Wildfire management LTTE

[BuzzH]

Homeowners that did fuel reduction work on their properties, saved their homes. Those that didn't, lost them. The forest service had plans to do fuel reduction treatments adjacent to the WUI, but litigation stopped that work from taking place. I saw this fire take off from across the valley in real time. The only managing you could do was prior to ignition by reducing the fuel load, that was substantial.

That's always been the case, but you can't force a private landowner to do fuel reduction work.

 

[BigHornRam]

That's always been the case, but you can't force a private landowner to do fuel reduction work.

So you are saying fuel reduction works when properly implemented. We are in agreement here.

 

[Irrelevant]

So you are saying fuel reduction works when properly implemented. We are in agreement here.

I'd always been appreciative that in my neck of the woods NGO's haven't been road blocks to forest treatment projects. That appears to have changed

Lawsuit seeks to halt U.S. Forest Service’s Mission Restoration Project

Three conservation groups have sued the U.S. Forest Service over the Midnight Restoration Project, which plans logging and thinning on 53,009 acres in the Twisp River drainage. The lawsuit by the…

methowvalleynews.com

 

[BuzzH]

So you are saying fuel reduction works when properly implemented. We are in agreement here.

Sometimes, but conditions matter and so does climate change. Things that worked in the past may not work in todays climate conditions.

 

[BigHornRam]

Sometimes, but conditions matter and so does climate change. Things that worked in the past may not work in todays climate conditions.

So do nothing is what you are advocating for?

 

[BuzzH]

So do nothing is what you are advocating for?

Don't break your leg jumping to imaginary conclusions.

To recap, since you're having trouble following along.

1. You can't compel private landowners to mitigate fire risk, that is unless you want to trash private property rights.
2. Even if mitigation steps have been taken, they may, or may not work under extreme conditions for all kinds of reasons. As an example: I don't give a shit how much defensible space you have if a landowner chooses to have cedar shakes on their roof, or stack their firewood under their deck. I don't know how much fire you've fought in your life, but I did it from 1987-1994 and its not uncommon for fires to spot 1/4 plus miles ahead of the fire front. If one of those embers lands on a cedar shake roof...your house is burnt toast.
3. Since you can't compel your neighbors to mitigate fire risk, your property could be at risk because of what they don't do.
4. Fire behavior has become more and more extreme over time...more red flag days, stronger winds, extreme drought...making previous mitigation efforts all but worthless.

Deny it all you want, but I'm not in denial, seeing it first hand. Fire seasons are longer and longer, more intense, fire doing things that we haven't seen in the past. Way more construction in WUI, often with piss poor zoning and layout. Too many things to list them all.

Clear enough?

 

[BigHornRam]

Insurance companies don't have to insure properties in the wui that won't and don't do proper fuel reduction treatments, as well as homes with cedar shingles, ect.

If your neighbor doesn't want to do fuel reduction work, have conversation with them. If that fails, treat your own property between them and your home to even higher level.

Support the forest service when they propose proper fuel reduction treatments in your local area. Call out the serial litigants for their obstructionist behavior. Don't use climate change as an excuse to do nothing, like Buzz is suggesting here.

Clear enough?