4 ms·

It may help your understanding a whole lot to realize that, in fact, the REAL problem REALLY IS the buildup of burnable stuff because of past wildfire policy.

by btilly 5y ago

It may help your understanding a whole lot to realize that, in fact, the REAL problem REALLY IS the buildup of burnable stuff because of past wildfire policy. Climate change explains why it is all catching on fire now. But if we had the forests that we had a century ago, and current climate conditions, we would have far smaller fires than we would if we had current forests and climate conditions from a century ago. Did you know that in a healthy forest, most of the mature trees do not get killed by the fire when a fire comes through? It is easy to see that it has to be true - trees survive centuries and fires come through much more often than that. And the reason why it is true is that when you have minimal underbrush, it burns past quickly and doesn't catch the trunk on fire. But we have enough fuel that it burns, and stays burning long enough to catch the whole tree. Which generates such intense heat that you get local weather conditions that dry out the next area so that when it burns, its trees will catch fire more easily. Guess what? Climate change may start the fire and make it hard to fight. But fuel load is the biggest factor in how intense it is. And that is the result of past forest policy.

deeviant 5y ago
Perhaps you missed the part where it's infeasible to do controlled burns on the scale that people around here are armchairing around because there are many of human structures within these wildlands. That is the reason why these fires are suppressed, because if they aren't they will kill humans or destroy structures. Put another way, if you want to pull your car out of your drive way, but you can't because there is a child standing behind you. The problem is not that you didn't pull you car out, it's the child standing behind you. Moving onto the "Ok then, just change policy and fix that then". Ok, yeah, kick millions of people off their properties, abandon who knows how many structures, easy, simple. Or maybe, you know, it's complicated.
- btilly 5y ago
  Why did you just change the subject? And attack me for something that I didn't say rather than what I did say? The topic was to what extent the current problem is the result of past forestry policy. It wasn't how to get out of the current problem. It *certainly* wasn't about the wisdom of large scale controlled burns in populated areas. Can we go back to the actual topic? And have you answer whether or not you now understand why people say that past forestry policy is the fundamental reason why this problem exists in the first place?
  - deeviant 5y ago
    > And have you answer whether or not you now understand why people say that past forestry policy is the fundamental reason why this problem exists in the first place? Did you miss the part where I asked if you missed the part where it's infeasible to do controlled burns on the scale that people around here are armchairing around because of the human presence within these wildlands? It's not forestry policy that prevented controlled burns, it's urban sprawl. And there then is climate change that is moving faster than many policies already put into place.
    - btilly 5y ago
      I did not miss it. But it was responsive to nothing that I said. As you should be aware, forestry approaches to fuel load include controlled burns, brush clearing, and selective logging. Both brush clearing and selective logging could have been done all along without destroying the homes of people who live in wilderness areas. With proper preparation and regulations, controlled burns can be safely done in lightly populated areas. As an example I point to Australia. Sadly this approach cannot be taken in California, both due to the fact that our houses are not built to appropriate standards, and the fact that fuel loads are dangerously high. However the fact that this is not, today, a feasible approach doesn't alter the fact that it could have been viable with different past policies. Which also means that different future policies could also make it feasible at some point in the future. Your comment is at best a retractive justification for the past forestry policy which left us with our current long-term problems. But in no way does it suggest that past policy did not create the basis for our current problems.
      - deeviant 5y ago
        Your statement: > It may help your understanding a whole lot to realize that, in fact, the REAL problem REALLY IS the buildup of burnable stuff because of past wildfire policy. My direct response: > Perhaps you missed the part where it's infeasible to do controlled burns on the scale that people around here are armchairing around because there are many of human structures within these wildlands. That is the reason why these fires are suppressed, because if they aren't they will kill humans or destroy structures. I even gave you a helpful analogy: > Put another way, if you want to pull your car out of your drive way, but you can't because there is a child standing behind you. The problem is not that you didn't pull you car out, it's the child standing behind you. If you can't see how this isn't responsive to your comment, then we really don't have anything else to dicuss. Also, > With proper preparation and regulations, controlled burns can be safely done in lightly populated areas. You actually aren't a genius with an idea that the fire fighting agencies of California couldn't think of. California does many controlled burns but there is a limit to their effectiveness, safety and scale, and they absolutely will not solve the wildfire crisis in California. It's a bit odd that use Australia as an example (of effectively managing wildfires I presume, your example was not really fleshed out), in that they have had some of the worse wildfires in their country's history in the last few years, and again, California does do prescribed burns as well when/where in it safe.

by btilly 5y ago

deeviant 5y ago

Perhaps you missed the part where it's infeasible to do controlled burns on the scale that people around here are armchairing around because there are many of human structures within these wildlands. That is the reason why these fires are suppressed, because if they aren't they will kill humans or destroy structures. Put another way, if you want to pull your car out of your drive way, but you can't because there is a child standing behind you. The problem is not that you didn't pull you car out, it's the child standing behind you. Moving onto the "Ok then, just change policy and fix that then". Ok, yeah, kick millions of people off their properties, abandon who knows how many structures, easy, simple. Or maybe, you know, it's complicated.

btilly 5y ago
Why did you just change the subject? And attack me for something that I didn't say rather than what I did say? The topic was to what extent the current problem is the result of past forestry policy. It wasn't how to get out of the current problem. It *certainly* wasn't about the wisdom of large scale controlled burns in populated areas. Can we go back to the actual topic? And have you answer whether or not you now understand why people say that past forestry policy is the fundamental reason why this problem exists in the first place?
- deeviant 5y ago
  > And have you answer whether or not you now understand why people say that past forestry policy is the fundamental reason why this problem exists in the first place? Did you miss the part where I asked if you missed the part where it's infeasible to do controlled burns on the scale that people around here are armchairing around because of the human presence within these wildlands? It's not forestry policy that prevented controlled burns, it's urban sprawl. And there then is climate change that is moving faster than many policies already put into place.
  - btilly 5y ago
    I did not miss it. But it was responsive to nothing that I said. As you should be aware, forestry approaches to fuel load include controlled burns, brush clearing, and selective logging. Both brush clearing and selective logging could have been done all along without destroying the homes of people who live in wilderness areas. With proper preparation and regulations, controlled burns can be safely done in lightly populated areas. As an example I point to Australia. Sadly this approach cannot be taken in California, both due to the fact that our houses are not built to appropriate standards, and the fact that fuel loads are dangerously high. However the fact that this is not, today, a feasible approach doesn't alter the fact that it could have been viable with different past policies. Which also means that different future policies could also make it feasible at some point in the future. Your comment is at best a retractive justification for the past forestry policy which left us with our current long-term problems. But in no way does it suggest that past policy did not create the basis for our current problems.
    - deeviant 5y ago
      Your statement: > It may help your understanding a whole lot to realize that, in fact, the REAL problem REALLY IS the buildup of burnable stuff because of past wildfire policy. My direct response: > Perhaps you missed the part where it's infeasible to do controlled burns on the scale that people around here are armchairing around because there are many of human structures within these wildlands. That is the reason why these fires are suppressed, because if they aren't they will kill humans or destroy structures. I even gave you a helpful analogy: > Put another way, if you want to pull your car out of your drive way, but you can't because there is a child standing behind you. The problem is not that you didn't pull you car out, it's the child standing behind you. If you can't see how this isn't responsive to your comment, then we really don't have anything else to dicuss. Also, > With proper preparation and regulations, controlled burns can be safely done in lightly populated areas. You actually aren't a genius with an idea that the fire fighting agencies of California couldn't think of. California does many controlled burns but there is a limit to their effectiveness, safety and scale, and they absolutely will not solve the wildfire crisis in California. It's a bit odd that use Australia as an example (of effectively managing wildfires I presume, your example was not really fleshed out), in that they have had some of the worse wildfires in their country's history in the last few years, and again, California does do prescribed burns as well when/where in it safe.