# Western Wild Fires



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I belong to a group representing farmers and ranchers. I posed this question -

Can you folks in CA, WA and OR give us the straight story?
Are the wildfires due to poor forest management, an unusual dry season or a real long term shift in climate?

I got over 100 response in less than 5 minutes. The responses are still pouring in.

The almost unanimous response, opposite of what Governors in those states say:
Poor Forest Management


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

When I was hanging with the forest service guys 20 years ago they would tell me how all the new state laws in California would eventually cause catastrophic damage in a few decades.

They passed laws disallowing control burns because of the pollution. Then they passed laws making managing it hard. They wanted it to be natural. Even though the forest service degreed scientist said not to.

Looks like they were right after all and apparently right on time too.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Generally? Around here the majority of fires are _caused_ by arsonists or idiots (and sometimes power companies not maintaining lines). The way they become massive fires (in forests) is poor forest management and people not keeping up with weed abatement around structures. 

(southern) California is a country that is supposed to burn. A lot of the vegetation/tree life requires fire to reproduce. It's just a matter of whether we do it in a contained way like we used to do it pre-1990 environmental lunacy, or let it get out of control and burn itself out. We have a fire season like other areas have hurricane or tornado seasons. It's just the way it is. Add more people moving into areas that used to burn regularly but now don't because we don't let it but also don't manage it...you're going to have disastrous outcomes.

I live near a huge military base that is mostly treated as native preserve meaning they try to keep the native ecology as pristine as possible. Which means they do prescribed burns often. No one every worries about fires from the base (fires do happen - shooting live ammunition into dry tinder will do that), because they can always control them due to the constant management and previous prescribed burns. The area outside the base is a different story.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I agree, Forestry management has nothing to do with a majority of fires here in the west. Arson, pulling a hot car off the road into dry grass, camp fires at the end of summer when everything is dry and lightning. The majority of fires don't even start in the forest.

We had a fire come so close to our house that we had to evacuate and have the house sprayed down with retardant. It had nothing to do with forest management. Lightning started it on private land. It traveled by treetop and barely touched the ground.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I am up to over 400 responses now (still coming in fast as the west coast is just waking up) and it is still unanimous that poor forest management is what lets these fires get so big, and uncontrollable.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> *I agree, Forestry management has nothing to do with a majority of fires here in the west.* Arson, pulling a hot car off the road into dry grass, camp fires at the end of summer when everything is dry and lightning. The majority of fires don't even start in the forest.
> 
> We had a fire come so close to our house that we had to evacuate and have the house sprayed down with retardant. It had nothing to do with forest management. Lightning started it on private land. It traveled by treetop and barely touched the ground.


Who are you agreeing with? No one said that.


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

You have to think, a huge percentage of the Western states are public lands. It isn't like the land is private and homeowners can maintain it. Public lands management is terrible. Arson, downed power lines and the like happen everywhere. 

This isn't global warming, fire is part of the cycle. Fire suppression in itself is a large part of the problem out west today


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

One of the Cali posters










I posted this picture to my stories earlier and so many people commented, probably more than any other story I’ve ever posted. So maybe this deserves its own post.

I’m not claiming to be an expert, I’m not. But Farmer Brian is, as a professional in the fire service. This is a _small_ part of California’s wildfire problem. Massive fuel overgrowth across the state. This is our property line- on the left is our property, on the right is our neighbors property. We are surrounded on 3 sides by this. This is NOTHING compared to the areas of dense underbrush.
I won’t go into the mismanagement of our forests {years of no prescribed burning, clearing, logging etc}. But people, lots of people, want to move out to the country, but some of these people don’t want to take care of their property- and it puts every single one of us out here at risk.

I am of the opinion that if you live out here, you must take care of your land. Clearing brush, limb up your trees, keep the weeds trimmed. Put some grazing animals on it {cows, goats, sheep}, mow it, pay someone else to mow it. If you do not have the financial or physical ability to maintain it, you shouldn’t live rurally. It’s a ton of work and it’s not for everyone, and that’s ok! But I shudder often driving around town and see the tinder box we are all living in, it doesn’t have to be this way.

People are constantly blaming this on climate change- that’s such a cop out. Is that part of the problem? Maybe. Is that the whole problem? Absolutely not. Less fuel to burn means less destruction. It’s our job to reduce the fuel load if we aren’t going to let nature do it. I was reading earlier this week that most of the native plants here used to have deep tap roots to find water and that California was green year round. But then invasive species were introduced and many of them have shallow roots that form a dry mat of wildfire fuel. That’s just one example.
The irony of this picture is that this neighbor on the right is an environmentalist. They have had issue in the past with how much our property has been cleared of brush and unhealthy trees. Which property do you think will be considered defendable in a wildfire? And which one do you think would be marked as not defendable? I’m not trying to attack environmentalists in anyway, and if this offends you I’m sorry, but maybe you’re the one that needs to read this if that’s the case.

Less fuel = less fire. It’s really that simple. Let’s make common sense and critical thinking a ‘thing’ again.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> I agree, Forestry management has nothing to do with a majority of fires here in the west. Arson, pulling a hot car off the road into dry grass, camp fires at the end of summer when everything is dry and lightning. The majority of fires don't even start in the forest.
> 
> We had a fire come so close to our house that we had to evacuate and have the house sprayed down with retardant. It had nothing to do with forest management. Lightning started it on private land. It traveled by treetop and barely touched the ground.
> [/QUOTE





painterswife said:


> I agree, Forestry management has nothing to do with a majority of fires here in the west. Arson, pulling a hot car off the road into dry grass, camp fires at the end of summer when everything is dry and lightning. The majority of fires don't even start in the forest.
> 
> We had a fire come so close to our house that we had to evacuate and have the house sprayed down with retardant. It had nothing to do with forest management. Lightning started it on private land. It traveled by treetop and barely touched the ground.


Where did you get the idea that forestry management is what starts fires? Fires are started like you say by many to things. 

Forestry management keeps them from getting as big as they do. When it is not managed is when you have the 50,000 plus acre fires.


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

That's par for the course out west. Sadly, even if that land was not private it would still not be maintained 
On the other side of that argument, we can't just mow all the grass and trees and anything flammable down because it might catch fire. 

Maybe letting it burn in the natural cycle of life out west is the answer


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Than there are these types of problems.









Man arrested, charged with arson in connection with southern Oregon fire


Michael Bakkela, 41, was arrested Friday




www.oregonlive.com


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> Even though the forest service degreed scientist said not to.


You defer to scientific knowledge? When did that start?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

__





Wildland Fire Spread and Suppression (U.S. National Park Service)


There are three general patterns of fire spread. A planned prescribed burn can provide many benefits that enhance ecosystem health.




www.nps.gov





For example, regular prescribed fires can reduce the amount of ground fuels, thereby lowering the potential for large wildfires. If future wildfires should occur, the fires would be less intense and easier to contain. Fuel reduction can help lessen the possibility of high-intensity crown fires.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

RJ2019 said:


> Maybe letting it burn in the natural cycle of life out west is the answer


It used to be, but today forests have subdivisions among the trees.

First, let's make a distinction between not raking for floor of the forest and poor forest management. raking the floor of the forest isn't part of typical forest management.

Understand that forest fires are part of how forests manage themselves, as part of what you call the natural cycle of life. That was fine before people started moving there. But today allowing forest fires to do their thing would result in enormous loss of property, burning down entire towns.

They have to find a way to manage forests while, at the same time, preserving the property of those who live there.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You defer to scientific knowledge? When did that start?


In the beginning..........


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> First, let's make a distinction between not raking for floor of the forest and poor forest management. *raking the floor of the forest* isn't part of typical forest management.


I see what you're trying to do there.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Nevada said:


> You defer to scientific knowledge? When did that start?


When did it stop?

What are you referring to?


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

Nevada said:


> It used to be, but today forests have subdivisions among the trees.
> 
> First, let's make a distinction between not raking for floor of the forest and poor forest management. raking the floor of the forest isn't part of typical forest management.
> 
> ...


That's an interesting view. I read that as "people moved into fire zones so now we should just ban fires".

Let me know how that works out for you, please?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> When did it stop?
> 
> What are you referring to?


Aren't they liberal elites pushing the main stream media agenda? You don't believe what scientists say about COVID-19, climate change or evolution. What's different about forest management?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Nevada said:


> Aren't they liberal elites pushing the main stream media agenda? You don't believe what scientists say about COVID-19, climate change or evolution. What's different about forest management?


LMAO Nevada. You can not find one single quote that I have said any of that. 

No, the Liberal Elite's are pushing lies. 

Much like your last post to me.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

RJ2019 said:


> That's an interesting view. I read that as "people moved into fire zones so now we should just ban fires".


In effect, that's already happened. I don't recall a policy of stepping back and allowing wildfires to burn during my lifetime. Elite firefighters such as smokejumpers were organized before I was born, and I was born during the Truman administration.

Yes, forest fires are all pretty much banned. We do our best to extinguish all forest fires.


----------



## random (Jul 23, 2020)

When I lived in CA, I remember some mountain communities that actually prohibited clearing of underbrush _on private property_. I don't know if that's changed or not since then. Even then, I saw the results - in the 80's I worked with the Red Cross supporting the firefighters and doing damage assessment. The difference between where they cleared the land vs. where they didn't was pretty clear.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

HDRider, your post from the Cali poster is interesting. Our fire district people will literally drive around and leave nasty-grams (followed by fines if ignored) on your door if your property is out of control. I've seen neighbors get them in town (like downtown, in town) for having overgrown grass and shrubbery, and we just moved into a more rural mountain area in the same fire district - I saw the nasty-grams posted on people's fencing in several places. Our district is pretty strict about people keeping at least a cleared area around their structures. Because it burns here so often, I'm sure. I'm wondering, especially with the northern California fires, if they just don't know how to keep their houses in order for fire season the way we do around here. Don't know where your poster was from, but it's something I wondered.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Firewise program works with homeowners to build and use defensible space around your homes. There are companies in my area that only do that for a living.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Nevada said:


> In effect, that's already happened. I don't recall a policy of stepping back and allowing wildfires to burn during my lifetime. Elite firefighters such as smokejumpers were organized before I was born, and I was born during the Truman administration.
> 
> Yes, forest fires are all pretty much banned. We do our best to extinguish all forest fires.


We used to do prescribed burns. We don't anymore. So when it does burn, it BURNS. Yes, we try to extinguish forest fires, but we don't do anything to mitigate the damage beforehand. We're completely reactionary now instead of proactive.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Mish said:


> HDRider, your post from the Cali poster is interesting. Our fire district people will literally drive around and leave nasty-grams (followed by fines if ignored) on your door if your property is out of control. I've seen neighbors get them in town (like downtown, in town) for having overgrown grass and shrubbery, and we just moved into a more rural mountain area in the same fire district - I saw the nasty-grams posted on people's fencing in several places. Our district is pretty strict about people keeping at least a cleared area around their structures. Because it burns here so often, I'm sure. I'm wondering, especially with the northern California fires, if they just don't know how to keep their houses in order for fire season the way we do around here. Don't know where your poster was from, but it's something I wondered.


Upon retirement I had my heart set on moving to a cool mountain property. I really liked Cloudcroft, NM. But then California fires semed to get a lot worse. I concluded (right or wrong) that forest fires were part of our climate change future, and that it was already here. Cloudcroft hasn't burned yet, but it's certainly not out of the question.





__





Lincoln National Forest - News & Events







www.fs.usda.gov





I decided that despite oppressive summer heat, I was about as well off in Las Vegas as anywhere.


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

Mish said:


> We used to do prescribed burns. We don't anymore. So when it does burn, it BURNS. Yes, we try to extinguish forest fires, but we don't do anything to mitigate the damage beforehand. We're completely reactionary now instead of proactive.


It almost seems silly to try and stop the forces of nature instead of working with them


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Mish said:


> We used to do prescribed burns. We don't anymore. So when it does burn, it BURNS. Yes, we try to extinguish forest fires, but we don't do anything to mitigate the damage beforehand. We're completely reactionary now instead of proactive.


They still do prescribed burns here.

We have a calendar of them. Prescribed Fire | Teton Interagency Fire


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

They do prescribed burns in Texas on a regular basis in the piney woods. It's not 100 percent cure but in my lifetime three biggest fire I can recall was 19000 acres. It was old growth and never had been touched. 

Plantation pine you can't do a prescribed burn until they are at least 8-10 years old. Those can get pretty rough if they catch fire.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Nevada said:


> Upon retirement I had my heart set on moving to a cool mountain property. I really liked Cloudcroft, NM. But then California fires semed to get a lot worse. I concluded (right or wrong) that forest fires were part of our climate change future, and that it was already here. Cloudcroft hasn't burned yet, but it's certainly not out of the question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know how you handle the summer heat in Vegas. I think the last time we went was in late July (not my choice time to visit but it was for a golf tournament thingie my husband was in) and we about died. 

I figure anywhere we live out here has burn dangers. Just do the best we can to keep our area as safe as possible and hope for the best. Same situation as people who have to prepare for hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc, just a different seasonal weather event. And always have an evacuation plan and insurance 

ETA, we've had to evacuate 3 times for fires, or the threat of fires cutting us off from escape routes, over the years we lived in town. Rural or urban we still roll the dice. Part of life, I guess.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Up over 1,000 comments now.


----------



## Wyobuckaroo (Dec 30, 2011)

Up here the last couple days plus the next 10 day forecast is for overcast, cooler, with air quality warnings said due to the US fires.. 

+++
They passed laws disallowing control burns because of the pollution. Then they passed laws making managing it hard. They wanted it to be natural. Even though the forest service degreed scientist said not to. 
+++
"Feel good" emotions by emotion driven people prevailing over sound science... In land management, wildlife management, you name it...

Don't get me started.....


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> You defer to scientific knowledge? When did that start?


Some people can tell when they are being lied to and manipulated.


----------



## Hitch (Oct 19, 2016)

Well I can answer this from personal experience. Our property is about 3 miles south of the North Complex fire we're all seeing on the news. The firefighters have done an excellent job at preventing it from going south for the last week. The town of Brownsville would be flattened before it reaches our property.

Now to answer your question I don't think the forest is denser now as opposed to 20 years ago. If anything, due to development, certain areas have been cleared over the years. I have thousands of trees on our property and very few are dead and if they are they are fallen as identified. So I don't buy this whole drought and climate warming as a cause.

I will say the state should do more in regards to forest management during the winter. And for private property owners perhaps offering some sort financial assistance to clear land. Personally, I have spent over $25,000 in clearing our property over the last 3 years yet there are acres that have never been touched.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

As a forest professional, I would say to blame forest management alone is wrong. Many factors including climate change. 

BTW who are you going to pay to go out and rake millions of acres of forest?

As far as prescribed burns, they work in forests like Douglas fir which has thick bark to protect it, but what are you going to do in a beetle killed forest. That is standing firewood.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

keenataz said:


> As a forest professional, I would say to blame forest management alone is wrong. Many factors including climate change.
> 
> BTW who are you going to pay to go out and rake millions of acres of forest?
> 
> As far as prescribed burns, they work in forests like Douglas fir which has thick bark to protect it, but what are you going to do in a beetle killed forest. That is standing firewood.


The Canadian @Nevada


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

keenataz said:


> As a forest professional, I would say to blame forest management alone is wrong. Many factors including climate change.
> 
> BTW who are you going to pay to go out and rake millions of acres of forest?
> 
> As far as prescribed burns, they work in forests like Douglas fir which has thick bark to protect it, but what are you going to do in a beetle killed forest. That is standing firewood.


I'll stick with what the scientist say.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

keenataz said:


> BTW *who are you going to pay* to go out and rake millions of acres of forest?


Put prisoners and the homeless to work.
Hire those people on unemployment.
Someone "pays" either way.


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

Www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/14/california-fire-suppression-forests-tinderbox

I saw this in the "news" today and it absolutely rings true. Fire was the natural cycle of things for time out of mind before people came in and started building cities and tried to stop nature from doing what nature does. Natives used fire to their advantage.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

keenataz said:


> As a forest professional, I would say to blame forest management alone is wrong. Many factors including climate change.
> 
> BTW who are you going to pay to go out and rake millions of acres of forest?
> 
> As far as prescribed burns, they work in forests like Douglas fir which has thick bark to protect it, but what are you going to do in a beetle killed forest. That is standing firewood.


So is climate change or the beetles?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

TripleD said:


> So is climate change or the beetles?


Never mind answering! The other day you stated that the costs of pressure treated lumber was due to the tarriffs.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

TripleD said:


> Never mind answering! The other day you stated that the costs of pressure treated lumber was due to the tarriffs.


Yes, I have to pay the Lake Charles tariff to get my treated lumber.


----------



## 101pigs (Sep 18, 2018)

When there were over 100 fires in Ca. burning not long ago most were cause by dry conditions and lightning. So much lightning that it cause hundreds of fires. 
When i was young here in Mo. Each year we had controled burns on our property. that took care of the underbruch which was the reason for most fires burning the big trees. Around 1952 the state of Mo. pass a law not to let farmer burn their forest off each year. They set-up big tall stands ever so ofter with forest people inside the stands 24/7 to report fires. Of course this didn,t work because with underbursh grown for a few years made for some bad fires. Still true today except they don,t operate those stands anymore. Two much trouble. There are many stands still standing. Farmers can have controled burns however a lot of strings to that also, so most don't have controled burns and ever year there are fires in areas that has not burned for awhile. Most fires here is caused by lightning just like the many fires that stated in Ca. awhile back. I burn off all my fields around my area after crops have been harvested.
I also plow fire lines around fences and fields to keep fire from my property. There have been fires in the West forever. 
There will always be fires in the West because of the many acres that can not be kept cleared from fire damage. A lot of people love the trees and just move in and start building with no protection from big fires. It will keep going on untill there are no trees left to burn. Just thing what Ca. and the West will look like in 100 years with so many people unless there is a big nuke war.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Mish said:


> I don't know how you handle the summer heat in Vegas. I think the last time we went was in late July (not my choice time to visit but it was for a golf tournament thingie my husband was in) and we about died.


I don't do well in heat. I stay home in the AC, and go to AC places in an AC car.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

keenataz said:


> As a forest professional, I would say to blame forest management alone is wrong. Many factors including climate change.
> 
> BTW who are you going to pay to go out and rake millions of acres of forest?
> 
> As far as prescribed burns, they work in forests like Douglas fir which has thick bark to protect it, but what are you going to do in a beetle killed forest. That is standing firewood.


Preferably harvest it before the beetles kill it.


----------



## madhen (May 18, 2014)

I think it is a much more complex problem than can be summed up in one statement, especially one as vague as "poor forest management." Having worked, in the past for Bureau of Land Management (the OG BLM) and having friends who have had their careers in the USFS, primarly in Tahoe, El Dorado, Los Angeles, etc, they would likely say that some of the problems occurred when they started being restricted from doing controlled burns. This is partly because at least one of their controlled burns got away from them, but mostly because, regardless of how much they keep the public informed of their intent, people get cranky when they wake up to smoky air and learn that it is because of a deliberately set fire. No controlled burns means the fuel just piles up until a lightning strike or spark hits it. So that isn't really poor forest management as much as it is the USFS having their hands tied by the public.

After fires rage through, we don't go back and re-forest the area with larger trees. Consequently, the area gets filled with scrub and brush, which makes that spot much more vulnerable to succumbing totally to fires in coming years. Planting trees is expensive, so it would either have to be funded by taxes or by private individuals. So far, no luck in either of those categories. I live in a high fire danger area and can see one area that was destroyed because the brush was so thick you couldn't fight your way through it. The high temps killed the trees, and the brush is now growing back even thicker, with no competition from an overstory.

Some of what is going on in California with the fire _spread_ is related to climate change. We are having drier summers, not as much water, and what would be normal fire season (man-made and natural causes) is that much more dramatic because the fuel is all dry now, much drier than it used to be. So, we are having the same number of fires as historically, but they are spreading further and faster.

Some of our perceived problem is housing. The state receives government funds for building homes, but there is no place left to build, but to either build in heavily forested areas or to rebuild where fire has already destroyed homes. We rebuild, the fires come through (followed by the mudslides in southern California), and then we rebuild again. If the fires were raging through areas of forest, with no loss of homes or human lives, they would not be nearly the news they currently are. We would still have horrible air quality that we are passing on to the world at this point, but the publicity would be much reduced. Interestingly, the solution to that might be in the insurance industries' unwillingness to cover homes built in high danger areas. That might eventually slow down the sale/purchase of homes in the WUI, because who wants to buy a house they can't insure (and who can, if they are buying with a mortgage)?

Some of the problems this year are COVID related. We typically get assistance in the form of fire personnel from all over the world during the fire season. This year, many countries are unwilling to send their people over, given our less than stellar success with keeping the virus in check. So we are are working with fewer personnel than in previous years, and mutual aid among the states can only stretch so far.

I heard a podcast recently about the wildfires in Australia over the last couple of years, and how the population there is now basically given a choice to get out early or stay and fight the fires themselves, without assistance from any government agencies. I have been evacuated once (happily, my home did not burn down, although about a third of my property did), and I can't even imagine trying to fight a fire that big, even with my neighbors helping.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Nevada said:


> I don't do well in heat. I stay home in the AC, and go to AC places in an AC car.


Do you ever get to go outside?  I couldn't get over how it still felt like an oven at 11 at night. Ridiculous.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

So far, _*almost*_ every forest professional says they need to do control burns.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

I think a lot of people just do not grasp the idea that forest fires that are burning the underbrush and the litter on the ground is a good thing. They do not understand the idea that letting it accumulate for years results in fires that actually burn the trees in the forest. 

Another problem seems to be the amount of homes that are built out of materials that burn easily. It’s not that hard to use materials on the outside of a home that are fire resistant. Also not hard to design structures to resist burning. Parts of the country have homes that are built to survive hurricanes. The cost to do so and the construction methods needed have been accepted for a long time. Doing the same for homes in fire areas would solve a lot of problems. 

Keeping the area around a home free of materials and plants that burn easy and which then engulf the house is another common problem. 

It seems to be all about “me” instead of what’s best for everyone. The results seem to be pretty bad for everyone.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Graze it, log it, or watch it burn.


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

Grazing and logging on the West coast are frowned upon, not environmentally friendly.... all those cow farts and tree murderers, dontcha know. So they can jolly well watch it burn instead.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

RJ2019 said:


> Grazing and logging on the West coast are frowned upon, not environmentally friendly.... all those cow farts and tree murderers, dontcha know. So they can jolly well watch it burn instead.


Those cow farts can start fires too! Just ask the dumbest...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)




----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

muleskinner2 said:


> Graze it, log it, or watch it burn.


Free range several million goats! 😆


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

A lot of the problem has to do with invasive eucalyptus.


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

po boy said:


> Free range several million goats! 😆


No thanks, I'll take the fires instead


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

po boy said:


> Free range several million goats! 😆


In a state that outlawed the harvest of mountain lions as well as most effective methods of coyote control, that might be easier said than done.


----------



## random (Jul 23, 2020)

I was just rereading a 2018 _New Pioneer_ story about a wildland firefighter who built a log cabin in the mountains. Somewhat relevant given what he did to make the property safe - worth reading if you can. Title was something like "Smoke Jumper's Log Cabin"


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

mreynolds said:


> So far, _*almost*_ every forest professional says they need to do control burns.


Living in one of those Facebook clickbait cabins looks so serene, with the tall oaks and pines within feet of an exterior wall and everything in the cool shade.
Then you step out the back door to check on your dog and discover that 15' from your house you are tangled in briars and brush. 
A 1/2 mile down the road, your neighbor's brother in law drops his ciggie in the leaves while he leaves a good by whiz on the shed and before long, you can hear the roar. Then you can't breathe. Then your structures start to smoke from the embers and the heat alone.
I push brush piles and deadfall together that I have removed from trails and overgrown areas of our timber every fall.
On days it is supposed to rain, I burn.
I have fire breaks and clear cut areas that are maintained.
If a dead tree is not a den tree, then it comes down.

Landscape professionals are not welcome here; nor are environmentalists.
I am not a professional.
I am also not homeless.


----------



## RobertDane (Feb 14, 2020)

HDRider said:


> I belong to a group representing farmers and ranchers. I posed this question -
> 
> Can you folks in CA, WA and OR give us the straight story?
> Are the wildfires due to poor forest management, an unusual dry season or a real long term shift in climate?
> ...


I seriously doubt the forest services would promote practices that cause fires...more likely they don't

have the resources to protect all the homes that get built in historical fire zones..For the view...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Mish said:


> Do you ever get to go outside?  I couldn't get over how it still felt like an oven at 11 at night. Ridiculous.


I treat the summer heat the way people in cold climates treat winters. But it should start cooling off soon.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Up over 1,500 comments. Far and away people say and show evidence of poor forest management.

One comment -
I am sorry we were moving goats all day and I wasn’t able to find your post when we came back down from the mountains. We as residents of California wanted to answer your question. The first picture is California (Stanislaus National Forest) about 20 miles outside of Yosemite. The last picture is Tahoe Forest. When I was a child our forests looked like the last picture. Then spotted owls and the end of logging happened and Forrest management as we knew it ended. The first picture explains a majority of today’s current fire situation.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> The last picture is Tahoe Forest. When I was a child our forests looked like the last picture. Then spotted owls and the end of logging happened and Forrest management as we knew it ended.


Logging and spotted owl habitat destruction aren't part of natural forest management.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Logging and NFM go hand in hand. They don't have to one and the same.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Logging and spotted owl habitat destruction aren't part of natural forest management.


Define natural? You were in the oil and gas industry. Do you have a clue about the wood industry?


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

Nevada said:


> Logging and spotted owl habitat destruction aren't part of natural forest management.


Your information is pretty outdated. Spotted owls do indeed reside in new growth and logged areas.


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

TripleD said:


> Define natural? You were in the oil and gas industry. Do you have a clue about the wood industry?


No.... he lives in the desert but he's the armchair expert here to tell all of us how its done


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

RJ2019 said:


> No.... he lives in the desert but he's the armchair expert here to tell all of us how its done


I guess he sleeps on concrete blocks...


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

TripleD said:


> I guess he sleeps on concrete blocks...


Another on here claims to be a forestry professional. I have a 27 year old nephew who stumping hardwoods at 15. He can tell you what type of tree it is by the bark.


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

TripleD said:


> Another on here claims to be a forestry professional. I have a 27 year old nephew who stumping hardwoods at 15. He can tell you what type of tree it is by the bark.


I think keenataz is a forester(?). A lot of the information is relevant to west coast US forests (despite the manner in which the info can sometimes be delivered) but the geographical and climate differences are quite different here than up North so some of the knowledge just isn't locally adapted.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Funny how they stop at the border


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I don't see any active fires in Western Canada 





__





Canadian Wildland Fire Information System | Interactive map







cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I did find this














__





Canadian Wildland Fire Information System | Fire M3 Hotspots







cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

HDRider said:


> Funny how they stop at the border
> 
> View attachment 90917


That's an awesome graphic, thanks for sharing that. The problem certainly is localized.


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

HDRider said:


> I did find this
> 
> View attachment 90918
> 
> ...


Some of it is moisture levels, species growing in the region, wind, topography. But I strongly suspect the land management practices up North are a large piece of the puzzle...what are they doing that we aren't?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

RJ2019 said:


> Some of it is moisture levels, species growing in the region, wind, topography. But I strongly suspect the land management practices up North are a large piece of the puzzle...what are they doing that we aren't?


I think controlled burns for one thing.


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

Quite possibly, and I also think their environment might be more conductive to it. More moisture, less damage to larger vegetation, less potential for it to burn out of control. I'm just taking a guess here. I actually don't know that much about forest management practices in Canada 

I do know that a lot of Pacific northwest trees and many plants, have evolved to withstand fires, because they have been part of the environment for millennia. The fires themselves aren't new.... fire suppression, and the human factor in general are new. No idea if same stands true in Canada.

We could just blame liberals and their knee jerk policies and leave it at that, I suppose. It's a much more complex issue than that though


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

TripleD said:


> Define natural? You were in the oil and gas industry. Do you have a clue about the wood industry?


It's not like anyone around here was interested in my oil industry advice.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Nevada said:


> It's not like anyone around here was interested in my oil industry advice.


So you don't know about the timber business ?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

TripleD said:


> So you don't know about the timber business ?


I read and watch pbs.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

mreynolds said:


> I'll stick with what the scientist say.


So you believe in global warming


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

TripleD said:


> Never mind answering! The other day you stated that the costs of pressure treated lumber was due to the tarriffs.


Not me.
Warming winter temperatures contributed to the beetle outbreak that caused millions of acres of dead pine trees. Which is standing firewood.
That’s a scientific proven fact.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

barnbilder said:


> Preferably harvest it before the beetles kill it.


Economics don’t allow it.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

TripleD said:


> Another on here claims to be a forestry professional. I have a 27 year old nephew who stumping hardwoods at 15. He can tell you what type of tree it is by the bark.


Jeez. Forest professionals can do that too.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

HDRider said:


> I don't see any active fires in Western Canada
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We have had a cool wet summer through much of central and northern BC. In our fire zone we had no fires this year.
I am not sure about southern BC. I know there was a large fire in the Okanagan awhile back.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

We were not allowed to cut fire wood on the National Forest for most of the summer. When the Forest Service started selling fire wood permits in the spring, the bug loving tree huggers filed a law suite. The forest service had to suspend all cutting on the forest, even yearly road maintenance. They finally lifted the ban in August.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

keenataz said:


> Economics don’t allow it.


Tree huggers don't allow economical harvest of timber. So we bring timber infested with tree pests from all over the world. We cant face the fact humans exist, and have altered every facet of nature, and that we are obliged to manage accordingly. Such as logging tracts in such a manner that a fire can't get very far without hitting a logged area, a burned area, an area of new growth, or a grazed down grassland. The same folks seem to be against killing things that kill herbivores, which are a great natural fire prevention tool. They also seem to think it's a good idea to not completely clear cut areas that have invasive trees that have evolved to be highly flammable because it is their strategy for colonization. The same mentality has infected homeowners, who think it is a good idea to have a tree of any kind anywhere near their house.


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

keenataz said:


> Jeez. Forest professionals can do that too.


@keenataz,
We spoke before once upon a time (when I was someone else here) about forestry and bark beetles. I've come to respect what you have to say.
Anyway. I'm curious as to your thoughts on the beetle populations in relation to the disrupted natural wildfire cycle in the PNW. My personal thoughts are that it's possible the bark beetle population has exploded because it has not been kept in check by the natural fire cycle in the West. A vicious cycle so to speak. Some species of beetle are native and some are not. Maybe the fire suppression has caused the beetle populations to explode, which kills trees and creates even more fuel for fires. What's your opinion here?


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

barnbilder said:


> Tree huggers don't allow economical harvest of timber. So we bring timber infested with tree pests from all over the world. We cant face the fact humans exist, and have altered every facet of nature, and that we are obliged to manage accordingly. Such as logging tracts in such a manner that a fire can't get very far without hitting a logged area, a burned area, an area of new growth, or a grazed down grassland. The same folks seem to be against killing things that kill herbivores, which are a great natural fire prevention tool. They also seem to think it's a good idea to not completely clear cut areas that have invasive trees that have evolved to be highly flammable because it is their strategy for colonization. The same mentality has infected homeowners, who think it is a good idea to have a tree of any kind anywhere near their house.


These were non-native planted trees that were planted there in the 1930-1040's. Burned to a crisp. The native ponderosa pine and the oak trees as well as some of the shrub species sprung right back after being burned.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Eucalyptus is found in much of Socal. As an invasive, it's not as prolific of a competitor as some. But once established, it is basically living gasoline that creates a perfect environment for it's seedlings to establish. The shed bark and leaves have chemical compounds that make them resist decay and also make them highly flammable. The embers are designed to travel for very long distances starting fire wherever they land. The adult trees survive fire quite well, some sending seed ahead of the draft that they create by erupting in a fire tornado at regular intervals, seed that will not only survive the fire, but prosper in burnt ground. Walnuts kill competitors by emitting herbicidal chemicals, Eucalyptus do it with fire. This is why some of the California fires are so devastating, they aren't a natural western wildfire, they are more of an Australian style wildfire, more and bigger flames, faster spreading, but with expensive houses instead of kangaroos.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The beetle problem is directly related to winter temp and drought and not at all to do with fire. Beetles hit stressed trees and in colder times usually only kill the older unhealthy trees. Larve only starts to die when the temp hits around -35 degrees. If you don't get a good cold winter, they multiple and then go on to kill even healthier trees.

Pine beetles have already moved on to healthier parts of the forest when you start seeing lots of dead trees.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> The beetle problem is directly related to winter temp and drought and not at all to do with fire. Beetles hit stressed trees and in colder times usually only kill the older unhealthy trees. Larve only starts to die when the temp hits around -35 degrees. If you don't get a good cold winter, they multiple and then go on to kill even healthier trees.
> 
> Pine beetles have already moved on to healthier parts of the forest when you start seeing lots of dead trees.


The dead trees become fuel for the fires


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Something else to consider. Fresh trees and the pitch on the actual healthy trees can spread fire far worse than dead trees. Dead trees will burn in one spot but the fire moves through the tops of the healthy trees. It was how we almost lost our home. The fire came towards us across the top of the forest. Each tree exploding from the top of one tree to the next. It only went to the forest floor on the dead trees. It was a horrible sight.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Something else to consider. Fresh trees and the pitch on the actual healthy trees can spread fire far worse than dead trees. Dead trees will burn in one spot but the fire moves through the tops of the healthy trees. It was how we almost lost our home. The fire came towards us across the top of the forest. Each tree exploding from the top of one tree to the next. It only went to the forest floor on the dead trees. It was a horrible sight.


Would proper forest management thin the trees via logging?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Would proper forest management thin the trees via logging?


Have you ever logged on a mountainside? Understanding the cost/benefit of thinning versus patch logging is important to take into account. It does not pay on most mountain slopes and does nothing to clean up deadfall .


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Have you ever logged on a mountainside? Understanding the cost/benefit of thinning versus patch logging is important to take into account. It does not pay on most mountain slopes and does nothing to clean up deadfall .


Would thinning trees effect the beetle population?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Would thinning trees effect the beetle population?


No. There are no beetles in those dead trees.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Seems like u


HDRider said:


> Would proper forest management thin the trees via logging?


Seems like plenty of unemployed logging companies might agree.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> No. There are no beetles in those dead trees.


Why would you log dead trees?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Why would you log dead trees?


It is still timber.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> It is still timber.


Why don't they do it?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I already answered that question.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

The bad thing about big standing dead trees is that they will sometimes hold fire for a long time and then emit embers that will restart a forest fire. No they don't burn as hot as pine sap, which does not burn as hot as eucalyptus sap, but they are good for starting fires and restarting fires. 

Big timber is old timber. Young timber is better at resisting disease and pests. Young timber will produce more mast crops, which feed more herbivores to keep the understory clean. Insect pests like old trees with deep bark grooves and dead limbs and injuries/rot here and there. Big timber is not a problem when it is wisely turned into building materials, furniture, fuel, mulch or paper. But when it just stands there, because some people foolishly think that we live in a world that no longer exists, it is a threat.

Forests can't be managed based on what was, they have to be managed based on what is.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Looks like either the county or the power company is being more proactive this year. Tree trimming service out in force on the country roads the last few days. We were out working on our irrigation and counting trees we need to take out at the new property and they stopped by asking if they could take down some palm trees on the property where the power line runs to the house. Absolutely, said we (don't need no stinkin' palm tree torches and those things are scary to try to take out yourelf).


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Would proper forest management thin the trees via logging?


Nothing can stop a crown fire. If wildfires had categories like hurricane's a crown fire would be a cat 7. 

Eliminating the underbrush will most of the time keep it from getting too the tree tops.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Nothing can stop a crown fire. If wildfires had categories like hurricane's a crown fire would be a cat 7.
> 
> Eliminating the underbrush will most of the time keep it from getting too the tree tops.


I understand the under brush thing.

Would thinning trees make it less likely to have a "crown fire"?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I already answered that question.


It us useless trying to have a discussion with you. It always quickly devolves into your dogmatic approach.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> It us useless trying to have a discussion with you. It always quickly devolves into your dogmatic approach.


Why would you ask a question I already answered and then try to insult me because of your mistake?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Why would you ask a question I already answered and then try to insult me because of your mistake?


You did not answer it. You gave an answer to a question I did not ask.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

HDRider said:


> You did not answer it. You gave an answer to a question I did not ask.


She answered, they don't log it cause it's not profitable.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

It can also be very dangerous for loggers to cut down trees containing Do Do birds.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Tree huggers don't allow economical harvest of timber. 

Nothing to do with that. First there are not enough logging contractors to harvest the billions of cubic metres of bug killed wood. There are not enough mills to process it. And if you did the glut on the market would bankrupt the logging companies.


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

^^


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

RJ2019 said:


> @keenataz,
> We spoke before once upon a time (when I was someone else here) about forestry and bark beetles. I've come to respect what you have to say.
> Anyway. I'm curious as to your thoughts on the beetle populations in relation to the disrupted natural wildfire cycle in the PNW. My personal thoughts are that it's possible the bark beetle population has exploded because it has not been kept in check by the natural fire cycle in the West. A vicious cycle so to speak. Some species of beetle are native and some are not. Maybe the fire suppression has caused the beetle populations to explode, which kills trees and creates even more fuel for fires. What's your opinion here?


I think the chief cause is two fold. The warmer winters not killing the beetles. And yes the old growth forest which is their primary target.

This infestation was different however, it also attacked immature timber, which it had not done before. By doing this it not only killed trees for this harvest rotation, but for the next 50 years.

So yes I agree


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

HDRider said:


> Would proper forest management thin the trees via logging?


Again not economical. Would it work? It might. But when a big forest fire gets going, it can send sparks a couple of kilometres to spread.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

HDRider said:


> Would thinning trees effect the beetle population?


No it would not. Those buggers can fly kilometres to find new trees to attack.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

keenataz said:


> I think the chief cause is two fold. The warmer winters not killing the beetles. And yes the old growth forest which is their primary target.
> 
> This infestation was different however, it also attacked immature timber, which it had not done before. By doing this it not only killed trees for this harvest rotation, but for the next 50 years.
> 
> So yes I agree


The cycle of drought and not enough winter cold is what has stressed the trees enough to allow the increased ingestion here. Is it the same there?


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

GTX63 said:


> It can also be very dangerous for loggers to cut down trees containing Do Do birds.
> View attachment 90934


You just move 50 metres up the road. And in the evening, you take out a bbq and lawn chairs to under that tree and tease them.


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

keenataz said:


> You just move 50 metres up the road. And in the evening, you take out a bbq and lawn chairs to under that tree and tease them.


Barbecue steaks directly underneath the vegan tree huggers😆


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Leaving the meat scraps and bones on the ground around the trunk would make sure they are never alone.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

__





Mountain pine beetle


mountain pine beetle is the most destructive insect pest in B.C.'s forests. Learn about the beetle, what it does, and its history.



www2.gov.bc.ca





Some info and links in it.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

RJ2019 said:


> Barbecue steaks directly underneath the vegan tree huggers😆


This actually happened on Roderick Island in 97 or 98. Greenpeace came on the island and climbed onto some logging towers and set up shop.
So the camp/ logging supervisor did put out a bbq and beer close to the tower and for a week taunted them. They also blocked access to the equipment so the protesters could not be resupplied.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

keenataz said:


> Again not economical. Would it work? It might. But when a big forest fire gets going, it can send sparks a couple of kilometres to spread.


Are you a forester or an Indian agent?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Why would you ask a question I already answered and then try to insult me because of your mistake?











You never really answered the question he asked:


HDRider said:


> Would proper forest management thin the trees via logging?





painterswife said:


> Have you ever logged on a mountainside? Understanding the cost/benefit of thinning versus patch logging is important to take into account. It does not pay on most mountain slopes and does nothing to clean up deadfall .


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

keenataz said:


> This actually happened on Roderick Island in 97 or 98. Greenpeace came on the island and climbed onto some logging towers and set up shop.
> So the camp/ logging supervisor did put out a bbq and beer close to the tower and for a week taunted them. They also blocked access to the equipment so the protesters could not be resupplied.


Good for them! Sounds like he had the right idea to shut the protesters down fairly fast


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

keenataz said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm still reading up on the management stuff right now. 

I know cold kills the beetles, but conversely does fire kill them also? Say you cut down and burned a few infested trees, does this also reduce population? This relates back to my original question of whether fire suppression may actually be helping the beetle populations.

And also. Regarding beetle killed timber, would those standing dead trees when milled produce lumber with a lot of holes in it? I understand these are supposed to be bark beetles but my question as to the quality of beetle killed timber remains.
Finally, if the quality of beetle killed timber is good then what on earth is killing the local trees here and making anything milled or cut into firewood look like Swiss cheese? There is no way the killed trees here are saleable


----------



## random (Jul 23, 2020)

Global burned area is down ~25% since 2003, but some regions are up.



https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/90000/90493/global_burned_area_chart.gif


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

random said:


> Global burned area is down ~25% since 2003, but some regions are up.
> 
> 
> 
> https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/90000/90493/global_burned_area_chart.gif


How does that have a bearing on CA/WA/OR


----------



## random (Jul 23, 2020)

HDRider said:


> How does that have a bearing on CA/WA/OR


_"some regions are up"_

What's different about those regions vs. the rest of the world?

No answers there, just an observation.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

RJ2019 said:


> I'm still reading up on the management stuff right now.
> 
> I know cold kills the beetles, but conversely does fire kill them also? Say you cut down and burned a few infested trees, does this also reduce population? This relates back to my original question of whether fire suppression may actually be helping the beetle populations.
> 
> ...


In normal times, beetles are controlled by fall and burn. But this infestation got so large so fast, that did not work.

The shelf life for beetle killed timber is approximately 15 years. Basically that means it is salvageable for 15 years. The beetles only attack the inner bark so the wood is not attacked as such. But over time rot sets in or the trees blow down.

Not sure what is doing your trees, but it sounds like wood borers, which bore into the heartwood and do make it useless.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> I understand the under brush thing.
> 
> Would thinning trees make it less likely to have a "crown fire"?


Yes


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

keenataz said:


> In normal times, beetles are controlled by fall and burn. But this infestation got so large so fast, that did not work.
> 
> The shelf life for beetle killed timber is approximately 15 years. Basically that means it is salvageable for 15 years. The beetles only attack the inner bark so the wood is not attacked as such. But over time rot sets in or the trees blow down.
> 
> Not sure what is doing your trees, but it sounds like wood borers, which bore into the heartwood and do make it useless.


Thank you for the explanation. There is certainly something besides bark beetles getting the local trees.


----------



## Greenthumbgrow (Sep 16, 2020)

HDRider said:


> I belong to a group representing farmers and ranchers. I posed this question -
> 
> Can you folks in CA, WA and OR give us the straight story?
> Are the wildfires due to poor forest management, an unusual dry season or a real long term shift in climate?
> ...


Here in lies the problem they keep putting out the fires so the under scrub overgrows so the fires burn hotter and kill trees if they quit putting out the fires the Under scrub wouldn’t get so overgrown the fires wouldn’t Burn as Hot and Would probably go out on their own and there are a great many trees that need fire in order to grow properly in order to get the seed to germinate


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Are you a forester or an Indian agent?


Maybe he's a combination:


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

In 1859, Los Angeles County recorded temperatures of 133 degrees F while ‘record-breaking temperature' claims made by CA Governor Newsom at 121 degrees F.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

HDRider said:


> In 1859, Los Angeles County recorded temperatures of 133 degrees F while ‘record-breaking temperature' claims made by CA Governor Newsom at 121 degrees F.


Those are 1859 degrees. You have to figure in inflation.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Big fat Dah

“For over a century, firefighting agencies have focused on extinguishing fires whenever they occur. That strategy has often proved counterproductive,” the _Times _reports. “Many landscapes evolved to burn periodically, and when fires are suppressed, vegetation builds up thickly in forests. So when fires do break out, they tend to be far more severe and destructive.” 









These Changes Are Needed Amid Worsening Wildfires, Experts Say (Published 2020)


The blazes scorching the West highlight the urgency of rethinking fire management policies, as climate change threatens to make things worse.




www.nytimes.com


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

Yes, the suppression in itself is large part of problem. Some arrogant ass people moved to areas that burn from time to time, built long term, stationary houses and cities, then tried to stop the forces of nature. Derp. It's like trying to stop a hurricane. Or a tornado or earthquake or tidal surges
... you get the idea....


----------



## Clydecrashcup (Sep 4, 2020)

Poor Forest management is # 1 . The drought contributes to that and Scientists say we have global warming . 2 of the biggest fires were in the coastal range near San Jose and it is all private ground that is primarily used for cattle These areas have nothing to do with Forest Management it was simply lightning strike that set these areas on fire .The tree huggers won't let the loggers go in to clear the dead tree's that are dying from drought and the Bark Beetle. The drought is a breeding ground for the beetle. The Federal government owns 57 % " So I am Told" of the forest and they need to contribute to the fix.


----------



## Roy Gilbert (Apr 11, 2020)

Which forests ... California has State forest land, private forest land and very much Federal forest land. If trump is going to whine about management, he'd better get a crew, or crews, to get busy on the federal forest land. As you can tell, his blaming democratic governors is nothing more than a political cheap shot ... but who would expect otherwise from trump?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)




----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Roy Gilbert said:


> Which forests ... California has State forest land, private forest land and very much Federal forest land. If trump is going to whine about management, he'd better get a crew, or crews, to get busy on the federal forest land. As you can tell, his blaming democratic governors is nothing more than a political cheap shot ... but who would expect otherwise from trump?


A state is it's own country therefore the responsibilities fall back to it's president (governor).

But this problem in California goes back to Republican rule back in the day of Aaaaarnold. The latter ones have just kept it going.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Roy Gilbert said:


> Which forests ... California has State forest land, private forest land and very much Federal forest land. If trump is going to whine about management, he'd better get a crew, or crews, to get busy on the federal forest land. As you can tell, his blaming democratic governors is nothing more than a political cheap shot ... but who would expect otherwise from trump?


So...sending the feds in to handle the fed forest will fix everything, and the Democrat governors can go back to Democrating, which seems to be mainly telling the Feds to stay away from their towns and their mostly peaceful riots.


----------



## Mike Doherty (Aug 16, 2020)

I am in


HDRider said:


> I belong to a group representing farmers and ranchers. I posed this question -
> 
> Can you folks in CA, WA and OR give us the straight story?
> Are the wildfires due to poor forest management, an unusual dry season or a real long term shift in climate?
> ...


I am in central Texas where Cedar/Mountain Juniper grows like a weed here. I ya e been. Leading land recently and want to know if there is a safe buffer distance between trees and the house I am going to build? 100 feet 150 feet? Would that work in California going forward to prevent the fires from burning down homes?


----------



## Mike Doherty (Aug 16, 2020)

GTX63 said:


> So...sending the feds in to handle the fed forest will fix everything, and the Democrat governors can go back to Democrating, which seems to be mainly telling the Feds to stay away from their towns and their mostly peaceful riots.


Democrats go home!


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

..


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Mike Doherty said:


> Democrats go home!


We can't post politics in GC. Ask for entry into politics room


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Mike Doherty said:


> I am in
> 
> 
> I am in central Texas where Cedar/Mountain Juniper grows like a weed here. I ya e been. Leading land recently and want to know if there is a safe buffer distance between trees and the house I am going to build? 100 feet 150 feet? Would that work in California going forward to prevent the fires from burning down homes?


In our area of southern California, they want a minimum of 100 feet of defensible space around structures. You can have vegetation in the defensible space, but it needs to be watered and maintained (no dead trees/high weeds/brush/etc.). 

Roofing material is important, obviously you don't want cedar shake shingles or something easily combustible. A lot of the buildings here are stucco, and not infrequently the eaves are even covered in stucco in an attempt to prevent embers getting in. Something like stone, brick, or stucco vs wood siding might make a difference as well.


----------

