Hunt Talk Radio - Look for it on your favorite Podcast platform

‘Self-serving garbage.’ Wildfire experts escalate fight over saving California forests

jryoung

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
5,758
Location
Unable to determine due to velocity
This type of activism is rampant across the US. When the USDA gave Governors the ability to influence these projects under the Good Neighbor Authority, it really helped fast-track some good projects relative to the WUI and for wildlife habitat.

The serial litigants decried the effort as just more clearcutting, while the mainstream groups worked on the policy to ensure that protections were in place relative to elk security, etc. Trout folks did outstanding work helping identify areas that needed restoration work for cutthroat and bull trout, etc.

This article does an amazing job of laying it all out there.
 
That's a good article, thanks for sharing JR.

But I dare say, the cool aid drinkers aren't going to buy it.


Dear Sirs,

We are officially filing our grievance with the document "Neffa3's response to the threat ''Self-serving Garbage'=.' Wildfire experts escalate fight over saving California forests.'"

Our exhaustive research into this issue clearly delineates that cool aid is not an actual beverage, nor does it appear anywhere in the canonical lexicon of epithets. As we are clearly showing with exhibit A (see below). The correct terminology is Kool-Aid, as in the beverage enjoyed by millions of children and adults who never outgrew the whimsy of childhood.

We are seeking immediate injunctive relief to stop all electrons from moving across the internet in order to properly establish the correct spelling of this word, or else the spotted owls will get it.

Sincerely,

Some guy who sits in his mom's basement writing mean letters & suing people.

Attachment A:​

kool-aid-man-1.png

 
Dear Sirs,

We are officially filing our grievance with the document "Neffa3's response to the threat ''Self-serving Garbage'=.' Wildfire experts escalate fight over saving California forests.'"

Our exhaustive research into this issue clearly delineates that cool aid is not an actual beverage, nor does it appear anywhere in the canonical lexicon of epithets. As we are clearly showing with exhibit A (see below). The correct terminology is Kool-Aid, as in the beverage enjoyed by millions of children and adults who never outgrew the whimsy of childhood.

We are seeking immediate injunctive relief to stop all electrons from moving across the internet in order to properly establish the correct spelling of this word, or else the spotted owls will get it.

Sincerely,

Some guy who sits in his mom's basement writing mean letters & suing people.

Attachment A:​

kool-aid-man-1.png

Fair enough. I should have known better. I blame the mistake on the fingers, they prefer to misspell words, even misspelled words.
 
Quick Google search and the environmentalists in California are winning....



 
Great article from Ryan Sabalow and Dale Kasler at the SacBee highlighting some of the roadblocks land managers are hitting when it comes to managing forests. Hopefully this article starts to open some more eyes and put pressure on the fringe to get out of the way.


Seems like both can be right. Thinning helped in this circumstance. But thinning also might open up the forest to light and allow for the growth of grasses and scrub brush that when built up over a longer period might make the next fire worse. Each situation is different. I don't think there are definitive one-size-fits-all solutions and it is not black and white, but varying shades of gray. What I noticed was the comment "On the night of Aug. 30, as the fire exploded in Meyers and Christmas Valley, firefighters saved hundreds of homes and businesses. No buildings were lost."

Is saving buildings the problem Government agencies are trying to avoid or are we trying to assist in a creating a diverse ecosystem? I get the firefighters are charged with saving building, but people have to assume some risk for building in those areas and not just assume that people will risk their lives to save their homes.
 
Quick Google search and the environmentalists in California are winning....



I would say they have been scoring repeated goals... they're refining their "legal" injunctivitis skills and where better?
It's the eco-extremes love for the beautifully flavored:

"Hanson, who runs an organization called the John Muir Project, is a published author who’s often featured in news stories on fire and forestry issues. He’s also spent decades pursuing lawsuits against the U.S. Forest Service over plans to cut down trees to reduce fire dangers. His efforts have sometimes prompted delays in thinning projects and even forced the government to leave more of the woods untouched."

doSf2OE8nbmU0pQXwKAMS-FFH4nDksFtBnUNPcICbW4YUFo6AGBKthm1LHa3q5LRwZvqdYNEMO0VyHHMYeucN1YDN7iW3YQRpiNOR2c


 
Seems like both can be right. Thinning helped in this circumstance. But thinning also might open up the forest to light and allow for the growth of grasses and scrub brush that when built up over a longer period might make the next fire worse. Each situation is different. I don't think there are definitive one-size-fits-all solutions and it is not black and white, but varying shades of gray. What I noticed was the comment "On the night of Aug. 30, as the fire exploded in Meyers and Christmas Valley, firefighters saved hundreds of homes and businesses. No buildings were lost."

Is saving buildings the problem Government agencies are trying to avoid or are we trying to assist in a creating a diverse ecosystem? I get the firefighters are charged with saving building, but people have to assume some risk for building in those areas and not just assume that people will risk their lives to save their homes.
Thinning is necessary to restore forests that are dependent on frequent fire regimes yet have been excluded from fire for 100 years. We are now paying the price for that exclusion with catastrophic wildfire.
 
Article highlights the bipolar mentality of California. Good luck managing the forest there without chainsaws! Unbelievable.

the article says "other dirty off road equipment", so I assume they'll eventually get rid of atv/ohv's. How do they expect people to be able to collect fuel for wood fires without a chainsaw? It's just going to create a more dangerous situation in the forest if dead trees are just left out there indefinitely, oh wait, they'll probably "manage" it by prescribed burning. I wonder what that does to the air quality?
 
Great article from Ryan Sabalow and Dale Kasler at the SacBee highlighting some of the roadblocks land managers are hitting when it comes to managing forests. Hopefully this article starts to open some more eyes and put pressure on the fringe to get out of the way.


I have been saying for years that thinning the forest is worse for the forest. In Arizona there are some forests that are thinned to balding, harvesting, selling or burning down almost everything except really tall pines. I wondered if the ground is warmer, thus making tree roots warmer. The only managing that the forests need is to continue to allow people to collect wood for fuel. If they take away our chainsaws, collecting wood fuel will come to a halt. What will we power our chainsaws with? Electricity from our electric cars or our electric generators? The earth in Arizona is definitely hotter without all the shrubs and ground cover? Small trees provide shade to smaller bushes keeping the ground covered in shade and cooler.
 
Thinning is necessary to restore forests that are dependent on frequent fire regimes yet have been excluded from fire for 100 years. We are now paying the price for that exclusion with catastrophic wildfire.
Well sure, that is one way to look at it, but restore them to what? What humans think is a "normal" forest. Then you might end up with a single "type" of forest that probably just fits into the thinning schedule of the timber co with the lease. The reality is we have degraded the environment just through our normal activity that there isn't enough of nature for it to be diversified. We try to preserve sections, but most are so small there isn't a lot of diversity in the age and type of forests.

Side note, I don't think the homeowners would like "frequent fire regimes". They don't like the big fires and they don't like the small fires.
 
The worst fires around me this year were in the highly managed industrial forests. The starts in the older thick unlogged areas of NF all pretty much fizzled out despite predictions they would explode and be catastrophic
 
Well sure, that is one way to look at it, but restore them to what? What humans think is a "normal" forest. Then you might end up with a single "type" of forest that probably just fits into the thinning schedule of the timber co with the lease. The reality is we have degraded the environment just through our normal activity that there isn't enough of nature for it to be diversified. We try to preserve sections, but most are so small there isn't a lot of diversity in the age and type of forests.

Side note, I don't think the homeowners would like "frequent fire regimes". They don't like the big fires and they don't like the small fires.
"Normal" frequent fire regime forests were well spaced and open with fire resistant trees like ponderosa pine, and with a good amount of understory grass . Now the they are overstocked drought stressed dead and dieing fire traps.

When I was young growing up in the Sierra foothills we thinned and burned around our home in the early spring to remove the fuels. That's what home owners did back then to keep their homes safe. Don't know what they are allowed to do there anymore.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
110,812
Messages
1,935,344
Members
34,888
Latest member
Jack the bear
Back
Top