bellisarius
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2017
- Posts
- 16,761
Forest fires, especially in CA, are getting a lot of attention in the press these days. Most of what you read is utter bullshit. First of all the severity of forest fires are NOT increasing. Secondly regardless of the cause (arson, lightening, camp fires, power lines, etc.) the severity of MOST of the fires are as a direct result of shitty government policies and/or the intervention of environmental groups. Groups funded by donors that for the most part live in large urban areas but they visited the forest once and now want to "save" them. And to be fair the Smokey the Bear ads that the National Forest Service ran for years, and still do, have actually been counter-productive in a sense.
The largest contributor to sever forest fires is the dead fall. It accumulates year after year until you have a tinder pile that covers thousands of acres. It is the fuel that feeds these fires. In those areas where the dead fall has been removed or burned out before it reaches a critical mass fires are of limited severity and of short duration.
Policy, good and bad.
For years the dead fall was left to accumulate. This was a result of two factors. The first being that some senior policy makers felt it was a good idea. The second was public pressure to "preserve the forests." Another was the ban on logging. Logging serves a useful purpose when down reasonably. The logging process cleans out the dead fall and creates a zone where a forest fire is unlikely. It also creates islands that allow wildlife to proliferate. Old growth forests are in reality the deserts of the woodlands. The browse and grasses that so many animals depend on are shut out from growth.
However allowing huge swaths of forest to be clear cut is equally bad policy. Erosion being the most obvious and detrimental result.
The NFS, BLM, and Park Service are severely underfunded and consequently undermanned. This is true for the State equivalent agencies. Yet year after year they attempt to acquire more land by either purchase or by squeezing the small land owners out. (This is what has sparked the protests in the West.) They don't have the resources (money) to take care of what they have yet keep trying to acquire more. How is this good policy?
Forest Service Roads throughout the West have been irreparably cut to stop access. Access by the very citizens that they are "saving the forests" for and encouraging same to visit. Not only did these roads serve as access, they were also fire roads that allowed the firefighters to get heavy equipment to the site of the fire. The roads were cut as a result of the dwindling manpower but as they say, "no good deed goes unpunished." The law of Unintended Consequences have bitten them in the ass with a vengeance.
Many of the agencies have learned their lesson and have tried to implement sound policy based on science and lessons from the past only to be thwarted by the environmentalist. For example in 2013 CA passed a law (AB-904) that would allow supervised logging. That plan still hasn't been implemented because it's tied up in the courts. Had it been allowed to be implemented would it have reduced the severity of the current fire raging there? We'll never know. Many of these groups are contributing to the destruction of that which they purport to be wanting to "save." Groups funded by people that are completely disconnected from the realities of the environment.
Also in regard to CA., through the 1970's the state did prescribed burns of forest areas to the tune of approx. 140,000 acres a year. Since 1999 that average is now 13,000 acres. Why the severe reduction? See the previous paragraph.
It's Climate Change!
This line of utter horse shit is trotted out by the politicians and the press every time there's a fire bigger than your average suburban backyard. With only a few exceptions the very largest and most deadly of all forest fires in the US and Canada occurred in the 1800's. It's near impossible to reconcile the facts with the premise. But as long as the city dwellers buy the shtick and keep sending in those checks (and voting) they're going to keep trotting out this particular falsehood.
In the End
In the past the politicians have been guilty of over commercializing the public lands. This is an ever present danger that we all must be on the look out for. On the other hand the environmentalists via the courts have become an obstacle to sound land management and that too is a danger that everyone must be on the lookout for.
The largest contributor to sever forest fires is the dead fall. It accumulates year after year until you have a tinder pile that covers thousands of acres. It is the fuel that feeds these fires. In those areas where the dead fall has been removed or burned out before it reaches a critical mass fires are of limited severity and of short duration.
Policy, good and bad.
For years the dead fall was left to accumulate. This was a result of two factors. The first being that some senior policy makers felt it was a good idea. The second was public pressure to "preserve the forests." Another was the ban on logging. Logging serves a useful purpose when down reasonably. The logging process cleans out the dead fall and creates a zone where a forest fire is unlikely. It also creates islands that allow wildlife to proliferate. Old growth forests are in reality the deserts of the woodlands. The browse and grasses that so many animals depend on are shut out from growth.
However allowing huge swaths of forest to be clear cut is equally bad policy. Erosion being the most obvious and detrimental result.
The NFS, BLM, and Park Service are severely underfunded and consequently undermanned. This is true for the State equivalent agencies. Yet year after year they attempt to acquire more land by either purchase or by squeezing the small land owners out. (This is what has sparked the protests in the West.) They don't have the resources (money) to take care of what they have yet keep trying to acquire more. How is this good policy?
Forest Service Roads throughout the West have been irreparably cut to stop access. Access by the very citizens that they are "saving the forests" for and encouraging same to visit. Not only did these roads serve as access, they were also fire roads that allowed the firefighters to get heavy equipment to the site of the fire. The roads were cut as a result of the dwindling manpower but as they say, "no good deed goes unpunished." The law of Unintended Consequences have bitten them in the ass with a vengeance.
Many of the agencies have learned their lesson and have tried to implement sound policy based on science and lessons from the past only to be thwarted by the environmentalist. For example in 2013 CA passed a law (AB-904) that would allow supervised logging. That plan still hasn't been implemented because it's tied up in the courts. Had it been allowed to be implemented would it have reduced the severity of the current fire raging there? We'll never know. Many of these groups are contributing to the destruction of that which they purport to be wanting to "save." Groups funded by people that are completely disconnected from the realities of the environment.
Also in regard to CA., through the 1970's the state did prescribed burns of forest areas to the tune of approx. 140,000 acres a year. Since 1999 that average is now 13,000 acres. Why the severe reduction? See the previous paragraph.
It's Climate Change!
This line of utter horse shit is trotted out by the politicians and the press every time there's a fire bigger than your average suburban backyard. With only a few exceptions the very largest and most deadly of all forest fires in the US and Canada occurred in the 1800's. It's near impossible to reconcile the facts with the premise. But as long as the city dwellers buy the shtick and keep sending in those checks (and voting) they're going to keep trotting out this particular falsehood.
In the End
In the past the politicians have been guilty of over commercializing the public lands. This is an ever present danger that we all must be on the look out for. On the other hand the environmentalists via the courts have become an obstacle to sound land management and that too is a danger that everyone must be on the lookout for.
