| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/11/abo ut-those-california-wildfires.php | ||
| Aesquire |
I speculate that if the money spent, tax money, to be specific, on windmills that slaughter endangered birds had instead been spent on burying power lines, there would be fewer grieving families today. Nothing, repeat, nothing! Is Going to stop wildfires from happening in the west. When the first humans walked there, it's likely the fires had been a periodic event for thousands of years. ( There is some argument as to how long ago people came to the area ) All we can do is try and build our society to adapt and control the damage. Cue "Red Barchetta". | ||
| Sifo |
"When you outlaw the clearing of dead brush and trees because you want to protect the habitat..." Which specific laws you're referencing? I think such laws in California such as CA penal code 384a prohibiting the removal of plant material from public lands generally have specific fire suppression exemption written into them precisely to protect the habitat from wildfire. There are layers and layers of laws, both state and federal that are involved in this. It's not just a CA problem. It affects many states. Since a huge wind storm in 2015 that blew down hundreds of trees on our property, I've engaged in illegal activity cleaning up that debris on our own property. We were looking at having it done professionally (see my long post yesterday where I talk about the arborist we were walking the land with) but that all fell apart for reasons that aren't worth going into here. Rest assured though, the hoops that you need to jump through are many. I really would be shocked to find out that environmental restrictions are less in CA that what I'm dealing with in MI. It is a fact that your Governor vetoed a bill that passed with 100% bipartisan support that dealt with this very issue. He may have his excuses, but when there is 100% agreement among the legislators, you better really have things under control, which based on what we are seeing is clearly not the case. For him to blame this on "climate change" is nothing but deflection. Has CA's climate really changed? The reality is that CA's climate is one of extremes, and has been since Europeans started settling there, and surely for a long time before that. The bottom line is that there are very real reasons that for many decades, forests fires have been extinguished as quickly as possible. It seemed like a good policy as we developed the ability to do such things in wilderness areas. The end result of this sort of policy though is that you wind up with a huge stock pile of very dry, ready to burn fuel on the forest floor, that once ignited becomes an inferno. Add restrictive environmental policies, something that CA is famous for, and there is simply no way to clear that fuel. Let me turn the question back to you though. You seem to be of the mindset that laws and policies are in good balance regarding land management and forest fires. Keeping in mind the fires we are seeing (did I see over 1,000 people missing in the news?), do you really want to maintain that position? | ||
| H0gwash |
PG&E is already turning off the power in hazard areas on high wind days and businesses hate it, "Why are they turning off the power when there's no fire?" The generator lobby must love it though. The forestry management tweet is really a tax reform issue hidden under an outrageous headline. Of course raking the forest would reduce forest fires, you would have to volunteer your time, though, there is no available funding, the loggers don't want to do it, and no one wants to pay insurance on their prescribed burns. | ||
| Sifo |
the loggers don't want to do it False. The people that hire the loggers don't want to pay for it. Still, I don't think that this is the root cause of what we are seeing. Have all these hundreds of square miles (or more likely thousands) of forest been logged in recent years? | ||
| H0gwash |
I will rephrase then, the loggers don't want to do it for the money offered. I probably wouldn't want to do it either for $11/hr. I would be fine with loggers taking good wood to sell and clearing out the crap in the way, but it seems the profit margin, the motivation, is not enough for them, and so fire tends to thin the forests, not capitalism. | ||
| Chauly |
Curious phenomenon near where I used to live. I worked at a huge paper mill in Western Virginia that consumed Coal, Oil, and natural gas in 5 boilers to generate power and steam. They take in Long logs, slash and debark them, chip, etc. to produce paperboard to the tune of 3000 tons per day. The bark was piled and sold as mulch for about $35/ton. A few years back, they entered into an agreement with Dominion Power to build a wood waste boiler/powerhouse. The deal was it couldn't have any other fuel source except the NG to light it off. Now the mill went from a net producer of mulch to a net consumer of bark, sawdust, etc.. The local mulch market was impacted instantly, especially since the mill was paying $40/ton for the wood waste. (They still saved $1mm/month on Fuel). What I want to know is whether or not a new industry would work in CA to "hoover" the forestlands to supply bark-burner powerplants? Seeing all of those BTUs released in the Camp Fire got me to thinking. $40/ton plus a payment from the FS would probably make it worthwhile. I know the loggers in Central VA are sending their lops through the shredder rather than leaving them to rot... | ||
| Sifo |
Around here at least, what to do with the tree tops is simply a matter of negotiation of the price. Actually the percentage of what the logging company gets when they sell to the mill. Nobody knows exactly what their take will be until the job is done. Some years ago, a neighboring property was logged and they left the tops. It's a real mess for a while, but is great habitat for much wildlife. It does break down surprisingly quickly though, and doesn't present the long term fire danger that you get with zero forest management other that putting out fires. Of course, that may vary some in a different climate. BTW, for any that don't know, and unmanaged forest is not a healthy forest. An unmanaged forest is filled with trees that have to compete to survive. Most trees are quite stressed in that environment, making them easy prey for disease. I've never been a fan of clear cutting, but have come to understand that it's not an environmental disaster when done with a plan. We even discussed clear cutting select stands of trees on our property, with the guidance of our arborist, who assured us that in 20 years we would have a stand of much better trees. The forest doesn't always react the way most people would expect. I'm no expert on this stuff, but I've learned a boatload in the past 10 years or so. | ||
| Sifo |
California Governor Jerry Brown Quietly Admits Donald Trump is Right – Proposed Easing Logging Regulations… Well the headline is probably an exaggeration. I don't really expect Brown openly to admit being wrong. Still the fact that he sees the sudden need for less restrictions on forest management makes the facts clear enough. It is an admission by actions. | ||
| Ourdee |
In my teens I paid a lot of attention to using trees as a crop. Started by remembering my great grandpa from before I was 6. There was a 10 acre property that my great grandfather owned. He harvested his heat from the woods in a way that it would always be there for him. As far as I know he and grandma lived off that 10 acres. I remember the cut and stacked rows of split wood, the chicken coop, the root cellar door in the center of the kitchen floor, the hand pumped well just outside the kitchen, and I never went in his barn. You know the cook stove was wood fired. Yes the walk to the outhouse took you by the fire wood so you could bring an arm load back to the house with you. The cobs with the corn kernels removed were saved. There was an old discarded sword that had been thrown under the chicken coop and left to rot. I wish I had gotten the story of it. But was afraid to ask. I'm not sure the electric didn't still come from a windmill and batteries. Only electric used was for a few light bulbs. There was an old radio that was never turned on while I was there. | ||
| Sifo |
I was just reading some of the comments to the story I posted above. There's some pretty knowledgeable people chiming in with what they know from their various experiences. | ||
| H0gwash |
You seem to be of the mindset that laws and policies are in good balance regarding land management and forest fires. That was only to rebut the meme claiming California law favors wildlife over fire management. | ||
| Sifo |
That was only to rebut the meme claiming California law favors wildlife over fire management. Well, from what I can see, which is out of control fires, blaming them on global warming, and finally, a desperate attempt to respond legislatively in the few remaining days of their legislative session, the meme seems to be right on target. YMMV. | ||
| Ratbuell |
Of course raking the forest would reduce forest fires, you would have to volunteer your time, though, there is no available funding, the loggers don't want to do it, and no one wants to pay insurance on their prescribed burns. Not 100% the point. See Sifo's post above, where he has had to engage in "illegal activity on his own property" to manage his own forest/land, and clear the deadfalls. Residents, businesses, everyone in Kali has their hands tied and aren't ALLOWED to clear their land due to over-regulation. And I fail to see how "don't touch it, let it sit and rot (and eventually burn)" generates any tax dollars or other revenue for the state. | ||
| H0gwash |
As you know I live in CA and it really doesn't seem my rural friends feel over-regulated. Perhaps you exaggerate a bit when you say "everyone in California has their hands tied" I actually don't see California residents complaining about over-regulation but I'm sure you can provide examples. | ||
| Ratbuell |
I'd be happy to...but they're all up in smoke now. If people COULD clear their land to keep it safe, I'm sure they WOULD clear their land to keep it safe. And their homes. And their towns. Maybe they just really WANT to save the spotted owl, and really don't care about keeping their homes or their lives. I don't know. It certainly seems your governor Moonbeam doesn't want to allow maintenance, given his veto of the problem area map program that had unanimous, bi-partisan approval... The rampant, widespread, consistently ill-maintained forestry in the state of Kalifornia which produces regular, deadly, massive fires tells me one of two things - either, one, things are over-regulated and people CAN'T keep a safe environment, or, two, they're not over-regulated but the people are inherently either stupid, lazy, or both and don't know HOW to keep a safe environment. I tend to give people (as in, individuals) the benefit of the doubt so I'm going with number one in this case. | ||
| Sifo |
I actually don't see California residents complaining about over-regulation but I'm sure you can provide examples. I'm curious how many you have talked to with over 100 acres that have ever looked into doing any commercial harvesting of trees. The reality in my case is that not all of our acreage is severely limited. Only about 80 acres that the feds have laid claim to. Of course, when out in the woods, I would have a hard time telling you which tree is on which side of that boundary. A lot of that has to do with the fact that someone in Washington DC just drew a line across our property where there has never been a boundary of any sort. So we have pine trees that my dad planted in the '70s that we are now not allowed to harvest without permission. Does that make sense? Two summers ago we planted a few hundred seedlings that were purchased from the county conservancy. These were all species that the conservancy has blessed as being both native and desirable. Yet in doing so, we were committing a federal crime. At least most of them were federal crimes, some were under county and state jurisdiction. Cleaning this mess... OK.  Cleaning this mess... Federal crime.  OK.  Federal crime.  Using this... Definitely a crime, but totally worth it!  Hey, there's the back end of my Buell! Actually harvesting trees starts getting more complicated. | ||
| H0gwash |
I don't think any of my friends own over 40 acres, and I'm sure none of them harvest trees commercially. I'm assuming you could survey to define the actual boundary if you really wanted to, but when is the last time there has been any federal enforcement out in your neck of the woods and what was that like? | ||
| Sifo |
I'm assuming you could survey to define the actual boundary if you really wanted to, but when is the last time there has been any federal enforcement out in your neck of the woods and what was that like? I could, if I could ever find the legal description of what was claimed by the feds. I wonder what it would cost to do a survey of a national park? Last time I saw the feds was quite a few years ago. Told us we couldn't camp here. We told him to f*ck off and get off our land. More to the point though, why should I have to risk federal crimes to clear storm damage that creates a real fire risk to ALL of my land, as well as all of my neighbor's lands? All that they've ever done for us is to hand out maps showing our lake to be withing their boundaries. Well that and put in a trailhead named for our lake. Guess what, when you hike down a trail named for a lake, you expect to see a lake! Then people go off trail (right into the bog area that they say they want to protect) in search of our lake. After a few years of this we did finally get them to rename the trail. I don't think any of my friends own over 40 acres, and I'm sure none of them harvest trees commercially. If you want to hear how the laws tied the hands of foresters, you should talk to those who have looked into it. | ||
| H0gwash |
If it were me, I'd want to survey any federal land that ran thru my land so that I could tell the feds exactly how far they had to f*ck off to have jurisdiction if pressed. On the one hand, it would seem that federal land is not your land and you don't have actual jurisdiction. On the other hand it would seem that you would be doing them a favor by helping them out because obviously they're not doing it themselves. I wonder if they actually would give a crap about what you're doing, but I'm guessing your relationship with the feds is a little tense? | ||
| Hootowl |
In Tom’s case, it was a matter of the government deciding they wanted the land, printing maps, and effectively annexing it. But not legally. They do not own it. But lots of tourists think it is public land because of those maps. At least, that’s how I understand it. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/11/offte leprompter_obama_rambles_nearly_incoherently_attac king_american_global_warming_skeptics.html A stoner's frustration that we won't buy the lies to give him unlimited power. | ||
| H0gwash |
Moonbeam doesn't want to allow maintenance, given his veto of the problem area map program... ill-maintained forestry in the state of Kalifornia which produces regular, deadly, massive fires Maintenance of a clear space around residences is generally required in CA which usually contains fires in the absence of high winds. This maintenance is super easy. But so long as high winds and low visibility at night makes fire fighting aircraft unsafe, fire fighting will always be ill-managed by your measure. | ||
| Ratbuell |
You're talking about a clear yard. I'm talking about forest maintenance. If an overall forest is kept as clear as possible - log the dead and sickly trees, clear deadfalls, clear underbrush, minimize fuel presence, keep the forest thinned out enough that all trees present can survive and prosper - then there won't be nearly as much NEED for firefighting because it simply won't propagate and spread. Fire has 3 components - air, fuel, and heat. If you remove fuel from the equation... I'm not calling for clearcutting, just responsible management and common sense. Trees are one thing - HEALTHY trees. Dense, over-packed, unhealthy trees growing out of piles of dead and dying underbrush and fallen branches are another thing entirely. | ||
| H0gwash |
If people COULD clear their land to keep it safe, I'm sure they WOULD clear their land to keep it safe. I thought you were too. | ||
| Airbozo |
I live on the edge of a CA state forest and a very large Boy Scout ranch property that is considered a forest. The Fire department _requires_ that we keep our properties cleared of debris within 30' of any structure and can fine you if you don't. That requirement exists if your property is less than an acre or hundreds of acres. Fire department rules always trump state rules (according to multiple Fire Chiefs in our area). Where the state law comes into play is in most "sensitive habitat" areas where the brush and "duff" is needed by critters to help them survive. For instance, I can clear dead trees and brush from my property except within 5' of the bank of the creek running through my property. This is so the fish returning to the creek (after decades of not being there) have a place to thrive and grow. BUT... If that brush is within the 30' of my structure rule, then I can clear without issue. The redwood trees are somewhat protected because they actually help prevent the spread of a fire. The bark will burn quickly, leaving nothing for the fire to grab onto and create embers. The trees themselves are so full of water they have a natural protection, unless the fire reaches a certain temp, then I've seen pictures of them exploding. ...and... All of us are free to file for a forestry permit to cut down a specific amount of our trees so long as we comply with all of the rules associated with the permit. I've removed 3 of them from our property, because a residence always gets priority and having a 150' redwood move your house during a wind storm is not fun. | ||
| H0gwash |
If Sifo's situation is some kinda sorta secret federal annexation of his land without legal description I certainly understand the impossibility of compliance because you don't have any practical method to discover which trees are federal and which are yours. In that case I would agree that is super problematic and it would justify a tense relationship with the feds. I would like to think this is an unusual situation. | ||
| Zac4mac |
Kinda like the Bundys. Be safe and well, Tom. Walk softly and carry a big lawyer. Z | ||
| Blake |
Good reporting. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/07/3 0/californias-devastating-fires-are-man-caused-but -not-in-the-way-they-tell-us/ | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.city-journal.org/california-wild-fires California is an artificial environment, as much as Manhattan, or a space station. Imagine a terrorist attack of Biblical proportions. New York City. On some summer day, massive truck bombs drop all the auto traffic bridges, and car tunnels. Leaving the subway intact, so that, theoretically, the first wave of escapees can get clear. Four days later, the food runs out without a massive boat lift to rival Dunkirk AND a constant stream of airborne supplies landed in Central Park, protected by troops stuck on the island. Six days later, with such a huge effort. Then the city burns. Too improbable? Sure, how about a decades long eco populist push to stop tree harvesting by Evil Loggers, and despite decades of warnings, stop building the water reservoir and pipe line systems necessary to keep alive the growing population. As if the Rich White Guys of San Francisco and Long Beach decided to quit paying for infrastructure as soon as they had enough for themselves, and who cares if everyone else suffers? Then you've got today's headlines. |
