4 ms·

at least, those 1500 square miles can't burn again... maybe CA need to do controlled burns like FL does (if they don't already do it). IE: Burn dry brush in th

at least, those 1500 square miles can't burn again... maybe CA need to do controlled burns like FL does (if they don't already do it). IE: Burn dry brush in the forests.

vondur 6y ago
There's an article about this very subject in Mother Jones: https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2019/11/californias-wildfire-controlled-prescribed-burns-native-americans/ https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2019/11/californias-...
kec 6y ago
I believe California does, but the scale of the problem is completely different compared to a sate like Florida. California has 2.5x as much land as Florida and a significantly higher percentage of the total land is wilderness or otherwise undeveloped.
- shaftway 6y ago
  Not just wilderness or undeveloped, but highly inaccessible to firefighting crews. The Bay Area has peaks over 4000 feet with lots of fairly sheer areas. Often firefighters have to be dropped in by helicopter. Florida is mostly low rolling hills with the highest point in the state being ~350 feet above sea level. If Florida has a fire in an inaccessible area, it's usually inaccessible due to water, so more of a help to firefighters than a hindrance.
squidlogic 6y ago
As I recall, Bureau of Land Management tried this and there was a lot of backlash from residents. It’s also quite a bit of land to do a controlled burn, so might not be that feasible.
claydavisss 6y ago
It may be too late. The high-risk areas are very close to homes (as is evidenced by the destruction of property). A controlled burn near homes will produce high volumes of smoke even if they are controlled. If they are not adequately controlled, you can lose a town. Depopulating these areas won't need to happen by edict, insurances premiums will do that. If these trends continue, there will be no one living in the quaint gentleman-farmer communities in wine country within twenty years. I predict the sierras will be the next danger zone - as more people move to the Tahoe area, all of the mistakes of sprawl will be repeated.
athms 6y ago
The federal government owns about 45% of California land. Of the forests, 57% are owned by the federal government; 39% are privately owned by individuals, corporations, or land trusts; and the state, county, or local governments control only 2%. Also, most fires start in grassy areas. The Camp Fire that destroyed Paradise started as a grass fire on federal land before it spread to shrubs and burned through mostly private land. California has almost 8 million acres of shrubs. The Woosley Fire that burned almost half of Malibu was started on industrial property owned by Boeing and spread through chaparral along the steep Santa Monica Mountains.

at least, those 1500 square miles can't burn again... maybe CA need to do controlled burns like FL does (if they don't already do it). IE: Burn dry brush in the forests.

vondur 6y ago

There's an article about this very subject in Mother Jones: https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2019/11/californias-wildfire-controlled-prescribed-burns-native-americans/ https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2019/11/californias-...

kec 6y ago

I believe California does, but the scale of the problem is completely different compared to a sate like Florida. California has 2.5x as much land as Florida and a significantly higher percentage of the total land is wilderness or otherwise undeveloped.

shaftway 6y ago
Not just wilderness or undeveloped, but highly inaccessible to firefighting crews. The Bay Area has peaks over 4000 feet with lots of fairly sheer areas. Often firefighters have to be dropped in by helicopter. Florida is mostly low rolling hills with the highest point in the state being ~350 feet above sea level. If Florida has a fire in an inaccessible area, it's usually inaccessible due to water, so more of a help to firefighters than a hindrance.

squidlogic 6y ago

As I recall, Bureau of Land Management tried this and there was a lot of backlash from residents. It’s also quite a bit of land to do a controlled burn, so might not be that feasible.

claydavisss 6y ago

It may be too late. The high-risk areas are very close to homes (as is evidenced by the destruction of property). A controlled burn near homes will produce high volumes of smoke even if they are controlled. If they are not adequately controlled, you can lose a town. Depopulating these areas won't need to happen by edict, insurances premiums will do that. If these trends continue, there will be no one living in the quaint gentleman-farmer communities in wine country within twenty years. I predict the sierras will be the next danger zone - as more people move to the Tahoe area, all of the mistakes of sprawl will be repeated.

athms 6y ago

The federal government owns about 45% of California land. Of the forests, 57% are owned by the federal government; 39% are privately owned by individuals, corporations, or land trusts; and the state, county, or local governments control only 2%. Also, most fires start in grassy areas. The Camp Fire that destroyed Paradise started as a grass fire on federal land before it spread to shrubs and burned through mostly private land. California has almost 8 million acres of shrubs. The Woosley Fire that burned almost half of Malibu was started on industrial property owned by Boeing and spread through chaparral along the steep Santa Monica Mountains.