecdotal. On the night of the major lightning strike, Nina and I were awakened at about 2:00 by thunder as loud as the crack of doom. This was followed by a lightning show that went on for about an hour, and reoccurred well into the morning. In 67 years living in this county, I have never seen or heard anything like it, not even in rainy season. I have been through thunderstorms in New York and I remember one of great intensity when I was very small, in Park Forest - Midwestern, Great Lakes weather.  But events like that simply have not happened in my lifetime in California.

Climate change or unusual, aberrant weather? I don't know. All I can tell you is that you needed both elements to cause this mess - forests that have become firebombs due to neglect, and a weather event that sets them off.

These are just my thoughts after reading this very interesting (though rather dry) analysis. But I have linked it, so you can read it for yourself.

[Genuine Realist]

This latest fiery disaster has led me to do at least some cursory investigation into why California is being plagued with these monumental fires, and is likely to continue to be so. Some say climate change, and others say bad forestry policy. However, the persons writing on both issues tend to be so politicized as to make their articles polemical and useless. Objectivity is scarce. Finally, I found a piece of analysis by the California Legislative Analyst's Office which seems to me quite a nice summary of where we are and how we got here. (Although the California legislature is quite partisan, the analyst's office is not, and the article is a no-nonsense summary of the last decades of policy.) I'll link it here, and then summarize it as best I can.

[/url]
Improving California's Forest and Watershed Management
This report consists of five sections. First, we review the importance of and benefits provided by California’s ...
[url=https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3798]


1. Horrible Forestry Policy. Back in in 2018, in the midst of a major conflagration, Trump in his wonderfully Trumpian way blamed the debacle on California forestry policy. The policy has been really bad, but it has been bad for nearly 90 years, long enough for plenty of damnation of both parties if that's your pleasure. But mostly it's a really beautiful lesson in the law of unintended consequences.

Since the 1930's, the principal object of both Federal and State Forestry services has been to attack fires as soon as possible, as a policy objective, trying to have them fully contained by 10:00 a.m. the morning after discovery. That of course is exactly what firefighters are supposed to do. However, environmental legislation in the early 70's (e.g., the Endangered Species Act of 1973) also severely restricted forest husbandry by both controlled burns and logging permits. (If you're keeping partisan score, these came out of the Nixon Administration and Reagan's governorship. Nixon was actually quite environmentally friendly, e.g., the EPA was created in his first term). 

This legislation obviously had worthy aims, but a collateral effect was to limit severely logging activity, even that that might have been useful to keeping forests healthy and safe. When you eliminate fires with effective fire prevention - the sort of fire that burned for weeks and months in pre-history - AND pests through various means AND you limit human activity, what happens is that the trees, like any other natural organism, proliferate. You might compare it to what happens to deer herds when sentimentalists give them too much protection. The population expands to the point where it endangers itself, and you end up with controlled hunts to reduce the herd to numbers at which it can survive.

The tree population has expanded in the same way. According to the linked report, a healthy forest should have between 40 t0 60 trees per acre. California forests have between 100 to 200 AND massive amounts of small shrubbery, dried leaves and branches, and, of course, a lot of dead trees from the drought and losing the battle for survival. They are tinderboxes just waiting for the right match. Despite the 10 fold increase in population since the 30's, California forests have 30% more trees now than they did 90 years ago. They are, plainly and simply, too damn dense. A couple of commentators have made the ironic point that the excessive amount of carbon dioxide the trees emit actually contributes to global warming. This has nothing to do with which party controls the legislature or who's President. It has taken nearly a century of pretending this wasn't a problem to get here, and it's going to take a long time to undo it.

The legislative report that I have linked is dispassionate - but it does indicate that expenditures of immense proportions are going to have to be made to give the people of California any safety from this.

One thing I am for is creating fire breaks - big ones, so that fires can not spread as quickly and easily as they do. That probably is environmentally unfriendly, but it cannot be worse for the forests than these fires.  And while we don't want forests logged out of existence, it is obvious that MORE logging would actually be good for the environment. It's a happy medium, Aristotle's golden mean. While we were worried about doing too much, we haven't done enough.

2. Climate Change. I'm not going to discuss the science and the endless (needless) controversy. But I will go anecdotal. On the night of the major lightning strike, Nina and I were awakened at about 2:00 by thunder as loud as the crack of doom. This was followed by a lightning show that went on for about an hour, and reoccurred well into the morning. In 67 years living in this county, I have never seen or heard anything like it, not even in rainy season. I have been through thunderstorms in New York and I remember one of great intensity when I was very small, in Park Forest - Midwestern, Great Lakes weather.  But events like that simply have not happened in my lifetime in California.

Climate change or unusual, aberrant weather? I don't know. All I can tell you is that you needed both elements to cause this mess - forests that have become firebombs due to neglect, and a weather event that sets them off.

These are just my thoughts after reading this very interesting (though rather dry) analysis. But I have linked it, so you can read it for yourself.

[Goose]

A couple of commentators have made the ironic point that the excessive amount of carbon dioxide the trees emit actually contributes to global warming.

Trees EMIT carbon dioxide??????? I would like to see a link to that. AFAIK, trees absorb CO2 and emit O2. The opposite really would be a news flash.

[Goose]

A couple of commentators have made the ironic point that the excessive amount of carbon dioxide the trees emit actually contributes to global warming.

Trees EMIT carbon dioxide??????? I would like to see a link to that. AFAIK, trees absorb CO2 and emit O2. The opposite really would be a news flash.

[Mick]

A couple of commentators have made the ironic point that the excessive amount of carbon dioxide the trees emit actually contributes to global warming.

Trees EMIT carbon dioxide??????? I would like to see a link to that. AFAIK, trees absorb CO2 and emit O2. The opposite really would be a news flash.

Living trees take in CO2 and release O2.  The C(arbon) doesn't go away, it stays in the living tree.  When the tree dies, it releases carbon as it rots.

[Mick]

A couple of commentators have made the ironic point that the excessive amount of carbon dioxide the trees emit actually contributes to global warming.

Trees EMIT carbon dioxide??????? I would like to see a link to that. AFAIK, trees absorb CO2 and emit O2. The opposite really would be a news flash.

Living trees take in CO2 and release O2.  The C(arbon) doesn't go away, it stays in the living tree.  When the tree dies, it releases carbon as it rots.

[Maple Leaf]

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/24/899422710...-all-along

This is a good article on the benefits of wildfire.

I have a family member who has spent 40+ years working in the fields of Cultural Anthropology & Archeology most of that time in California and some in the Southwest.  They have said on many occasions that Native Americans full understood the benefits of fire, and when there was an absence of naturally occurring fires (lightening strikes) they introduced fire.

I attended a reunion of shorts with their colleagues and other related environmental disciplines, four individuals a archeologist, forester, fire ecologist and a paleontologist-geologist made presentations basically stating that for the last 200 years ending in the 1950's the south western U.S. had been in an extremely wet period based upon tree ring studies conducted throughout California, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico.  In California most of the studies had focused on the tree ring growth patterns of the Giant Sequoia's.   The paleontologist-geologist was of the opinion that the current climate change(s) we are experiencing are natural occurring events which are being made MORE extreme by the presence of global warming.

[Maple Leaf]

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/24/899422710...-all-along

This is a good article on the benefits of wildfire.

I have a family member who has spent 40+ years working in the fields of Cultural Anthropology & Archeology most of that time in California and some in the Southwest.  They have said on many occasions that Native Americans full understood the benefits of fire, and when there was an absence of naturally occurring fires (lightening strikes) they introduced fire.

I attended a reunion of shorts with their colleagues and other related environmental disciplines, four individuals a archeologist, forester, fire ecologist and a paleontologist-geologist made presentations basically stating that for the last 200 years ending in the 1950's the south western U.S. had been in an extremely wet period based upon tree ring studies conducted throughout California, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico.  In California most of the studies had focused on the tree ring growth patterns of the Giant Sequoia's.   The paleontologist-geologist was of the opinion that the current climate change(s) we are experiencing are natural occurring events which are being made MORE extreme by the presence of global warming.

[BostonCard]

GR, I agree with the assessment and will add one more, suburban sprawl.  Obviously, this doesn't cause the fires, but it does does magnify the impact of fires.  As the interface between people and the forrest increases, that puts more people at risk for the direct impact of the fires (the impact of smoke is another thing).  It also increases the risk of fires starting (more electrical equipment running through fires) and (this part is, I think theoretical) more pressure not to pursue some of the forrest management techniques like controlled burns; the last thing any forestry service needs would be property loss due to a deliberately set fire.

BC

[BostonCard]

GR, I agree with the assessment and will add one more, suburban sprawl.  Obviously, this doesn't cause the fires, but it does does magnify the impact of fires.  As the interface between people and the forrest increases, that puts more people at risk for the direct impact of the fires (the impact of smoke is another thing).  It also increases the risk of fires starting (more electrical equipment running through fires) and (this part is, I think theoretical) more pressure not to pursue some of the forrest management techniques like controlled burns; the last thing any forestry service needs would be property loss due to a deliberately set fire.

BC

[Goose]

A couple of commentators have made the ironic point that the excessive amount of carbon dioxide the trees emit actually contributes to global warming.

Trees EMIT carbon dioxide??????? I would like to see a link to that. AFAIK, trees absorb CO2 and emit O2. The opposite really would be a news flash.

Living trees take in CO2 and release O2.  The C(arbon) doesn't go away, it stays in the living tree.  When the tree dies, it releases carbon as it rots.

True, but as a tree rots it doesn't release all it's carbon as CO2. Much of that carbon ends up in other, heavier compounds that are not greenhouse gasses. The rotten tree doesn't just vaporize IOW.

[Goose]

A couple of commentators have made the ironic point that the excessive amount of carbon dioxide the trees emit actually contributes to global warming.

Trees EMIT carbon dioxide??????? I would like to see a link to that. AFAIK, trees absorb CO2 and emit O2. The opposite really would be a news flash.

Living trees take in CO2 and release O2.  The C(arbon) doesn't go away, it stays in the living tree.  When the tree dies, it releases carbon as it rots.

True, but as a tree rots it doesn't release all it's carbon as CO2. Much of that carbon ends up in other, heavier compounds that are not greenhouse gasses. The rotten tree doesn't just vaporize IOW.

[Genuine Realist]

GR, I agree with the assessment and will add one more, suburban sprawl.  Obviously, this doesn't cause the fires, but it does does magnify the impact of fires.  As the interface between people and the forrest increases, that puts more people at risk for the direct impact of the fires (the impact of smoke is another thing).  It also increases the risk of fires starting (more electrical equipment running through fires) and (this part is, I think theoretical) more pressure not to pursue some of the forrest management techniques like controlled burns; the last thing any forestry service needs would be property loss due to a deliberately set fire.

BC

There's no question that suburban sprawl is an issue, but the massive forest fires that have plagued Northern California in the past four years have all originated in heavily forested areas and have spread rapidly though the overdense forests there. Suburbs in deforested areas just don't have that much combustible fuel. I'm always struck by how few buildings are actually endangered in comparison with the massive acreage burnt.

I wrote in haste about the effect of forests on global warning. Sensible reforestation is one of the possible reactions to that trend. It is the emission of carbon in tree decay or massive fires - such as are occurring now - that is a contributing factor.

[Genuine Realist]

GR, I agree with the assessment and will add one more, suburban sprawl.  Obviously, this doesn't cause the fires, but it does does magnify the impact of fires.  As the interface between people and the forrest increases, that puts more people at risk for the direct impact of the fires (the impact of smoke is another thing).  It also increases the risk of fires starting (more electrical equipment running through fires) and (this part is, I think theoretical) more pressure not to pursue some of the forrest management techniques like controlled burns; the last thing any forestry service needs would be property loss due to a deliberately set fire.

BC

There's no question that suburban sprawl is an issue, but the massive forest fires that have plagued Northern California in the past four years have all originated in heavily forested areas and have spread rapidly though the overdense forests there. Suburbs in deforested areas just don't have that much combustible fuel. I'm always struck by how few buildings are actually endangered in comparison with the massive acreage burnt.

I wrote in haste about the effect of forests on global warning. Sensible reforestation is one of the possible reactions to that trend. It is the emission of carbon in tree decay or massive fires - such as are occurring now - that is a contributing factor.

[Goose]

and (this part is, I think theoretical) more pressure not to pursue some of the forrest management techniques like controlled burns; the last thing any forestry service needs would be property loss due to a deliberately set fire.

BC

Not at all theoretical. It has happened and lawsuits were the result. There have even been lawsuits when a "controlled" burn got away and damaged more forest than planned. Although this was not related to suburban sprawl, it shows that forest management is under much more scrutiny today than it was 50 years (or more) ago. The natural tendency is to therefore do less of it.

[Goose]

and (this part is, I think theoretical) more pressure not to pursue some of the forrest management techniques like controlled burns; the last thing any forestry service needs would be property loss due to a deliberately set fire.

BC

Not at all theoretical. It has happened and lawsuits were the result. There have even been lawsuits when a "controlled" burn got away and damaged more forest than planned. Although this was not related to suburban sprawl, it shows that forest management is under much more scrutiny today than it was 50 years (or more) ago. The natural tendency is to therefore do less of it.

[Goose]

The tree population has expanded in the same way. According to the linked report, a healthy forest should have between 40 t0 60 trees per acre. California forests have between 100 to 200 AND massive amounts of small shrubbery, dried leaves and branches, and, of course, a lot of dead trees from the drought and losing the battle for survival. They are tinderboxes just waiting for the right match. Despite the 10 fold increase in population since the 30's, California forests have 30% more trees now than they did 90 years ago. They are, plainly and simply, too damn dense.

Managing this situation is necessary, clearly, given what we have seen. Unfortunately there are lots of different points of view on how this should be accomplished, and getting agreement on what to actually do will not be easy. It will also cost some money. One interesting problem I am aware of is that there is opposition to dead tree removal because of fear of damage to the healthy forest while doing so. It should be possible to balance these concerns, but so far it hasn't be accomplished.

This has nothing to do with which party controls the legislature or who's President. It has taken nearly a century of pretending this wasn't a problem to get here, and it's going to take a long time to undo it.

Was it pretending it wasn't a problem or just disagreement about the seriousness of the problem and inability to agree on what needed to be done?

The legislative report that I have linked is dispassionate - but it does indicate that expenditures of immense proportions are going to have to be made to give the people of California any safety from this.



One thing I am for is creating fire breaks - big ones, so that fires can not spread as quickly and easily as they do. That probably is environmentally unfriendly, but it cannot be worse for the forests than these fires.  And while we don't want forests logged out of existence, it is obvious that MORE logging would actually be good for the environment. It's a happy medium, Aristotle's golden mean. While we were worried about doing too much, we haven't done enough.



2. Climate Change. I'm not going to discuss the science and the endless (needless) controversy. But I will go anecdotal. On the night of the major lightning strike, Nina and I were awakened at about 2:00 by thunder as loud as the crack of doom. This was followed by a lightning show that went on for about an hour, and reoccurred well into the morning. In 67 years living in this county, I have never seen or heard anything like it, not even in rainy season. I have been through thunderstorms in New York and I remember one of great intensity when I was very small, in Park Forest - Midwestern, Great Lakes weather.  But events like that simply have not happened in my lifetime in California.



Climate change or unusual, aberrant weather? I don't know. All I can tell you is that you needed both elements to cause this mess - forests that have become firebombs due to neglect, and a weather event that sets them off.



These are just my thoughts after reading this very interesting (though rather dry) analysis. But I have linked it, so you can read it for yourself.

Thanks for the link, and for the points you have made. I fear that forest management just isn't "sexy" enough to get the attention it deserves. I hope I am wrong.

[Goose]

The tree population has expanded in the same way. According to the linked report, a healthy forest should have between 40 t0 60 trees per acre. California forests have between 100 to 200 AND massive amounts of small shrubbery, dried leaves and branches, and, of course, a lot of dead trees from the drought and losing the battle for survival. They are tinderboxes just waiting for the right match. Despite the 10 fold increase in population since the 30's, California forests have 30% more trees now than they did 90 years ago. They are, plainly and simply, too damn dense.

Managing this situation is necessary, clearly, given what we have seen. Unfortunately there are lots of different points of view on how this should be accomplished, and getting agreement on what to actually do will not be easy. It will also cost some money. One interesting problem I am aware of is that there is opposition to dead tree removal because of fear of damage to the healthy forest while doing so. It should be possible to balance these concerns, but so far it hasn't be accomplished.

This has nothing to do with which party controls the legislature or who's President. It has taken nearly a century of pretending this wasn't a problem to get here, and it's going to take a long time to undo it.

Was it pretending it wasn't a problem or just disagreement about the seriousness of the problem and inability to agree on what needed to be done?

The legislative report that I have linked is dispassionate - but it does indicate that expenditures of immense proportions are going to have to be made to give the people of California any safety from this.



One thing I am for is creating fire breaks - big ones, so that fires can not spread as quickly and easily as they do. That probably is environmentally unfriendly, but it cannot be worse for the forests than these fires.  And while we don't want forests logged out of existence, it is obvious that MORE logging would actually be good for the environment. It's a happy medium, Aristotle's golden mean. While we were worried about doing too much, we haven't done enough.



2. Climate Change. I'm not going to discuss the science and the endless (needless) controversy. But I will go anecdotal. On the night of the major lightning strike, Nina and I were awakened at about 2:00 by thunder as loud as the crack of doom. This was followed by a lightning show that went on for about an hour, and reoccurred well into the morning. In 67 years living in this county, I have never seen or heard anything like it, not even in rainy season. I have been through thunderstorms in New York and I remember one of great intensity when I was very small, in Park Forest - Midwestern, Great Lakes weather.  But events like that simply have not happened in my lifetime in California.



Climate change or unusual, aberrant weather? I don't know. All I can tell you is that you needed both elements to cause this mess - forests that have become firebombs due to neglect, and a weather event that sets them off.



These are just my thoughts after reading this very interesting (though rather dry) analysis. But I have linked it, so you can read it for yourself.

Thanks for the link, and for the points you have made. I fear that forest management just isn't "sexy" enough to get the attention it deserves. I hope I am wrong.

[teejers1]

1.  Agree 100% re: the lightning/thunder show we saw last weekend was like nothing I've ever seen in 50+ years of living in CA (mostly in Bay Area).

2.  Since this is an OT thread, and because your post mentioned unchecked growth/density of trees, I'd like to add another unchecked growth . . . crows.  I mean, WTH is going on with these birds that are taking over the skies?  Just as we should have controlled burns when forest fires get too dense, we should have controlled extermination of a certain number of crows.

That's my story, and I'm sticking with it!

[teejers1]

1.  Agree 100% re: the lightning/thunder show we saw last weekend was like nothing I've ever seen in 50+ years of living in CA (mostly in Bay Area).

2.  Since this is an OT thread, and because your post mentioned unchecked growth/density of trees, I'd like to add another unchecked growth . . . crows.  I mean, WTH is going on with these birds that are taking over the skies?  Just as we should have controlled burns when forest fires get too dense, we should have controlled extermination of a certain number of crows.

That's my story, and I'm sticking with it!

[cctop]

I'd like to add another unchecked growth . . . crows.  I mean, WTH is going on with these birds that are taking over the skies?  Just as we should have controlled burns when forest fires get too dense, we should have controlled extermination of a certain number of crows.

I just listened to a KQED piece about crows...

Evidently back in the 1920's crows were considered pests and crow shoots were a thing.

Crows were mostly exterminated around here by the 1980's but since then the population has rebounded.

https://www.kqed.org/news/11800958/crows...kies-why-2
https://www.sfweekly.com/news/suckafreec...-bay-area/

[cctop]

I'd like to add another unchecked growth . . . crows.  I mean, WTH is going on with these birds that are taking over the skies?  Just as we should have controlled burns when forest fires get too dense, we should have controlled extermination of a certain number of crows.

I just listened to a KQED piece about crows...

Evidently back in the 1920's crows were considered pests and crow shoots were a thing.

Crows were mostly exterminated around here by the 1980's but since then the population has rebounded.

https://www.kqed.org/news/11800958/crows...kies-why-2
https://www.sfweekly.com/news/suckafreec...-bay-area/

[oldalum]

 we should have controlled extermination of a certain number of crows.

starting with the many who reside in my neighborhood!

[oldalum]

 we should have controlled extermination of a certain number of crows.

starting with the many who reside in my neighborhood!

[dabigv13]

Be careful pissing off crows. They will remember the faces of their tormentors and harass them, or tell their friends who will harass you, even without having seen you before.

My wife was attacked by some crows on a visit to Santa Barbara a couple years ago, must have had a lookalike who was unfriendly to them.

Conversely if you are kind to crows and bring them food, they may repay you by bringing shiny bits of trash in gratitude.

There was a study out of UW on crows where the researchers would wear a Nixon mask or similar, and then do stuff to the crows. Tricky Dick better be careful if he comes back in Futurama head form to avoid the crows of Seattle.

[dabigv13]

Be careful pissing off crows. They will remember the faces of their tormentors and harass them, or tell their friends who will harass you, even without having seen you before.

My wife was attacked by some crows on a visit to Santa Barbara a couple years ago, must have had a lookalike who was unfriendly to them.

Conversely if you are kind to crows and bring them food, they may repay you by bringing shiny bits of trash in gratitude.

There was a study out of UW on crows where the researchers would wear a Nixon mask or similar, and then do stuff to the crows. Tricky Dick better be careful if he comes back in Futurama head form to avoid the crows of Seattle.

[82 Card]

GR, I agree with the assessment and will add one more, suburban sprawl.  Obviously, this doesn't cause the fires, but it does does magnify the impact of fires.  As the interface between people and the forrest increases, that puts more people at risk for the direct impact of the fires (the impact of smoke is another thing).  It also increases the risk of fires starting (more electrical equipment running through fires) and (this part is, I think theoretical) more pressure not to pursue some of the forrest management techniques like controlled burns; the last thing any forestry service needs would be property loss due to a deliberately set fire.

BC

Where I live (just east of he Oakland hills), the hazard is from dense growth of trees where none existed before. My house is about 80 years old. Historic photographs of the area, including a couple on my street, show that there were very few trees in the area when my house was built. The brobdingnagian oak trees in my front yard were not there. Most of the trees that the city now won't let us cut are newer than the houses. Fortunately, most of the trees I have are oak and bay, which are not particularly explosive. However, many houses have rows of far more explosive trees like pine. Even with the oak and bay, it's a constant struggle to keep vegetation away from the house and the trees limbed up. We end up concentrating on different parts every year. Last year, we concentrated on clearing limbs over the house and limbing up in our little forest. This year we worked mostly on making sure that the road doesn't get blocked. It's probably all in vain. If a big fire comes through, the place will be toast. I'd like to think the Class A roof I put on and other work will help. But if a big fire storm comes through, it's over.

[82 Card]

GR, I agree with the assessment and will add one more, suburban sprawl.  Obviously, this doesn't cause the fires, but it does does magnify the impact of fires.  As the interface between people and the forrest increases, that puts more people at risk for the direct impact of the fires (the impact of smoke is another thing).  It also increases the risk of fires starting (more electrical equipment running through fires) and (this part is, I think theoretical) more pressure not to pursue some of the forrest management techniques like controlled burns; the last thing any forestry service needs would be property loss due to a deliberately set fire.

BC

Where I live (just east of he Oakland hills), the hazard is from dense growth of trees where none existed before. My house is about 80 years old. Historic photographs of the area, including a couple on my street, show that there were very few trees in the area when my house was built. The brobdingnagian oak trees in my front yard were not there. Most of the trees that the city now won't let us cut are newer than the houses. Fortunately, most of the trees I have are oak and bay, which are not particularly explosive. However, many houses have rows of far more explosive trees like pine. Even with the oak and bay, it's a constant struggle to keep vegetation away from the house and the trees limbed up. We end up concentrating on different parts every year. Last year, we concentrated on clearing limbs over the house and limbing up in our little forest. This year we worked mostly on making sure that the road doesn't get blocked. It's probably all in vain. If a big fire comes through, the place will be toast. I'd like to think the Class A roof I put on and other work will help. But if a big fire storm comes through, it's over.

[oregontim]

My thanks to GR for an interesting OT that clearly struck a nerve. And a useful discussion. And thanks also to Teejers for the addition of crows. What is it with all the crows? I’d hate to think it’s because so many other bird species have dwindled so much. It’s a creepy new world.

[oregontim]

My thanks to GR for an interesting OT that clearly struck a nerve. And a useful discussion. And thanks also to Teejers for the addition of crows. What is it with all the crows? I’d hate to think it’s because so many other bird species have dwindled so much. It’s a creepy new world.

[akiddoc]

My house burned to the ground in the 1991 Oakland Hills fire. The hills were full of bushes, pine and eucalyptus. These are the worst propagators of urban wild fires. Oak and redwood are slower to catch fire and not as explosive. They are preferred by the city of Oakland. 

We rebuilt on the same lot. We get inspected every spring to be sure we are in compliance with vegetation management. If you fail the first inspection you have to pay a $400+ fee for the second inspection. It ends up on your property tax bill if you resist paying. Getting permission to cut down large trees in the Oakland Hills seems to be pretty easy. Our neighbors just removed several.

[akiddoc]

My house burned to the ground in the 1991 Oakland Hills fire. The hills were full of bushes, pine and eucalyptus. These are the worst propagators of urban wild fires. Oak and redwood are slower to catch fire and not as explosive. They are preferred by the city of Oakland. 

We rebuilt on the same lot. We get inspected every spring to be sure we are in compliance with vegetation management. If you fail the first inspection you have to pay a $400+ fee for the second inspection. It ends up on your property tax bill if you resist paying. Getting permission to cut down large trees in the Oakland Hills seems to be pretty easy. Our neighbors just removed several.

[Genuine Realist]

My house burned to the ground in the 1991 Oakland Hills fire. The hills were full of bushes, pine and eucalyptus. These are the worst propagators of urban wild fires. Oak and redwood are slower to catch fire and not as explosive. They are preferred by the city of Oakland. 

We rebuilt on the same lot. We get inspected every spring to be sure we are in compliance with vegetation management. If you fail the first inspection you have to pay a $400+ fee for the second inspection. It ends up on your property tax bill if you resist paying. Getting permission to cut down large trees in the Oakland Hills seems to be pretty easy. Our neighbors just removed several.

That's a fairly easy fix in a suburban area, but California forests extend hundreds of miles into areas that are still uninhabited.

What I'd like to see is an end to demonization (fat chance). I'd like to see an end to politics that treat timber companies as if they were going to strip the forest bare. I'd like to see a sensible environmentalism, that does not regard every tree as a good tree (any more than every deer is Bambi.) We should be able to agree on what sensible density of a forest is, and strive for that.

Politicians such as Trump, who politicize and exaggerate a kernel of truth, are not helpful. Neither are the other kind, who damn every kind of corporatism. (One of the weird ironies is that students who are interested in environmental protection end up with perfect resumes for oil and mineral companies, as well as timber. There are a ton of environmentalists in management there, who are far more knowledgeable than the amateurs.) I'd like to see a lot less sloganizing and more trust in good faith.

[Genuine Realist]

My house burned to the ground in the 1991 Oakland Hills fire. The hills were full of bushes, pine and eucalyptus. These are the worst propagators of urban wild fires. Oak and redwood are slower to catch fire and not as explosive. They are preferred by the city of Oakland. 

We rebuilt on the same lot. We get inspected every spring to be sure we are in compliance with vegetation management. If you fail the first inspection you have to pay a $400+ fee for the second inspection. It ends up on your property tax bill if you resist paying. Getting permission to cut down large trees in the Oakland Hills seems to be pretty easy. Our neighbors just removed several.

That's a fairly easy fix in a suburban area, but California forests extend hundreds of miles into areas that are still uninhabited.

What I'd like to see is an end to demonization (fat chance). I'd like to see an end to politics that treat timber companies as if they were going to strip the forest bare. I'd like to see a sensible environmentalism, that does not regard every tree as a good tree (any more than every deer is Bambi.) We should be able to agree on what sensible density of a forest is, and strive for that.

Politicians such as Trump, who politicize and exaggerate a kernel of truth, are not helpful. Neither are the other kind, who damn every kind of corporatism. (One of the weird ironies is that students who are interested in environmental protection end up with perfect resumes for oil and mineral companies, as well as timber. There are a ton of environmentalists in management there, who are far more knowledgeable than the amateurs.) I'd like to see a lot less sloganizing and more trust in good faith.

[Mick]

Getting permission to cut down large trees in the Oakland Hills seems to be pretty easy. Our neighbors just removed several.

It was a number of years ago, but I had a friend who was a residential developer in the East Bay.  When they received a permit to cut down a tree in a residential neighborhood, they used to have the logger on-site at the moment the permit was granted and they would notify that person via phone to cut down the tree, otherwise some well-meaning person would file an injunction to prevent the logging.  Seems like it's easier now...

---

What I'd like to see is an end to demonization (fat chance). I'd like to see an end to politics that treat timber companies as if they were going to strip the forest bare. I'd like to see a sensible environmentalism, that does not regard every tree as a good tree (any more than every deer is Bambi.) We should be able to agree on what sensible density of a forest is, and strive for that.

Brother, I'd like to get some of whatever it is you're smoking or drinking...

[Mick]

Getting permission to cut down large trees in the Oakland Hills seems to be pretty easy. Our neighbors just removed several.

It was a number of years ago, but I had a friend who was a residential developer in the East Bay.  When they received a permit to cut down a tree in a residential neighborhood, they used to have the logger on-site at the moment the permit was granted and they would notify that person via phone to cut down the tree, otherwise some well-meaning person would file an injunction to prevent the logging.  Seems like it's easier now...

---

What I'd like to see is an end to demonization (fat chance). I'd like to see an end to politics that treat timber companies as if they were going to strip the forest bare. I'd like to see a sensible environmentalism, that does not regard every tree as a good tree (any more than every deer is Bambi.) We should be able to agree on what sensible density of a forest is, and strive for that.

Brother, I'd like to get some of whatever it is you're smoking or drinking...

[Genuine Realist]

Getting permission to cut down large trees in the Oakland Hills seems to be pretty easy. Our neighbors just removed several.

It was a number of years ago, but I had a friend who was a residential developer in the East Bay.  When they received a permit to cut down a tree in a residential neighborhood, they used to have the logger on-site at the moment the permit was granted and they would notify that person via phone to cut down the tree, otherwise some well-meaning person would file an injunction to prevent the logging.  Seems like it's easier now...

---

What I'd like to see is an end to demonization (fat chance). I'd like to see an end to politics that treat timber companies as if they were going to strip the forest bare. I'd like to see a sensible environmentalism, that does not regard every tree as a good tree (any more than every deer is Bambi.) We should be able to agree on what sensible density of a forest is, and strive for that.

Brother, I'd like to get some of whatever it is you're smoking or drinking...

What I'm smoking is wood ash right at the moment. Monstrous fires are a wonderful educational tool.

[Genuine Realist]

Getting permission to cut down large trees in the Oakland Hills seems to be pretty easy. Our neighbors just removed several.

It was a number of years ago, but I had a friend who was a residential developer in the East Bay.  When they received a permit to cut down a tree in a residential neighborhood, they used to have the logger on-site at the moment the permit was granted and they would notify that person via phone to cut down the tree, otherwise some well-meaning person would file an injunction to prevent the logging.  Seems like it's easier now...

---

What I'd like to see is an end to demonization (fat chance). I'd like to see an end to politics that treat timber companies as if they were going to strip the forest bare. I'd like to see a sensible environmentalism, that does not regard every tree as a good tree (any more than every deer is Bambi.) We should be able to agree on what sensible density of a forest is, and strive for that.

Brother, I'd like to get some of whatever it is you're smoking or drinking...

What I'm smoking is wood ash right at the moment. Monstrous fires are a wonderful educational tool.

[Goose]

What I'm smoking is wood ash right at the moment. Monstrous fires are a wonderful educational tool.

Strange, me too, and not by choice.

One thing that really bothers me is that when you look at an arial photo of the Sierras you see large patches of dead trees. Those trees are doing nobody any good, and if they catch fire, they will do lots of harm. Yet as I understand it, the Sierra Club always opposes removing those trees because they fear the damage logging roads through healthy parts of the forest will cause. It seems that all the stakeholders, the BLM, the loggers, and the Sierra Club should be able to get together on this and come up with a solution that is acceptable to everyone, at worst the "lesser of may evils". Yet it doesn't happen and we get massive fires. Who wins then?

[Goose]

What I'm smoking is wood ash right at the moment. Monstrous fires are a wonderful educational tool.

Strange, me too, and not by choice.

One thing that really bothers me is that when you look at an arial photo of the Sierras you see large patches of dead trees. Those trees are doing nobody any good, and if they catch fire, they will do lots of harm. Yet as I understand it, the Sierra Club always opposes removing those trees because they fear the damage logging roads through healthy parts of the forest will cause. It seems that all the stakeholders, the BLM, the loggers, and the Sierra Club should be able to get together on this and come up with a solution that is acceptable to everyone, at worst the "lesser of may evils". Yet it doesn't happen and we get massive fires. Who wins then?