[Mick]

Apparently we've had Governor Newsom all wrong.  He's a genius when it comes to crises:

https://news.yahoo.com/newsom-proves-hes...50084.html

[Mick]

Apparently we've had Governor Newsom all wrong.  He's a genius when it comes to crises:

https://news.yahoo.com/newsom-proves-hes...50084.html

[Genuine Realist]

Apparently we've had Governor Newsom all wrong.  He's a genius when it comes to crises:

https://news.yahoo.com/newsom-proves-hes...50084.html

When I wrote the first post on this topic, I wasn't pushing for any particular remedy, simply making the prosaic point that when you eliminate every natural constraint on a species (in this case, fire, insect infestation, and human industry), the species will run wild. And that is exactly what has happened.

Controlled burns have to happen. Also, increased logging and timber activity. 

Someone (maybe Goose) cautiously said that might be OK, with a BLM official on site, and regulatory constraints. With all due respect, that sort of regulatory framework exists right now. No one is simply going to lease a tract to a timber company, and let 'er rip. They have to file EIR's logging plans, etc., etc.  What you do have to do is make the regulatory process simple and straightforward, and prevent a hold up by any officious person who can afford a lawyer.

Someone else remembered pictures of decimated forests after timber companies got through with them. I'd lay odds that's propaganda. The photos are almost certainly of (a) 19th Century logging, when things were a lot different; or (b) domestic stands, with trees raised for the purpose of harvesting, and then logged. In the latter case, the reduced field should be no more surprising than the stubble in a wheat field after reaping.

[Genuine Realist]

Apparently we've had Governor Newsom all wrong.  He's a genius when it comes to crises:

https://news.yahoo.com/newsom-proves-hes...50084.html

When I wrote the first post on this topic, I wasn't pushing for any particular remedy, simply making the prosaic point that when you eliminate every natural constraint on a species (in this case, fire, insect infestation, and human industry), the species will run wild. And that is exactly what has happened.

Controlled burns have to happen. Also, increased logging and timber activity. 

Someone (maybe Goose) cautiously said that might be OK, with a BLM official on site, and regulatory constraints. With all due respect, that sort of regulatory framework exists right now. No one is simply going to lease a tract to a timber company, and let 'er rip. They have to file EIR's logging plans, etc., etc.  What you do have to do is make the regulatory process simple and straightforward, and prevent a hold up by any officious person who can afford a lawyer.

Someone else remembered pictures of decimated forests after timber companies got through with them. I'd lay odds that's propaganda. The photos are almost certainly of (a) 19th Century logging, when things were a lot different; or (b) domestic stands, with trees raised for the purpose of harvesting, and then logged. In the latter case, the reduced field should be no more surprising than the stubble in a wheat field after reaping.

[terry]

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.

Yes, crows are everywhere in my neighborhood too. Fortunately, the crows mostly stay out of our yard. Maybe we chased them away often enough that they got the message. Our yard gets a lot of hummingbirds, goldfinches, mourning doves, towhees, dark eyed juncos, mockingbirds, sparrows, purple finches, robins, blue jays, and the occasional hooded oriole.

The fastest growing population in our neighborhood is rabbits. Ten years ago we didn't see rabbits at all. Now we see them almost every day on our daily walks. They like to live in thick bushes, especially juniper hedges, next to grass lawns. There are more of them all the time. I'm beginning to understand why Farmer MacGregor kept chasing Peter Rabbit out of the garden.

[terry]

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.

Yes, crows are everywhere in my neighborhood too. Fortunately, the crows mostly stay out of our yard. Maybe we chased them away often enough that they got the message. Our yard gets a lot of hummingbirds, goldfinches, mourning doves, towhees, dark eyed juncos, mockingbirds, sparrows, purple finches, robins, blue jays, and the occasional hooded oriole.

The fastest growing population in our neighborhood is rabbits. Ten years ago we didn't see rabbits at all. Now we see them almost every day on our daily walks. They like to live in thick bushes, especially juniper hedges, next to grass lawns. There are more of them all the time. I'm beginning to understand why Farmer MacGregor kept chasing Peter Rabbit out of the garden.

[Goose]

The fastest growing population in our neighborhood is rabbits. Ten years ago we didn't see rabbits at all. Now we see them almost every day on our daily walks. They like to live in thick bushes, especially juniper hedges, next to grass lawns. There are more of them all the time. I'm beginning to understand why Farmer MacGregor kept chasing Peter Rabbit out of the garden.

Right now in out tomato plants, the score is us 60%, rabbits 40%. The good news is that the later tomatos are too high on the plant for the rabbits to reach. So far, they haven't pulled down any plants. They also don't eat green tomatos, unlike rats, who don't eat them either but insist on trying.

[Goose]

The fastest growing population in our neighborhood is rabbits. Ten years ago we didn't see rabbits at all. Now we see them almost every day on our daily walks. They like to live in thick bushes, especially juniper hedges, next to grass lawns. There are more of them all the time. I'm beginning to understand why Farmer MacGregor kept chasing Peter Rabbit out of the garden.

Right now in out tomato plants, the score is us 60%, rabbits 40%. The good news is that the later tomatos are too high on the plant for the rabbits to reach. So far, they haven't pulled down any plants. They also don't eat green tomatos, unlike rats, who don't eat them either but insist on trying.

[Mick]

The fastest growing population in our neighborhood is rabbits. Ten years ago we didn't see rabbits at all. Now we see them almost every day on our daily walks. They like to live in thick bushes, especially juniper hedges, next to grass lawns. There are more of them all the time. I'm beginning to understand why Farmer MacGregor kept chasing Peter Rabbit out of the garden.

Right now in out tomato plants, the score is us 60%, rabbits 40%. The good news is that the later tomatos are too high on the plant for the rabbits to reach. So far, they haven't pulled down any plants. They also don't eat green tomatos, unlike rats, who don't eat them either but insist on trying.

You want to get rid of rabbits and rats, feed them grocery store tomatoes.  No one wants to eat those flavorless things.

[Mick]

The fastest growing population in our neighborhood is rabbits. Ten years ago we didn't see rabbits at all. Now we see them almost every day on our daily walks. They like to live in thick bushes, especially juniper hedges, next to grass lawns. There are more of them all the time. I'm beginning to understand why Farmer MacGregor kept chasing Peter Rabbit out of the garden.

Right now in out tomato plants, the score is us 60%, rabbits 40%. The good news is that the later tomatos are too high on the plant for the rabbits to reach. So far, they haven't pulled down any plants. They also don't eat green tomatos, unlike rats, who don't eat them either but insist on trying.

You want to get rid of rabbits and rats, feed them grocery store tomatoes.  No one wants to eat those flavorless things.

[BostonCard]

Back to the original OT topic, I thought this was a good piece by Pro-Publica, generally a fairly left wing platform, but in this case echoing a lot of what GR has stated:

https://www.propublica.org/article/they-...ody-listen

Academics believe that between 4.4 million and 11.8 million acres burned each year in prehistoric California. Between 1982 and 1998, California’s agency land managers burned, on average, about 30,000 acres a year. Between 1999 and 2017, that number dropped to an annual 13,000 acres...We live with a deathly backlog. In February 2020, Nature Sustainability published this terrifying conclusion: California would need to burn 20 million acres — an area about the size of Maine — to restabilize in terms of fire.

BC

[BostonCard]

Back to the original OT topic, I thought this was a good piece by Pro-Publica, generally a fairly left wing platform, but in this case echoing a lot of what GR has stated:

https://www.propublica.org/article/they-...ody-listen

Academics believe that between 4.4 million and 11.8 million acres burned each year in prehistoric California. Between 1982 and 1998, California’s agency land managers burned, on average, about 30,000 acres a year. Between 1999 and 2017, that number dropped to an annual 13,000 acres...We live with a deathly backlog. In February 2020, Nature Sustainability published this terrifying conclusion: California would need to burn 20 million acres — an area about the size of Maine — to restabilize in terms of fire.

BC

[82lsju]

"The Big Burn" by Timothy Egan is a good read on the 1910 3.2m acre fire in WA, ID, and MT that shaped the use of national forests and fire fighting in them

[82lsju]

"The Big Burn" by Timothy Egan is a good read on the 1910 3.2m acre fire in WA, ID, and MT that shaped the use of national forests and fire fighting in them

[fullmetal]

Back to the original OT topic, I thought this was a good piece by Pro-Publica, generally a fairly left wing platform, but in this case echoing a lot of what GR has stated:

https://www.propublica.org/article/they-...ody-listen

Academics believe that between 4.4 million and 11.8 million acres burned each year in prehistoric California. Between 1982 and 1998, California’s agency land managers burned, on average, about 30,000 acres a year. Between 1999 and 2017, that number dropped to an annual 13,000 acres...We live with a deathly backlog. In February 2020, Nature Sustainability published this terrifying conclusion: California would need to burn 20 million acres — an area about the size of Maine — to restabilize in terms of fire.

The ProPublica piece draws its main theses from the same article I posted earlier
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0451-7

[fullmetal]

Back to the original OT topic, I thought this was a good piece by Pro-Publica, generally a fairly left wing platform, but in this case echoing a lot of what GR has stated:

https://www.propublica.org/article/they-...ody-listen

Academics believe that between 4.4 million and 11.8 million acres burned each year in prehistoric California. Between 1982 and 1998, California’s agency land managers burned, on average, about 30,000 acres a year. Between 1999 and 2017, that number dropped to an annual 13,000 acres...We live with a deathly backlog. In February 2020, Nature Sustainability published this terrifying conclusion: California would need to burn 20 million acres — an area about the size of Maine — to restabilize in terms of fire.

The ProPublica piece draws its main theses from the same article I posted earlier
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0451-7

[oregontim]

Someone else remembered pictures of decimated forests after timber companies got through with them. I'd lay odds that's propaganda. The photos are almost certainly of (a) 19th Century logging, when things were a lot different; or (b) domestic stands, with trees raised for the purpose of harvesting, and then logged. In the latter case, the reduced field should be no more surprising than the stubble in a wheat field after reaping.

No, you can’t just wave a hand and dismiss it as “propaganda.” Just take a trip up to Oregon and you’ll see the results of clearcutting — including 21st century clearcutting — all over the hills. From where I live in Eugene, the hills east and west of us are marred by clearcuts like bad haircuts. It’s a lot better than it used to be, but it still happens. And it’s ugly, jarring, and bad for everybody except the landowners whose private property forest lands are worth millions. Lots of erosion to begin with, not to mention the forest ecosystem vs. the left-over remnants.

Clearcutting is the dominant form of logging on private industrial timber lands and state forest land in Oregon. Extensive clearcutting has occurred across hundreds of thousands of acres of privately-owned timber lands for the past century, and continues today.   This has some devastating impacts on our forested ecosystems - converting healthy, functioning, and diverse forests into monoculture tree plantations. 

Clearcutting was also extensive on federal public lands in the 1960s-1980s. Today, most logging on federal public land in Oregon has been focused on thinning or selective harvest and not clearcutting in the past 15 years.

The above is from www.clearcutoregon.com, which is yes, an organization with an agenda; but they approach the issue starting with facts.

Washington, north of us, is much the same, lots of ugly clear cuts scarring the hills.

[oregontim]

Someone else remembered pictures of decimated forests after timber companies got through with them. I'd lay odds that's propaganda. The photos are almost certainly of (a) 19th Century logging, when things were a lot different; or (b) domestic stands, with trees raised for the purpose of harvesting, and then logged. In the latter case, the reduced field should be no more surprising than the stubble in a wheat field after reaping.

No, you can’t just wave a hand and dismiss it as “propaganda.” Just take a trip up to Oregon and you’ll see the results of clearcutting — including 21st century clearcutting — all over the hills. From where I live in Eugene, the hills east and west of us are marred by clearcuts like bad haircuts. It’s a lot better than it used to be, but it still happens. And it’s ugly, jarring, and bad for everybody except the landowners whose private property forest lands are worth millions. Lots of erosion to begin with, not to mention the forest ecosystem vs. the left-over remnants.

Clearcutting is the dominant form of logging on private industrial timber lands and state forest land in Oregon. Extensive clearcutting has occurred across hundreds of thousands of acres of privately-owned timber lands for the past century, and continues today.   This has some devastating impacts on our forested ecosystems - converting healthy, functioning, and diverse forests into monoculture tree plantations. 

Clearcutting was also extensive on federal public lands in the 1960s-1980s. Today, most logging on federal public land in Oregon has been focused on thinning or selective harvest and not clearcutting in the past 15 years.

The above is from www.clearcutoregon.com, which is yes, an organization with an agenda; but they approach the issue starting with facts.

Washington, north of us, is much the same, lots of ugly clear cuts scarring the hills.

[Goose]

No, you can’t just wave a hand and dismiss it as “propaganda.” Just take a trip up to Oregon and you’ll see the results of clearcutting — including 21st century clearcutting — all over the hills. From where I live in Eugene, the hills east and west of us are marred by clearcuts like bad haircuts. It’s a lot better than it used to be, but it still happens. And it’s ugly, jarring, and bad for everybody except the landowners whose private property forest lands are worth millions. Lots of erosion to begin with, not to mention the forest ecosystem vs. the left-over remnants.

Clearcutting is the dominant form of logging on private industrial timber lands and state forest land in Oregon. Extensive clearcutting has occurred across hundreds of thousands of acres of privately-owned timber lands for the past century, and continues today.   This has some devastating impacts on our forested ecosystems - converting healthy, functioning, and diverse forests into monoculture tree plantations. 



Clearcutting was also extensive on federal public lands in the 1960s-1980s. Today, most logging on federal public land in Oregon has been focused on thinning or selective harvest and not clearcutting in the past 15 years.

The above is from www.clearcutoregon.com, which is yes, an organization with an agenda; but they approach the issue starting with facts.



Washington, north of us, is much the same, lots of ugly clear cuts scarring the hills.

Clearcutting is popular on private lands because it maximizes the return to the owner and to the logging company. However, I would expect that on private land replanting generally follows immediately in order to restart the cycle. A very similar situation exists in Scotland. You will see acres of mature trees adjacent to acres of small trees adjacent to acres of seedling trees. It isn't "virgin" forest, but the deer don't care. It is somewhat a monoculture, because tree types are chosen that grow well, grow quickly, and are in high demand. Sometimes the high demand requirement overrides the grow quickly requirement. This results in diverse blocks at least. Also, different companies make different bets about what trees will be in demand years down the road. The soil in Scotland is often so thin that any erosion would be disastrous. The owners are very careful to avoid that. This type of "tree farming" is also regulated to prevent gross mismanagement. I am not sure this is a bad way to manage a large part of the forest that is on public land as well. At least this way it stays a forest.

[Goose]

No, you can’t just wave a hand and dismiss it as “propaganda.” Just take a trip up to Oregon and you’ll see the results of clearcutting — including 21st century clearcutting — all over the hills. From where I live in Eugene, the hills east and west of us are marred by clearcuts like bad haircuts. It’s a lot better than it used to be, but it still happens. And it’s ugly, jarring, and bad for everybody except the landowners whose private property forest lands are worth millions. Lots of erosion to begin with, not to mention the forest ecosystem vs. the left-over remnants.

Clearcutting is the dominant form of logging on private industrial timber lands and state forest land in Oregon. Extensive clearcutting has occurred across hundreds of thousands of acres of privately-owned timber lands for the past century, and continues today.   This has some devastating impacts on our forested ecosystems - converting healthy, functioning, and diverse forests into monoculture tree plantations. 



Clearcutting was also extensive on federal public lands in the 1960s-1980s. Today, most logging on federal public land in Oregon has been focused on thinning or selective harvest and not clearcutting in the past 15 years.

The above is from www.clearcutoregon.com, which is yes, an organization with an agenda; but they approach the issue starting with facts.



Washington, north of us, is much the same, lots of ugly clear cuts scarring the hills.

Clearcutting is popular on private lands because it maximizes the return to the owner and to the logging company. However, I would expect that on private land replanting generally follows immediately in order to restart the cycle. A very similar situation exists in Scotland. You will see acres of mature trees adjacent to acres of small trees adjacent to acres of seedling trees. It isn't "virgin" forest, but the deer don't care. It is somewhat a monoculture, because tree types are chosen that grow well, grow quickly, and are in high demand. Sometimes the high demand requirement overrides the grow quickly requirement. This results in diverse blocks at least. Also, different companies make different bets about what trees will be in demand years down the road. The soil in Scotland is often so thin that any erosion would be disastrous. The owners are very careful to avoid that. This type of "tree farming" is also regulated to prevent gross mismanagement. I am not sure this is a bad way to manage a large part of the forest that is on public land as well. At least this way it stays a forest.

[OutsiderFan]

Back to the original OT topic, I thought this was a good piece by Pro-Publica, generally a fairly left wing platform, but in this case echoing a lot of what GR has stated:

https://www.propublica.org/article/they-...ody-listen

Academics believe that between 4.4 million and 11.8 million acres burned each year in prehistoric California. Between 1982 and 1998, California’s agency land managers burned, on average, about 30,000 acres a year. Between 1999 and 2017, that number dropped to an annual 13,000 acres...We live with a deathly backlog. In February 2020, Nature Sustainability published this terrifying conclusion: California would need to burn 20 million acres — an area about the size of Maine — to restabilize in terms of fire.

BC

Pro Publica is not left wing. It is one of the most fact-driven sources of journalism there is. They do deep dive reporting for those with attention spans greater than a tweet. You totally undermine its credibility by insinuating it has an agenda beyond reporting truth. Look at the awards it has won as an indicator of the quality of reporting it does.

---

Anyway, after reading the Pro Publica story on fire in CA...

Who is actually in charge of making the decisions about forest management? The Governor? Legislature? Counties? Forest service? It would not be surprising that somewhere along the line the “fire fighting industrial complex” is greasing elected representatives somehow to continue a boondoggle at tax payer expense.

My question, not addressed in the article to my knowledge, is what is the public opinion on controlled burning in CA as means to reduce major fire risk? I mean is there a public agreement that for every acre that burns under control on purpose, we can ultimately save whatever it is, 10 acres from being burned later? Or maybe it’s for every dollar spent on controlled burns, we save $10 in out of control fire suppression? Is the public aware of these trade offs? Given the amount of tax payer dollars that get spent on fire fighting in the state, you’d think the public would be quite tuned in to this issue and make it a priority for state government to follow the science to make wiser decisions.

[OutsiderFan]

Back to the original OT topic, I thought this was a good piece by Pro-Publica, generally a fairly left wing platform, but in this case echoing a lot of what GR has stated:

https://www.propublica.org/article/they-...ody-listen

Academics believe that between 4.4 million and 11.8 million acres burned each year in prehistoric California. Between 1982 and 1998, California’s agency land managers burned, on average, about 30,000 acres a year. Between 1999 and 2017, that number dropped to an annual 13,000 acres...We live with a deathly backlog. In February 2020, Nature Sustainability published this terrifying conclusion: California would need to burn 20 million acres — an area about the size of Maine — to restabilize in terms of fire.

BC

Pro Publica is not left wing. It is one of the most fact-driven sources of journalism there is. They do deep dive reporting for those with attention spans greater than a tweet. You totally undermine its credibility by insinuating it has an agenda beyond reporting truth. Look at the awards it has won as an indicator of the quality of reporting it does.

---

Anyway, after reading the Pro Publica story on fire in CA...

Who is actually in charge of making the decisions about forest management? The Governor? Legislature? Counties? Forest service? It would not be surprising that somewhere along the line the “fire fighting industrial complex” is greasing elected representatives somehow to continue a boondoggle at tax payer expense.

My question, not addressed in the article to my knowledge, is what is the public opinion on controlled burning in CA as means to reduce major fire risk? I mean is there a public agreement that for every acre that burns under control on purpose, we can ultimately save whatever it is, 10 acres from being burned later? Or maybe it’s for every dollar spent on controlled burns, we save $10 in out of control fire suppression? Is the public aware of these trade offs? Given the amount of tax payer dollars that get spent on fire fighting in the state, you’d think the public would be quite tuned in to this issue and make it a priority for state government to follow the science to make wiser decisions.

[BobK]

Well most of Califoria forest are Federal forest. So there's that.

[BobK]

Well most of Califoria forest are Federal forest. So there's that.

[Mick]

Back to the original OT topic, I thought this was a good piece by Pro-Publica, generally a fairly left wing platform, but in this case echoing a lot of what GR has stated:

https://www.propublica.org/article/they-...ody-listen

Academics believe that between 4.4 million and 11.8 million acres burned each year in prehistoric California. Between 1982 and 1998, California’s agency land managers burned, on average, about 30,000 acres a year. Between 1999 and 2017, that number dropped to an annual 13,000 acres...We live with a deathly backlog. In February 2020, Nature Sustainability published this terrifying conclusion: California would need to burn 20 million acres — an area about the size of Maine — to restabilize in terms of fire.

BC

Pro Publica is not left wing. It is one of the most fact-driven sources of journalism there is. They do deep dive reporting for those with attention spans greater than a tweet. You totally undermine its credibility by insinuating it has an agenda beyond reporting truth. Look at the awards it has won as an indicator of the quality of reporting it does.

Lefties always say that... ;)

---

Anyway, after reading the Pro Publica story on fire in CA...

Who is actually in charge of making the decisions about forest management? The Governor? Legislature? Counties? Forest service? It would not be surprising that somewhere along the line the “fire fighting industrial complex” is greasing elected representatives somehow to continue a boondoggle at tax payer expense.

My question, not addressed in the article to my knowledge, is what is the public opinion on controlled burning in CA as means to reduce major fire risk? I mean is there a public agreement that for every acre that burns under control on purpose, we can ultimately save whatever it is, 10 acres from being burned later? Or maybe it’s for every dollar spent on controlled burns, we save $10 in out of control fire suppression? Is the public aware of these trade offs? Given the amount of tax payer dollars that get spent on fire fighting in the state, you’d think the public would be quite tuned in to this issue and make it a priority for state government to follow the science to make wiser decisions.

Per www.mediabiasfactcheck.com , Pro Publica has a left/center bias and the quality of its content is rated "High".

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/propublica/

---

Well most of California forest are Federal forest.  So there's that.

57% of California's 33 million acres of forest are controlled by the federal government. So get off your butt, Mr. President and stop those fires.

[Mick]

Back to the original OT topic, I thought this was a good piece by Pro-Publica, generally a fairly left wing platform, but in this case echoing a lot of what GR has stated:

https://www.propublica.org/article/they-...ody-listen

Academics believe that between 4.4 million and 11.8 million acres burned each year in prehistoric California. Between 1982 and 1998, California’s agency land managers burned, on average, about 30,000 acres a year. Between 1999 and 2017, that number dropped to an annual 13,000 acres...We live with a deathly backlog. In February 2020, Nature Sustainability published this terrifying conclusion: California would need to burn 20 million acres — an area about the size of Maine — to restabilize in terms of fire.

BC

Pro Publica is not left wing. It is one of the most fact-driven sources of journalism there is. They do deep dive reporting for those with attention spans greater than a tweet. You totally undermine its credibility by insinuating it has an agenda beyond reporting truth. Look at the awards it has won as an indicator of the quality of reporting it does.

Lefties always say that... ;)

---

Anyway, after reading the Pro Publica story on fire in CA...

Who is actually in charge of making the decisions about forest management? The Governor? Legislature? Counties? Forest service? It would not be surprising that somewhere along the line the “fire fighting industrial complex” is greasing elected representatives somehow to continue a boondoggle at tax payer expense.

My question, not addressed in the article to my knowledge, is what is the public opinion on controlled burning in CA as means to reduce major fire risk? I mean is there a public agreement that for every acre that burns under control on purpose, we can ultimately save whatever it is, 10 acres from being burned later? Or maybe it’s for every dollar spent on controlled burns, we save $10 in out of control fire suppression? Is the public aware of these trade offs? Given the amount of tax payer dollars that get spent on fire fighting in the state, you’d think the public would be quite tuned in to this issue and make it a priority for state government to follow the science to make wiser decisions.

Per www.mediabiasfactcheck.com , Pro Publica has a left/center bias and the quality of its content is rated "High".

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/propublica/

---

Well most of California forest are Federal forest.  So there's that.

57% of California's 33 million acres of forest are controlled by the federal government. So get off your butt, Mr. President and stop those fires.

[BostonCard]

I wasn't trying to be pejorative when I said that ProPublica is left-of-center.  It would be like noting that the Wall Street Journal was right-of-center.  Both are high quality organizations, but the issues that ProPublica cares about tend to be important to liberals.  Just look at their website's masthead:




Their listed topics, which I assume represents their priorities are:

• Racial justice
  
• Healthcare
  
• Labor
  
• Criminal justice
  

Those are the priorities of a left-wing organization.  I am glad ProPublica exists, but I does no one any good to pretend it as a centrist organization.

BC

[BostonCard]

I wasn't trying to be pejorative when I said that ProPublica is left-of-center.  It would be like noting that the Wall Street Journal was right-of-center.  Both are high quality organizations, but the issues that ProPublica cares about tend to be important to liberals.  Just look at their website's masthead:




Their listed topics, which I assume represents their priorities are:

• Racial justice
  
• Healthcare
  
• Labor
  
• Criminal justice
  

Those are the priorities of a left-wing organization.  I am glad ProPublica exists, but I does no one any good to pretend it as a centrist organization.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

I wasn't trying to be pejorative when I said that ProPublica is left-of-center.  It would be like noting that the Wall Street Journal was right-of-center.  Both are high quality organizations, but the issues that ProPublica cares about tend to be important to liberals.  Just look at their website's masthead:




Their listed topics, which I assume represents their priorities are:

• Racial justice
  
• Healthcare
  
• Labor
  
• Criminal justice
  

Those are the priorities of a left-wing organization.  I am glad ProPublica exists, but I does no one any good to pretend it as a centrist organization.

BC

Why can't it just be said that those are its areas of focus? And BC, you said "left wing" in you original post.  If  "center/left" was used it wouldn't be as bad, but again, why the need for these labels?  Truth is either reported or it isn't. That the topics resonate with certain people is totally beside the point. 

When I call out Zero Hedge, it's because it doesn't use high standards of journalism like Pro Publica does. Comparing the two is ridiculous and impugns the integrity of Pro Publica, because it suggests its reporting isn't truthful or accurate. Some people are so either devoid of critical thinking ability or bend over backwards to demonstrate they aren't taking sides on something, they end up creating false equivalencies as just comparisons when they are not.

It's like comparing a veggie burger to a real beef burger, and then judging the two on the same measures used to judge real beef burgers. One doesn't even belong in the conversation. Even though the veggie burger maybe kind of looks like the beef burger in that it has a bun, a patty, cheese, and condiments, it simply isn't the same thing. I may say I like the veggie burger more, but I can't in any honest sense use the same rating elements used to judge the beef burger.  I can't compare the beef flavor or juiciness because there is none. Pro Publica is a real beef burger. Zero Hedge is a veggie burger masquerading as a beef burger. 

I need to do a better job myself. I have used "Right wing conspiracy" to refer to such sources.  I need to simply refer to them as "conspiracy" and drop the "Right wing" because it hardly matters. All conspiracy sources are terrible and should be universally condemned, no matter what portion of the ideological spectrum they try to inflame with their bullshit.

[OutsiderFan]

I wasn't trying to be pejorative when I said that ProPublica is left-of-center.  It would be like noting that the Wall Street Journal was right-of-center.  Both are high quality organizations, but the issues that ProPublica cares about tend to be important to liberals.  Just look at their website's masthead:




Their listed topics, which I assume represents their priorities are:

• Racial justice
  
• Healthcare
  
• Labor
  
• Criminal justice
  

Those are the priorities of a left-wing organization.  I am glad ProPublica exists, but I does no one any good to pretend it as a centrist organization.

BC

Why can't it just be said that those are its areas of focus? And BC, you said "left wing" in you original post.  If  "center/left" was used it wouldn't be as bad, but again, why the need for these labels?  Truth is either reported or it isn't. That the topics resonate with certain people is totally beside the point. 

When I call out Zero Hedge, it's because it doesn't use high standards of journalism like Pro Publica does. Comparing the two is ridiculous and impugns the integrity of Pro Publica, because it suggests its reporting isn't truthful or accurate. Some people are so either devoid of critical thinking ability or bend over backwards to demonstrate they aren't taking sides on something, they end up creating false equivalencies as just comparisons when they are not.

It's like comparing a veggie burger to a real beef burger, and then judging the two on the same measures used to judge real beef burgers. One doesn't even belong in the conversation. Even though the veggie burger maybe kind of looks like the beef burger in that it has a bun, a patty, cheese, and condiments, it simply isn't the same thing. I may say I like the veggie burger more, but I can't in any honest sense use the same rating elements used to judge the beef burger.  I can't compare the beef flavor or juiciness because there is none. Pro Publica is a real beef burger. Zero Hedge is a veggie burger masquerading as a beef burger. 

I need to do a better job myself. I have used "Right wing conspiracy" to refer to such sources.  I need to simply refer to them as "conspiracy" and drop the "Right wing" because it hardly matters. All conspiracy sources are terrible and should be universally condemned, no matter what portion of the ideological spectrum they try to inflame with their bullshit.

[BostonCard]

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/propublica

ProPublica and Zero Hedge are not two signs of the same coin, and I never said it was.

BC

[BostonCard]

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/propublica

ProPublica and Zero Hedge are not two signs of the same coin, and I never said it was.

BC

[Genuine Realist]

I wasn't trying to be pejorative when I said that ProPublica is left-of-center.  It would be like noting that the Wall Street Journal was right-of-center.  Both are high quality organizations, but the issues that ProPublica cares about tend to be important to liberals.  Just look at their website's masthead:




Their listed topics, which I assume represents their priorities are:

• Racial justice
  
• Healthcare
  
• Labor
  
• Criminal justice
  

Those are the priorities of a left-wing organization.  I am glad ProPublica exists, but I does no one any good to pretend it as a centrist organization.

BC

Why can't it just be said that those are its areas of focus? And BC, you said "left wing" in you original post.  If  "center/left" was used it wouldn't be as bad, but again, why the need for these labels?  Truth is either reported or it isn't. That the topics resonate with certain people is totally beside the point. 

When I call out Zero Hedge, it's because it doesn't use high standards of journalism like Pro Publica does. Comparing the two is ridiculous and impugns the integrity of Pro Publica, because it suggests its reporting isn't truthful or accurate. Some people are so either devoid of critical thinking ability or bend over backwards to demonstrate they aren't taking sides on something, they end up creating false equivalencies as just comparisons when they are not.

It's like comparing a veggie burger to a real beef burger, and then judging the two on the same measures used to judge real beef burgers. One doesn't even belong in the conversation. Even though the veggie burger maybe kind of looks like the beef burger in that it has a bun, a patty, cheese, and condiments, it simply isn't the same thing. I may say I like the veggie burger more, but I can't in any honest sense use the same rating elements used to judge the beef burger.  I can't compare the beef flavor or juiciness because there is none. Pro Publica is a real beef burger. Zero Hedge is a veggie burger masquerading as a beef burger. 

I need to do a better job myself. I have used "Right wing conspiracy" to refer to such sources.  I need to simply refer to them as "conspiracy" and drop the "Right wing" because it hardly matters. All conspiracy sources are terrible and should be universally condemned, no matter what portion of the ideological spectrum they try to inflame with their bullshit.

I thought the article was pretty good. But a certain bias does show up when the writer discusses the amount of capital and profit to be made from fighting fires. Come on. The work is risky, life endangering, and scary as hell. I"m sure firefighters and fire fighting corporations do quite well. But no one gets into that field to make money. You can make a lot more as a stock broker, and you won't be burned alive or crushed under a falling tree.

There is also a conspicuous absence of comment on the extent to which naive and elitists environmentalism has contributed to the mess. So I would put the overall tone as definitely left-of-center, although most of the factual content was quite valuable.

Turning to the propaganda of photos of harvested forests, the propaganda element consists of the implication that the evil loggers will leave the forest in that denuded condition, rub their hands together and cackle like Snidely Whiplash, and move on to ravage the next forest. That's simply not true. Replanting begins even before the cutting is finished. Weyerhauser, among others, has always insisted it plants more trees than it cuts down, and no one has ever claimed foul. 

One factoid in the article staggered me. This was the assertion that in prehistoric time 4 to 11 million acres might burn annually. In fact, it's a little counterintuitive. There are at the moment 33 million acres of forest in California, and of course more pre-historically. But that would imply at times a third or a quarter of the forest would burn in one fire. It's counterintuitive because a fire of that monumental size would consume so much fuel that it is hard to imagine another large conflagration would occur the summer after. So I would bet even then fires of such size were somewhat rare.

But given that, imagine a third of the State blackened, charred, only bare stumps left. It would look awful, but it would nonetheless be healthy and natural. Just so, the clean cut forests, replanted, that  logging company leaves behind.

What is not healthy are those lovely scenic forests we view as we drive up Highway 80. (I would imagine, by the way, that Oregon forests are even worse.) They may look and smell nice. But what you are looking at (I have come to realize) is the arboreal equivalent of the sums of Calcutta - trees wildly overgrown, stunting each other's growth, the sheer numbers preventing the healthy growth. It's counterintuitive to view the bare ruined choirs as good forest management, and the wildly overgrown types as bad, but that is apparently the case.

And photos that imply otherwise are indeed propaganda.

[Genuine Realist]

I wasn't trying to be pejorative when I said that ProPublica is left-of-center.  It would be like noting that the Wall Street Journal was right-of-center.  Both are high quality organizations, but the issues that ProPublica cares about tend to be important to liberals.  Just look at their website's masthead:




Their listed topics, which I assume represents their priorities are:

• Racial justice
  
• Healthcare
  
• Labor
  
• Criminal justice
  

Those are the priorities of a left-wing organization.  I am glad ProPublica exists, but I does no one any good to pretend it as a centrist organization.

BC

Why can't it just be said that those are its areas of focus? And BC, you said "left wing" in you original post.  If  "center/left" was used it wouldn't be as bad, but again, why the need for these labels?  Truth is either reported or it isn't. That the topics resonate with certain people is totally beside the point. 

When I call out Zero Hedge, it's because it doesn't use high standards of journalism like Pro Publica does. Comparing the two is ridiculous and impugns the integrity of Pro Publica, because it suggests its reporting isn't truthful or accurate. Some people are so either devoid of critical thinking ability or bend over backwards to demonstrate they aren't taking sides on something, they end up creating false equivalencies as just comparisons when they are not.

It's like comparing a veggie burger to a real beef burger, and then judging the two on the same measures used to judge real beef burgers. One doesn't even belong in the conversation. Even though the veggie burger maybe kind of looks like the beef burger in that it has a bun, a patty, cheese, and condiments, it simply isn't the same thing. I may say I like the veggie burger more, but I can't in any honest sense use the same rating elements used to judge the beef burger.  I can't compare the beef flavor or juiciness because there is none. Pro Publica is a real beef burger. Zero Hedge is a veggie burger masquerading as a beef burger. 

I need to do a better job myself. I have used "Right wing conspiracy" to refer to such sources.  I need to simply refer to them as "conspiracy" and drop the "Right wing" because it hardly matters. All conspiracy sources are terrible and should be universally condemned, no matter what portion of the ideological spectrum they try to inflame with their bullshit.

I thought the article was pretty good. But a certain bias does show up when the writer discusses the amount of capital and profit to be made from fighting fires. Come on. The work is risky, life endangering, and scary as hell. I"m sure firefighters and fire fighting corporations do quite well. But no one gets into that field to make money. You can make a lot more as a stock broker, and you won't be burned alive or crushed under a falling tree.

There is also a conspicuous absence of comment on the extent to which naive and elitists environmentalism has contributed to the mess. So I would put the overall tone as definitely left-of-center, although most of the factual content was quite valuable.

Turning to the propaganda of photos of harvested forests, the propaganda element consists of the implication that the evil loggers will leave the forest in that denuded condition, rub their hands together and cackle like Snidely Whiplash, and move on to ravage the next forest. That's simply not true. Replanting begins even before the cutting is finished. Weyerhauser, among others, has always insisted it plants more trees than it cuts down, and no one has ever claimed foul. 

One factoid in the article staggered me. This was the assertion that in prehistoric time 4 to 11 million acres might burn annually. In fact, it's a little counterintuitive. There are at the moment 33 million acres of forest in California, and of course more pre-historically. But that would imply at times a third or a quarter of the forest would burn in one fire. It's counterintuitive because a fire of that monumental size would consume so much fuel that it is hard to imagine another large conflagration would occur the summer after. So I would bet even then fires of such size were somewhat rare.

But given that, imagine a third of the State blackened, charred, only bare stumps left. It would look awful, but it would nonetheless be healthy and natural. Just so, the clean cut forests, replanted, that  logging company leaves behind.

What is not healthy are those lovely scenic forests we view as we drive up Highway 80. (I would imagine, by the way, that Oregon forests are even worse.) They may look and smell nice. But what you are looking at (I have come to realize) is the arboreal equivalent of the sums of Calcutta - trees wildly overgrown, stunting each other's growth, the sheer numbers preventing the healthy growth. It's counterintuitive to view the bare ruined choirs as good forest management, and the wildly overgrown types as bad, but that is apparently the case.

And photos that imply otherwise are indeed propaganda.

[oregontim]

Turning to the propaganda of photos of harvested forests, the propaganda element consists of the implication that the evil loggers will leave the forest in that denuded condition, rub their hands together and cackle like Snidely Whiplash, and move on to ravage the next forest. That's simply not true. Replanting begins even before the cutting is finished. Weyerhauser, among others, has always insisted it plants more trees than it cuts down, and no one has ever claimed foul. 

...

What is not healthy are those lovely scenic forests we view as we drive up Highway 80. (I would imagine, by the way, that Oregon forests are even worse.) They may look and smell nice. But what you are looking at (I have come to realize) is the arboreal equivalent of the sums of Calcutta - trees wildly overgrown, stunting each other's growth, the sheer numbers preventing the healthy growth. It's counterintuitive to view the bare ruined choirs as good forest management, and the wildly overgrown types as bad, but that is apparently the case.

In my previous post on this I was referring to fact, an eye witness account of what I see every time I drive east from Eugene into the Cascades, which is an ugly patchwork of clearcuts that are wide bare spots on the hills. Photos that depict that are not propaganda, they are images of things as they are, now, in Oregon and Washington. I’m talking about what you see on any of the roads that go east from the Willamette Valley. It’s not all clearcut, by any means; there’s still a lot of forest; but what stands out are the glaringly out of place clear cuts and there are way too many of them. And that’s what you’ll see, today ... the word “propaganda” doesn’t apply to reality. 

Of course these issues are never as black-and-white as we’d like. Lots of shades of gray. An Oregon family that owns even 10 or 20 acres of forest can generate single-digit millions once every 40 years or so when they cut it all down, and they almost always understand that it’s a recurring revenue only if they do the work to replant, and care for it. But after the cut, for a decade or two, it’s really ugly, changes the ecosystem, and exacerbates erosion. The tiny new trees don’t grow the same in an open sunny clearcut field as they do in a real forest. And there are interesting issues around the good of the common, and the rights of property owners, that generate debate. Both sides have serious thoughtful arguments. 

But you can’t dismiss the images of the actual reality of it, what we see today, as propaganda. That’s dismissive and grossly inaccurate. The clearcuts are all over. 

Regarding the comparison to I80, My wife’s nephew lived with us in Eugene for a few years, not that long ago. He’d grown up a city kid and he came to love the forests of Oregon, particularly what we call “old growth” forest. He discovered, to his dismay, that old growth is surprisingly hard to find. The drive east to the cascades goes through a whole lot of forest, but the enthusiasts share maps of the very reduced areas that are actually old growth. I’m not sure on which side of this discussion that fact fits; but so like so many facts, it doesn’t take sides.

It’s dangerous to dismiss reality as propaganda.

[oregontim]

Turning to the propaganda of photos of harvested forests, the propaganda element consists of the implication that the evil loggers will leave the forest in that denuded condition, rub their hands together and cackle like Snidely Whiplash, and move on to ravage the next forest. That's simply not true. Replanting begins even before the cutting is finished. Weyerhauser, among others, has always insisted it plants more trees than it cuts down, and no one has ever claimed foul. 

...

What is not healthy are those lovely scenic forests we view as we drive up Highway 80. (I would imagine, by the way, that Oregon forests are even worse.) They may look and smell nice. But what you are looking at (I have come to realize) is the arboreal equivalent of the sums of Calcutta - trees wildly overgrown, stunting each other's growth, the sheer numbers preventing the healthy growth. It's counterintuitive to view the bare ruined choirs as good forest management, and the wildly overgrown types as bad, but that is apparently the case.

In my previous post on this I was referring to fact, an eye witness account of what I see every time I drive east from Eugene into the Cascades, which is an ugly patchwork of clearcuts that are wide bare spots on the hills. Photos that depict that are not propaganda, they are images of things as they are, now, in Oregon and Washington. I’m talking about what you see on any of the roads that go east from the Willamette Valley. It’s not all clearcut, by any means; there’s still a lot of forest; but what stands out are the glaringly out of place clear cuts and there are way too many of them. And that’s what you’ll see, today ... the word “propaganda” doesn’t apply to reality. 

Of course these issues are never as black-and-white as we’d like. Lots of shades of gray. An Oregon family that owns even 10 or 20 acres of forest can generate single-digit millions once every 40 years or so when they cut it all down, and they almost always understand that it’s a recurring revenue only if they do the work to replant, and care for it. But after the cut, for a decade or two, it’s really ugly, changes the ecosystem, and exacerbates erosion. The tiny new trees don’t grow the same in an open sunny clearcut field as they do in a real forest. And there are interesting issues around the good of the common, and the rights of property owners, that generate debate. Both sides have serious thoughtful arguments. 

But you can’t dismiss the images of the actual reality of it, what we see today, as propaganda. That’s dismissive and grossly inaccurate. The clearcuts are all over. 

Regarding the comparison to I80, My wife’s nephew lived with us in Eugene for a few years, not that long ago. He’d grown up a city kid and he came to love the forests of Oregon, particularly what we call “old growth” forest. He discovered, to his dismay, that old growth is surprisingly hard to find. The drive east to the cascades goes through a whole lot of forest, but the enthusiasts share maps of the very reduced areas that are actually old growth. I’m not sure on which side of this discussion that fact fits; but so like so many facts, it doesn’t take sides.

It’s dangerous to dismiss reality as propaganda.

[OutsiderFan]

I was in Oregon at this time last year and saw some of those clear cut areas. It's just gross.

My belief is always that the best solutions come from keeping things in balance. When it comes to fires health, I find myself struggling with what is natural and what isn't, and what should be considered appropriate human intervention. If we never felled a tree, we could let fire burn with impunity and be letting nature take its course.  Of course that isn't reality. 

So with human impact already having had a certain influence on forests, it probably makes sense to find the medium between letting everything grow and clear cutting. The logging companies have issues with not being able to clear cut because it isn't as cheap and profitable that way.  The way to make it more expensive is to enact laws that impose penalties for clear cutting.  Then of course you have the "but how will we build anything anyone can afford if wood isn't cheap" arguments.

Such a multi-faceted and complex issue.  I'd argue it's even more difficult to figure out than an affordable and effective health care system.

[OutsiderFan]

I was in Oregon at this time last year and saw some of those clear cut areas. It's just gross.

My belief is always that the best solutions come from keeping things in balance. When it comes to fires health, I find myself struggling with what is natural and what isn't, and what should be considered appropriate human intervention. If we never felled a tree, we could let fire burn with impunity and be letting nature take its course.  Of course that isn't reality. 

So with human impact already having had a certain influence on forests, it probably makes sense to find the medium between letting everything grow and clear cutting. The logging companies have issues with not being able to clear cut because it isn't as cheap and profitable that way.  The way to make it more expensive is to enact laws that impose penalties for clear cutting.  Then of course you have the "but how will we build anything anyone can afford if wood isn't cheap" arguments.

Such a multi-faceted and complex issue.  I'd argue it's even more difficult to figure out than an affordable and effective health care system.

[BostonCard]

Blackened forrest due to a massive fire is gross too.

BC

[BostonCard]

Blackened forrest due to a massive fire is gross too.

BC