5 ms·

100 years of US govt forest policy provided the fuel, PG&E provided the sparks. Edit: this is not an anti-government rant. There is far more vegetation in the

100 years of US govt forest policy provided the fuel, PG&E provided the sparks. Edit: this is not an anti-government rant. There is far more vegetation in the wildlands of California than is natural due to forest fire-fighting policy dating back 100 years.

azinman2 7y ago
Can you explain more?
- mdorazio 7y ago
  Probably that many places have pursued policies of preventing forest fires entirely when they are actually a natural part of ecological development. If you keep preventing forest fires, you end up with a lot more potential fuel buildup than if you let them burn once in a while. I'm sure someone will point out that CA does controlled burns on occasion, but it's not the same thing. Edit: here's some reading on the topic: https://www.npr.org/2018/09/27/649649316/fire-ecologists-say-more-fires-should-be-left-to-burn-so-why-arent-they https://www.npr.org/2018/09/27/649649316/fire-ecologists-say...
- iscrewyou 7y ago
  Not OP but I think this is what he/she may be referring to: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/built-to-burn/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/built-to-burn/ The article is good. But podcast itself is also good.
- avocado4 7y ago
  Shoulda raked our woods like them Finns.
amerine 7y ago
Eh?
- eBombzor 7y ago
  Basically controlled burns are the key to preventing a catastrophic wildfire but the US Forest Service and its Smokey the Bear slogan said "fire bad" which caused vegetation to grow uncontrollably over the years. Combine this with the high winds, extremely low humidity, and warm temperatures we see in the fall season in CA and you get a big fire. Interestingly, controlled burning was a common tradition in native american cultures. Maybe we should've listened to the people who lived here for potentially thousands of years instead of oppressing the fk out of them to near genocide levels. But I digress.
  - celim307 7y ago
    I would say definitely genocide levels. We have our own holocaust that is rarely condemned as much as it should be
  - briandear 7y ago
    The US Forest Service does do prescribed burns and the Smokey Bear thing is about people starting accidental fires — Smoky isn’t about opposition to prescribed burns. Bad policy is a contributing factor to these fires. The Paradise Fire’s destruction and human toll was exacerbated because Paradise implemented “road diets” — squeezing critical evacuation and first responder routes. [1][2] It’s a problem of policy being made by people that have no concept of unintended consequences: environmentalists opposing proper forest management as well as creating public safety risks by narrowing roads, “calming” traffic without the common sense to realize that roads serve an extremely valuable public safety function and that many so-called environmentalists promote policies that feel good to the simple minded, but actually do more harm. [3] It’s like the people that oppose hunting — they think they are saving an animal but they end up causing greater damage to the ecosystem because hunted species such as deer end up overpopulating and starving to death. You see similar effects with wild mustangs. People fiercely oppose culling herds even when not doing so results in mass starvation and disease that ends up harming more horses. The idea of shooting a wild horse gets “environmentalists” up in arms because they can’t see the forest for the trees. My point is that forest and environmental management should be done from a position of rationality, reflecting reality rather than some emotional response. Examples: laws against cutting trees over a certain diameter without a time consuming permit process from CalFire. Opposition to logging, even when done responsibly. Protecting of trees when a spotted owl is in the area — even if those trees and associated underbrush become extreme fire dangers. More owl habitat is lost from an uncontrolled fire than would have been lost by properly managing it in the first place. You rarely see this sort of bad policy in other states even though other states do have wildfires. Californians do care deeply about the land — we want to preserve the beauty and majesty of the landscape — but some of us have no idea what we are talking about — we respond to emotional pleas rather than with informed maturity. It’s like having environmental policy designed by well-meaning, but naïve teenagers. [1] https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-camp-fire-deathtrap-20181230-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-camp-fire-dea... [2] https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-paradise-evacuation-road-20181120-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-paradise-e... [3] https://thefederalist.com/2018/11/16/misguided-environmentalism-blame-californias-wildfires/ https://thefederalist.com/2018/11/16/misguided-environmental...
post_break 7y ago
Just keep building houses and developments so close to each other that the fire can hop from one to the next too.

azinman2 7y ago

Can you explain more?

mdorazio 7y ago
Probably that many places have pursued policies of preventing forest fires entirely when they are actually a natural part of ecological development. If you keep preventing forest fires, you end up with a lot more potential fuel buildup than if you let them burn once in a while. I'm sure someone will point out that CA does controlled burns on occasion, but it's not the same thing. Edit: here's some reading on the topic: https://www.npr.org/2018/09/27/649649316/fire-ecologists-say-more-fires-should-be-left-to-burn-so-why-arent-they https://www.npr.org/2018/09/27/649649316/fire-ecologists-say...
iscrewyou 7y ago
Not OP but I think this is what he/she may be referring to: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/built-to-burn/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/built-to-burn/ The article is good. But podcast itself is also good.
avocado4 7y ago
Shoulda raked our woods like them Finns.

amerine 7y ago

Eh?

eBombzor 7y ago
Basically controlled burns are the key to preventing a catastrophic wildfire but the US Forest Service and its Smokey the Bear slogan said "fire bad" which caused vegetation to grow uncontrollably over the years. Combine this with the high winds, extremely low humidity, and warm temperatures we see in the fall season in CA and you get a big fire. Interestingly, controlled burning was a common tradition in native american cultures. Maybe we should've listened to the people who lived here for potentially thousands of years instead of oppressing the fk out of them to near genocide levels. But I digress.
- celim307 7y ago
  I would say definitely genocide levels. We have our own holocaust that is rarely condemned as much as it should be
- briandear 7y ago
  The US Forest Service does do prescribed burns and the Smokey Bear thing is about people starting accidental fires — Smoky isn’t about opposition to prescribed burns. Bad policy is a contributing factor to these fires. The Paradise Fire’s destruction and human toll was exacerbated because Paradise implemented “road diets” — squeezing critical evacuation and first responder routes. [1][2] It’s a problem of policy being made by people that have no concept of unintended consequences: environmentalists opposing proper forest management as well as creating public safety risks by narrowing roads, “calming” traffic without the common sense to realize that roads serve an extremely valuable public safety function and that many so-called environmentalists promote policies that feel good to the simple minded, but actually do more harm. [3] It’s like the people that oppose hunting — they think they are saving an animal but they end up causing greater damage to the ecosystem because hunted species such as deer end up overpopulating and starving to death. You see similar effects with wild mustangs. People fiercely oppose culling herds even when not doing so results in mass starvation and disease that ends up harming more horses. The idea of shooting a wild horse gets “environmentalists” up in arms because they can’t see the forest for the trees. My point is that forest and environmental management should be done from a position of rationality, reflecting reality rather than some emotional response. Examples: laws against cutting trees over a certain diameter without a time consuming permit process from CalFire. Opposition to logging, even when done responsibly. Protecting of trees when a spotted owl is in the area — even if those trees and associated underbrush become extreme fire dangers. More owl habitat is lost from an uncontrolled fire than would have been lost by properly managing it in the first place. You rarely see this sort of bad policy in other states even though other states do have wildfires. Californians do care deeply about the land — we want to preserve the beauty and majesty of the landscape — but some of us have no idea what we are talking about — we respond to emotional pleas rather than with informed maturity. It’s like having environmental policy designed by well-meaning, but naïve teenagers. [1] https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-camp-fire-deathtrap-20181230-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-camp-fire-dea... [2] https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-paradise-evacuation-road-20181120-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-paradise-e... [3] https://thefederalist.com/2018/11/16/misguided-environmentalism-blame-californias-wildfires/ https://thefederalist.com/2018/11/16/misguided-environmental...

post_break 7y ago

Just keep building houses and developments so close to each other that the fire can hop from one to the next too.