If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   Park system now finding out what happens when you never let areas burn periodically as they helplessly get ready to watch The Great Sequoias become charcoal in California   (usnews.nbcnews.com) divider line 164
    More: Sad, Yosemite National Park, Yosemite National Park 15, park system, California Department of Forestry, fire protection, percent contained, wildfires, National Park Service  
•       •       •

13915 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Aug 2013 at 4:49 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



164 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-26 03:57:05 PM
I'd buy some Great Sequoias charcoal.
 
2013-08-26 04:52:15 PM
No no no no.
Let the white man steward the land.
he knows so much better how to do this than the people that have survived on this land for thousands of years.
You take those slackers and park them on some hell hole of a nuclear testing ground and farking let them rot. They don't know what the fark they are doing. Let the white man steward the land. He is so much better at it.
 
2013-08-26 04:55:25 PM

vudukungfu: No no no no.
Let the white man steward the land.
he knows so much better how to do this than the people that have survived on this land for thousands of years.
You take those slackers and park them on some hell hole of a nuclear testing ground and farking let them rot. They don't know what the fark they are doing. Let the white man steward the land. He is so much better at it.


You sound brown.

And racist.
 
2013-08-26 04:55:30 PM
I have to head down to Eureka for work soon, this is not good news.
 
2013-08-26 04:56:25 PM
Woops, nevermind.  I always though they were closer together.
 
2013-08-26 04:56:32 PM
I know that we want to preserve the park but our mandate should be to preserve nature from man and not preserve nature from itself.

It is natural for a forest to periodically burn down.
 
2013-08-26 04:58:21 PM
vudukungfu

"The people that have survived" are doing great here in Oklahoma between smoke shops and casinos they are buying up pretty much everything.

/wish I had my Cherokee ID card...
 
2013-08-26 04:58:31 PM

abfalter: I know that we want to preserve the park but our mandate should be to preserve nature from man and not preserve nature from itself.

It is natural for a forest to periodically burn down.


Unless a spotted owl lives nearby.  In which case, make a human shield around the flames.
 
2013-08-26 04:58:32 PM
Occam's Nailfile: vudukungfu: No no no no.
Let the white man steward the land.
he knows so much better how to do this than the people that have survived on this land for thousands of years.
You take those slackers and park them on some hell hole of a nuclear testing ground and farking let them rot. They don't know what the fark they are doing. Let the white man steward the land. He is so much better at it.

You sound brown. smart . 

And racist.

ftfy
 
2013-08-26 04:58:50 PM
The raging flames also loomed over towering sequoias that are among the largest and oldest living things on the planet. The iconic trees can withstand fire...

What's the problem again?
 
2013-08-26 05:00:03 PM

abfalter: I know that we want to preserve the park but our mandate should be to preserve nature from man and not preserve nature from itself.

It is natural for a forest to periodically burn down.


FTA:
"The iconic trees can withstand fire"

Apparently not these.
 
2013-08-26 05:00:15 PM
On the bright side, this does help a bit with that wild horse problem.
 
2013-08-26 05:00:38 PM

Occam's Nailfile: vudukungfu: No no no no.
Let the white man steward the land.
he knows so much better how to do this than the people that have survived on this land for thousands of years.
You take those slackers and park them on some hell hole of a nuclear testing ground and farking let them rot. They don't know what the fark they are doing. Let the white man steward the land. He is so much better at it.

You sound brown.

And racist.


I read that as brown and tasty.

Good gravy.
 
2013-08-26 05:01:18 PM

abfalter: I know that we want to preserve the park but our mandate should be to preserve nature from man and not preserve nature from itself.

It is natural for a forest to periodically burn down.


But not the sequoias. They're special.
 
2013-08-26 05:01:40 PM
This was never a problem before man invented fire.
 
2013-08-26 05:02:01 PM

debug: The raging flames also loomed over towering sequoias that are among the largest and oldest living things on the planet. The iconic trees can withstand fire...

What's the problem again?


Decades of putting out forest fires ASAP has led to many areas having a greater than normal density of undergrowth. In such conditions, a fire can become intense enough to burn out even larger sequoias. In more natural conditions, the forest fires are usually not intense enough to kill the giant trees.
 
2013-08-26 05:02:08 PM

abfalter: It is natural for a forest to periodically burn down.


It does not have to 'burn down'.  Many of the big tree forest (Doug Fir, Yellow Pine, Redwood) are pretty fire resistent so long as the fire is small and contained to the forest floor.  However, when you let fuels build up over the years without allowing perodic firest, prescribed burns, selective logging, etc. you end up with fires that are much hotter and will find ther way into the canopy, effectivly killing everything in its path.  Some can even burn so hot as to sterilize the forest floor, making regeneration much more difficult.
 
2013-08-26 05:02:41 PM

vudukungfu: No no no no.
Let the white man steward the land.
he knows so much better how to do this than the people that have survived on this land for thousands of years.
You take those slackers and park them on some hell hole of a nuclear testing ground and farking let them rot. They don't know what the fark they are doing. Let the white man steward the land. He is so much better at it.


OK, wait, let me try this...

No no no no.
Let the black man run Detroit.
You take those cracker corporatists and run them out of town on a rail.  They don't know what the fark they are doing.  Let the black man run Detroit.  He is so much better at it.

Now do you see how racist you sound?
 
2013-08-26 05:02:50 PM
That sound you hear is a million Republicans fapping to the idea of the Sequoias burning, shows them darned liberals for not letting them make picnic tables out of them in the first place.
 
2013-08-26 05:03:49 PM

debug: The raging flames also loomed over towering sequoias that are among the largest and oldest living things on the planet. The iconic trees can withstand fire...

What's the problem again?


They can withstand small intensity fires.  These type of wildfires on the other hand. . . .
 
2013-08-26 05:03:56 PM

Mad_Radhu: On the bright side, this does help a bit with that wild horse problem.


What's the problem? Too much poo?
 
2013-08-26 05:04:22 PM

abfalter: I know that we want to preserve the park but our mandate should be to preserve nature from man and not preserve nature from itself.

It is natural for a forest to periodically burn down.

how do you know this wasn't caused by man? either directly or indirectly?
 
2013-08-26 05:04:33 PM
The big sequoias can live through pretty bad fires.  Part of their natural cycle is for fires to burn through and kill all the small stuff.  Of course, we are talking about one of the worst droughts in recorded history, so it might not be fair to blame it all on the Forestry Service.
 
2013-08-26 05:05:49 PM

debug: The raging flames also loomed over towering sequoias that are among the largest and oldest living things on the planet. The iconic trees can withstand fire...

What's the problem again?


It's not just that. The trees actually need fire to reproduce.
 
2013-08-26 05:07:14 PM
To get my hometown on Fark it just has to burn down. Got it.
 
2013-08-26 05:07:54 PM

Low Budget Dave: The big sequoias can live through pretty bad fires.  Part of their natural cycle is for fires to burn through and kill all the small stuff.  Of course, we are talking about one of the worst droughts in recorded history, so it might not be fair to blame it all on the Forestry Service.


Recorded history started awhile before recorded history.
 
2013-08-26 05:09:12 PM

Occam's Nailfile: vudukungfu: No no no no.
Let the white man steward the land.
he knows so much better how to do this than the people that have survived on this land for thousands of years.
You take those slackers and park them on some hell hole of a nuclear testing ground and farking let them rot. They don't know what the fark they are doing. Let the white man steward the land. He is so much better at it.

OK, wait, let me try this...

No no no no.
Let the black man run Detroit.
You take those cracker corporatists and run them out of town on a rail.  They don't know what the fark they are doing.  Let the black man run Detroit.  He is so much better at it.

Now do you see how racist you sound?


Black people were living in Detroit for thousands of years?
 
2013-08-26 05:09:49 PM

HeadLever: abfalter: It is natural for a forest to periodically burn down.

It does not have to 'burn down'.  Many of the big tree forest (Doug Fir, Yellow Pine, Redwood) are pretty fire resistent so long as the fire is small and contained to the forest floor.  However, when you let fuels build up over the years without allowing perodic firest, prescribed burns, selective logging, etc. you end up with fires that are much hotter and will find ther way into the canopy, effectivly killing everything in its path.  Some can even burn so hot as to sterilize the forest floor, making regeneration much more difficult.


Some of those trees even require a fire to open their cones and reseed themselves.  I thought the Park Service learned this about 20 years ago with the big Yellowstone fires.  Fire's been around longer than man, or land management.
 
2013-08-26 05:10:29 PM

HeadLever: abfalter: It is natural for a forest to periodically burn down.

It does not have to 'burn down'.  Many of the big tree forest (Doug Fir, Yellow Pine, Redwood) are pretty fire resistent so long as the fire is small and contained to the forest floor.  However, when you let fuels build up over the years without allowing perodic firest, prescribed burns, selective logging, etc. you end up with fires that are much hotter and will find ther way into the canopy, effectivly killing everything in its path.  Some can even burn so hot as to sterilize the forest floor, making regeneration much more difficult.


LEt me guess, wealthy people have built holiday homes in the forests and have activly lobbied for the laws that built up the brushwood?
 
2013-08-26 05:10:58 PM
Can't we just grow new giant Sequoias?

/ "Sequoias" is the shortest word with all five vowels.
// It's not the spotted owl we worry about in the Sierras anymore, it is some stupid frog:  http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/environment&id=9145456
// Also, brown man wasn't always a friend of nature:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_use_of_fire
 
2013-08-26 05:11:01 PM

Occam's Nailfile: vudukungfu: No no no no.
Let the white man steward the land.
he knows so much better how to do this than the people that have survived on this land for thousands of years.
You take those slackers and park them on some hell hole of a nuclear testing ground and farking let them rot. They don't know what the fark they are doing. Let the white man steward the land. He is so much better at it.

OK, wait, let me try this...

No no no no.
Let the black man run Detroit.
You take those cracker corporatists and run them out of town on a rail.  They don't know what the fark they are doing.  Let the black man run Detroit.  He is so much better at it.

Now do you see how racist you sound?


Racism against people of color: wage disparities, income disparities, sentencing and profile disparities, tangible negative effects.

"Racism" against white people: Occam's Nailfile's feelings are hurt.  Someone please get him a tissue.

This thread's topic isn't even about racism.  Good grief.
 
2013-08-26 05:12:09 PM
How many fires has General Sherman survived, before the modern-thinking man arrived?
 
2013-08-26 05:12:29 PM

Apik0r0s: That sound you hear is a million Republicans fapping to the idea of the Sequoias burning, shows them darned liberals for not letting them make picnic tables out of them in the first place.


Yeah, because you hear all the republicans in Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Arizona excited about wildfire in thier state.

Forest Management is not really a hard issue to solve from a technical stanpoint, however, it is a nighmare from the political perspective.  You either need to reduce the fuels on human terms or let the wildfires run their course.

If you pick the first option, you have only 2 effective ways of doing this - prescribed burns or some type of logging.  Neither one is really attractive to the environmental/nimby community.  Aslo some fuel loads are high enough that prescribed burns are very risky.

If you pick the second option, you are going to see continued loss property and firefighters lives.
 
2013-08-26 05:12:55 PM

Occam's Nailfile: abfalter: I know that we want to preserve the park but our mandate should be to preserve nature from man and not preserve nature from itself.

It is natural for a forest to periodically burn down.

Unless a spotted owl lives nearby.  In which case, make a human shield around the flames.


Ummmm.....owls can fly.
 
2013-08-26 05:13:37 PM

Galloping Galoshes: Some of those trees even require a fire to open their cones and reseed themselves.


Lodgepole, yes.  However, even with that, when the firest are hot enough it can destroy their seeds as well.
 
2013-08-26 05:14:33 PM

FunkOut: Occam's Nailfile: vudukungfu: No no no no.
Let the white man steward the land.
he knows so much better how to do this than the people that have survived on this land for thousands of years.
You take those slackers and park them on some hell hole of a nuclear testing ground and farking let them rot. They don't know what the fark they are doing. Let the white man steward the land. He is so much better at it.

OK, wait, let me try this...

No no no no.
Let the black man run Detroit.
You take those cracker corporatists and run them out of town on a rail.  They don't know what the fark they are doing.  Let the black man run Detroit.  He is so much better at it.

Now do you see how racist you sound?

Black people were living in Detroit for thousands of years?


Yes Andrew Jackson moved them there.

(psst Occam the difference is one of those things actually happened).
 
2013-08-26 05:15:16 PM
Aurric: .... Occam's Nailfile's feelings are hurt.  Someone please get him a tissue.

This thread's topic isn't even about racism.  Good grief.


Everything's about race to a RACIST.
 
2013-08-26 05:18:06 PM

Norfolking Chance: LEt me guess, wealthy people have built holiday homes in the forests and have activly lobbied for the laws that built up the brushwood?


That is one aspect.  Another is that the public wants to see green forest, not black forest.  Add to the fact that many environmental organizations consider logging to be the debil's work and you end up with a logjam in forest management .

you are probably too young to remember the backlash that Reagan got for the let it burn policy in Yellowstone. In any case, this is not a new debate.
 
2013-08-26 05:18:56 PM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Occam's Nailfile: abfalter: I know that we want to preserve the park but our mandate should be to preserve nature from man and not preserve nature from itself.

It is natural for a forest to periodically burn down.

Unless a spotted owl lives nearby.  In which case, make a human shield around the flames.

Ummmm.....owls can fly.


That, and another owl is out competing them anyways.

HeadLever: Apik0r0s: That sound you hear is a million Republicans fapping to the idea of the Sequoias burning, shows them darned liberals for not letting them make picnic tables out of them in the first place.

Yeah, because you hear all the republicans in Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Arizona excited about wildfire in thier state.

Forest Management is not really a hard issue to solve from a technical stanpoint, however, it is a nighmare from the political perspective.  You either need to reduce the fuels on human terms or let the wildfires run their course.

If you pick the first option, you have only 2 effective ways of doing this - prescribed burns or some type of logging.  Neither one is really attractive to the environmental/nimby community.  Aslo some fuel loads are high enough that prescribed burns are very risky.

If you pick the second option, you are going to see continued loss property and firefighters lives.


A third option is go in, clear some of the fuel load and sell it to some of these cogen electrical generation  facilities that burn wood waste, then let smaller fires burn after that.

There are far too many nimbys that claim to be environmentalists just because it gives them a more legitimate leg to stand on besides "I don't want it to ruin my view".
 
2013-08-26 05:19:46 PM

Occam's Nailfile: vudukungfu: No no no no.
Let the white man steward the land.
he knows so much better how to do this than the people that have survived on this land for thousands of years.
You take those slackers and park them on some hell hole of a nuclear testing ground and farking let them rot. They don't know what the fark they are doing. Let the white man steward the land. He is so much better at it.

You sound brown.

And racist.


Brownies cannot be racist.  Morality is found in melanin.
 
2013-08-26 05:19:59 PM
I wonder if it's hot enough to turn that dirt to glass?  I saw on pbs a long time ago they let like 2 sq/mile forest just grow with out any controlled burns for a decade.  They started that bad boy up to see what would happen, it was so dense with heat it made a 3 inch thick plain of glass over the land.  Crazy stuff.
 
2013-08-26 05:20:49 PM
As far as I can tell, no Sequoias have been even damaged, much less destroyed by this fire.
 
2013-08-26 05:21:05 PM

vudukungfu: No no no no.
Let the white man steward the land.
he knows so much better how to do this than the people that have survived on this land for thousands of years.
You take those slackers and park them on some hell hole of a nuclear testing ground and farking let them rot. They don't know what the fark they are doing. Let the white man steward the land. He is so much better at it.


Well that's a logical fallacy...and racist, but whatever.
 
2013-08-26 05:22:01 PM

patrick767: debug: The raging flames also loomed over towering sequoias that are among the largest and oldest living things on the planet. The iconic trees can withstand fire...

What's the problem again?

Decades of putting out forest fires ASAP has led to many areas having a greater than normal density of undergrowth. In such conditions, a fire can become intense enough to burn out even larger sequoias. In more natural conditions, the forest fires are usually not intense enough to kill the giant trees.


Yeah, in a healthy forest, a wildfire (with no firefighters) will only take 1/3 of the trees. Plus, the heat germinates the pinecones for the next generation. Live pines don't burn in a fire -- they die when there's enough fuel that it boils them, then they die, then burn. The thing to do is just let them burn.

Bristlecone pines actually produce a resin in their needles that's highly flammable, so they can put fuel on the lesser trees beneath them for the next fire that comes through. The same trees have been burning the hell out of their competition for 1000s of years.
 
2013-08-26 05:23:17 PM
Hopefully the flash floods we have planned for tonight and tomorrow will help with the fire control.  But most likely, they will just start more lightning fires (like they started the last few).
 
2013-08-26 05:24:05 PM

meat0918: A third option is go in, clear some of the fuel load and sell it to some of these cogen electrical generation facilities that burn wood waste, then let smaller fires burn after that.


I would consider that a part of the logging selection.  Selective cutting to reduce fuel loads is a great way to help.  Around here, many folks use these small dead trees for firewood.  You can buy permits from the Forest Service for $5 a cord, up to 10 cord (if you get a commercial permit you can get much more than that).  You are really limited on where you can go (you can thank the environmentalist for that as well), but it does provide one way for fuel reduction in certain areas.
 
2013-08-26 05:25:08 PM

LeroyBourne: I wonder if it's hot enough to turn that dirt to glass?  I saw on pbs a long time ago they let like 2 sq/mile forest just grow with out any controlled burns for a decade.  They started that bad boy up to see what would happen, it was so dense with heat it made a 3 inch thick plain of glass over the land.  Crazy stuff.


Wood turns into glass??!!
 
2013-08-26 05:25:17 PM
You have to schedule proscribed burns in California. There are hearings to pick dates, places and times, all of which can be challenged. Then, if you do get a go-ahead, if the AQMD (Air quality management district) decrees the air is too dirty, the burn can't happen. And it can't happen the next day without going through the whole process again.

Wildfires, or course, don't care about the AQMD. That "No! Not today!" attitude is pointless when a fire starts.
 
2013-08-26 05:26:04 PM
Good the faster we run out of things, because of stupidity, the sooner we'll die off as a species, for the over all betterment of the planet and the universe as a whole.
 
2013-08-26 05:26:08 PM
I guess they didn't learn from Yellowstone National Park. That part of the park still hasn't grown all the way back yet and that was almost 20 years ago.
 
2013-08-26 05:28:31 PM
meat0918:
There are far too many nimbys that claim to be environmentalists just because it gives them a more legitimate leg to stand on besides "I don't want it to ruin my view".

We just got a grant from the California gov't to reduce the fuel on our 20 acres (called CFIP).  They are actually paying homeowners to clear brush, thin out canopies, and generally make large areas of land fire-safe.
When I compare this to what happened in Tahoe a few years back, I shake my head.  In Tahoe (IIRC), they couldn't legally cut down any brush in their own yard, even if it was touching their houses.  In my neighborhood, we can't build a house that isn't almost clear-cut for 100ft around it.
 
2013-08-26 05:28:55 PM

hailin: I guess they didn't learn from Yellowstone National Park. That part of the park still hasn't grown all the way back yet and that was almost 20 years ago.


And the park ecosystem has improved because of it.
 
2013-08-26 05:29:15 PM

mcreadyblue: LeroyBourne: I wonder if it's hot enough to turn that dirt to glass?  I saw on pbs a long time ago they let like 2 sq/mile forest just grow with out any controlled burns for a decade.  They started that bad boy up to see what would happen, it was so dense with heat it made a 3 inch thick plain of glass over the land.  Crazy stuff.

Wood turns into glass??!!


No. Wood floats too. Do you know what else floats? Tiny rocks.
 
2013-08-26 05:29:30 PM

patrick767: debug: The raging flames also loomed over towering sequoias that are among the largest and oldest living things on the planet. The iconic trees can withstand fire...

What's the problem again?

Decades of putting out forest fires ASAP has led to many areas having a greater than normal density of undergrowth. In such conditions, a fire can become intense enough to burn out even larger sequoias. In more natural conditions, the forest fires are usually not intense enough to kill the giant trees.


It's kind of like when you forget to trim your pubes. What could have been a weak smolder is now a PUBE FIRE!!
 
2013-08-26 05:29:37 PM

mcreadyblue: LeroyBourne: I wonder if it's hot enough to turn that dirt to glass?  I saw on pbs a long time ago they let like 2 sq/mile forest just grow with out any controlled burns for a decade.  They started that bad boy up to see what would happen, it was so dense with heat it made a 3 inch thick plain of glass over the land.  Crazy stuff.

Wood turns into glass??!!


Dirt is basically sand with some other stuff mixed in. You heat up sand under the right conditions, you wind up with glass.
 
2013-08-26 05:29:51 PM
JamesSirBensonMum: Can't we just grow new giant Sequoias? yes - they grow back

/ "Sequoias" is the shortest word with all five vowels. interesting - what can't trees do??
// It's not the spotted owl we worry about in the Sierras anymore, it is some stupid frog: in oregon, we are going to shoot other owls who are mean to the spotted owl  http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/environment&id=9145456
// Also, brown man wasn't always a friend of nature:  http://en.wikipedia.org  - natives also own forest land and use clear cut practices /wiki/Native_American_use_of_fire

i get that logging practices were out of control in the states, but that has changed considerably in the last 20 years.
so instead of allowing responsible forestry (i.e. not the practices of south america / africa / s.e. asia) in the states, we ban any of it that would yield anything more than a 4x4 , ruin small towns & flock to plastic substitutes.
the real irony is that they are looking for ways to manage the forests but realize that there are no more mills with head rigs large enough for big trees. so instead, it all burns.
 
2013-08-26 05:30:59 PM
Well I bet the Mexican drug cartel is not happy about their bad luck.....
 
2013-08-26 05:31:29 PM

meat0918: I have to head down to Eureka for work soon, this is not good news.


meat0918: Woops, nevermind.  I always though they were closer together.


I was going to ask if you had ever been to the area before LOL
 
2013-08-26 05:32:31 PM

albatros183: Good the faster we run out of things, because of stupidity, the sooner we'll die off as a species, for the over all betterment of the planet and the universe as a whole.


The planet and universe are just fine with or without: us, sequoias, cows, lions and any other living thing you can mention. If we tipped over the planet to become a toxic Venus-like wasteland, earth would chug right along. In no way do humans effect this planets survival in the least, unless we can figure out a way to jam mars into it.
 
2013-08-26 05:32:53 PM

Okieboy: vudukungfu

"The people that have survived" are doing great here in Oklahoma between smoke shops and casinos they are buying up pretty much everything.

/wish I had my Cherokee ID card...


Yes about that you can have Oklahoma....


//RUN!!!!
 
2013-08-26 05:34:40 PM
When are going to finally split California into three states so their eco-craziness is clipped?  Being so large they get to dictate nearly every policy in America, oftentimes not for the best.

/It's not good to have one state basically the same population of Canada.
 
2013-08-26 05:34:53 PM
I don't think there is much reason to believe the native population wouldn't have farked things up nearly as bad as the Europeans did once their population grew large enough. It isn't as if non european cultures have some sort of monopoly on environmental stewardship. See Easter Island.
 
2013-08-26 05:35:41 PM
Whatever you do, don't let any of the slash-and-burn farmers from Central America get hold of it.  That's really bad land management.  And, that practice seems to be ingrained in them.

Forest management isn't a bad idea.  It may just need adjustment.  Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

I wonder if any of these fires are started by some of those drug cartel growers that have set up shop in the California mountains according to news media reports.
 
2013-08-26 05:35:49 PM

fickenchucker: When are going to finally split California into three states so their eco-craziness is clipped?  Being so large they get to dictate nearly every policy in America, oftentimes not for the best.

/It's not good to have one state basically the same population of Canada.


So long as the same thing happens to Texas so they can stop farking with textbooks.
 
2013-08-26 05:36:13 PM

Khazar-Khum: And the park ecosystem has improved because of it.


You can argue the opposite in many cases.  Thes large scale fires really increases sediment loads into nearby streams and this really has an impact on native fish.  When you have fires that burn hot enough to sterilze the soil, it can take decades before the ground cover can revegitate and reduce sediment runoff.

We had an episode where I grew up where the runoff had enough black ash and the temps were high enough that the river water temperature almost got high enough to kill the trout and salmon.
 
2013-08-26 05:37:23 PM

patrick767: debug: The raging flames also loomed over towering sequoias that are among the largest and oldest living things on the planet. The iconic trees can withstand fire...

What's the problem again?

Decades of putting out forest fires ASAP has led to many areas having a greater than normal density of undergrowth. In such conditions, a fire can become intense enough to burn out even larger sequoias. In more natural conditions, the forest fires are usually not intense enough to kill the giant trees.


That's a bingo.  When you immediately stop fires instead of letting areas burn regularly, then you have more intense fires because when they start, they have an abundance of fuel to burn.  Then, in the case when you really need to be able to control a fire and stop it, you can't because you've allowed too much time to pass since the last one.
 
2013-08-26 05:38:28 PM

Aurric: Occam's Nailfile: vudukungfu: No no no no.
Let the white man steward the land.
he knows so much better how to do this than the people that have survived on this land for thousands of years.
You take those slackers and park them on some hell hole of a nuclear testing ground and farking let them rot. They don't know what the fark they are doing. Let the white man steward the land. He is so much better at it.

OK, wait, let me try this...

No no no no.
Let the black man run Detroit.
You take those cracker corporatists and run them out of town on a rail.  They don't know what the fark they are doing.  Let the black man run Detroit.  He is so much better at it.

Now do you see how racist you sound?

Racism against people of color: wage disparities, income disparities, sentencing and profile disparities, tangible negative effects.

"Racism" against white people: Occam's Nailfile's feelings are hurt.  Someone please get him a tissue.

This thread's topic isn't even about racism.  Good grief.


Sounds like you're the one who need the tissue. Good grief.
 
2013-08-26 05:38:50 PM

lockers: The planet and universe are just fine with or without: us, sequoias, cows, lions and any other living thing you can mention.


Correct, it was just looking for platic, right?  Didn't know how to make it.  Needed us.
 
2013-08-26 05:39:06 PM
What's the big deal? Redwoods are designed to handle fire. They're fairly resistant to fire, which is also necessary to them reproducing.  Educate yourselves before you piss your pants.
 
2013-08-26 05:39:12 PM
Thank you Eco Idiots
 
2013-08-26 05:40:54 PM

HeadLever: We had an episode where I grew up where the runoff had enough black ash and the temps were high enough that the river water temperature almost got high enough to kill the trout and salmon.


Sheesh.
 
2013-08-26 05:42:19 PM
FTA:  still threatens some 4,500 structures as well as the power and water utilities in San Francisco, roughly 200 miles to the west

What?
 
2013-08-26 05:42:46 PM
If I remember correctly, the coastal Redwoods require forest fires to get their pine cones to open up and start growing new trees. Also (again if I remember correctly) aren't they very fire resistant and don't get burned up by forest fires?

It's been about 15 years or so since I've been out that way, so my memory might be 100%, but I'm still fairly sure that was the case.
 
2013-08-26 05:43:13 PM
bintherdunthat:
I wonder if any of these fires are started by some of those drug cartel growers that have set up shop in the California mountains according to news media reports.

Not the most recent ones; they have all been lightning strikes.  Yosemite is expecting another thunder storm on Tuesday.  We can expect a bunch more spot fires to light up.  Most of them burn out quickly or are squashed from the air before they get too big.
August fire maps
California State Fire Map
Federal Fire Map (the "Rim" fire is a USFS fire)
 
2013-08-26 05:44:23 PM
HeadLever
We had an episode where I grew up where the runoff had enough black ash and the temps were high enough that the river water temperature almost got high enough to kill the trout and salmon.


Don't be knockin' poached salmon!
 
2013-08-26 05:45:14 PM

Occam's Nailfile: vudukungfu: No no no no.
Let the white man steward the land.
he knows so much better how to do this than the people that have survived on this land for thousands of years.
You take those slackers and park them on some hell hole of a nuclear testing ground and farking let them rot. They don't know what the fark they are doing. Let the white man steward the land. He is so much better at it.

OK, wait, let me try this...

No no no no.
Let the black man run Detroit.
You take those cracker corporatists and run them out of town on a rail.  They don't know what the fark they are doing.  Let the black man run Detroit.  He is so much better at it.

Now do you see how racist you sound?


But they have done such a great job of making Africa such a wonderful place to live.....NOT...
 
2013-08-26 05:50:02 PM

Anthracite: meat0918: I have to head down to Eureka for work soon, this is not good news.

meat0918: Woops, nevermind.  I always though they were closer together.

I was going to ask if you had ever been to the area before LOL


Only been as far south as Crescent City.
 
2013-08-26 05:50:24 PM
I live on 57 acres of land. 30 of that is dense woods. I cut a lot of trails and clear out as much as I can because of all the dead shiat that gathers up. Hedge apple...Lots and lots of hedge apple trees. They grow so thick it creates a natural wall that never rots. It burns like a motherfarker as well. I don't really want some natural event to occur where it all catches on fire, it would be horrific.

It is also nice to be able to walk in those woods without being eaten alive by all the thorns.
 
2013-08-26 05:50:44 PM

Apik0r0s: That sound you hear is a million Republicans fapping to the idea of the Sequoias burning, shows them darned liberals for not letting them make picnic tables out of them in the first place.


Quoting the all-knowing Wikipedia:
Wood from mature giant sequoias is highly resistant to decay, but due to being fibrous and brittle, it is generally unsuitable for construction. From the 1880s through the 1920s, logging took place in many groves in spite of marginal commercial returns. Due to their weight and brittleness, trees would often shatter when they hit the ground, wasting much of the wood. Loggers attempted to cushion the impact by digging trenches and filling them with branches. Still, as little as 50% of the timber is estimated to have made it from groves to the mill. The wood was used mainly for shingles and fence posts, or even for matchsticks.

So, probably not for picnic tables. Apparently, though, they are AWESOME for matchsticks.
 
2013-08-26 05:50:46 PM

Honest Bender: What's the big deal? Redwoods are designed to handle fire.


Not a fire of this magnitude.  Sure, you can replant seedlings after they are gone, but that is not the point here.

http://news.yahoo.com/yosemite-takes-steps-protect-sequoias-fire-1950 5 9969.html
 
2013-08-26 05:51:06 PM
Well, and the Bay Area up to Cloverdale/Santa Rosa, but it's like  being in two different states.
 
2013-08-26 05:51:06 PM

ph0rk: fickenchucker: When are going to finally split California into three states so their eco-craziness is clipped?  Being so large they get to dictate nearly every policy in America, oftentimes not for the best.

/It's not good to have one state basically the same population of Canada.

So long as the same thing happens to Texas so they can stop farking with textbooks.


Done--no state should be more than 10,000,000.  Split them all up.

/My state has 5.7 million.
 
2013-08-26 05:52:18 PM

Apik0r0s: That sound you hear is a million Republicans fapping to the idea of the Sequoias burning, shows them darned liberals for not letting them make picnic tables out of them in the first place.


Wow, that was retarded. You seriously believe that?
 
2013-08-26 05:54:22 PM

zipdog: abfalter: I know that we want to preserve the park but our mandate should be to preserve nature from man and not preserve nature from itself.

It is natural for a forest to periodically burn down.

But not the sequoias. They're special.


How many T-shirts does your picture sell?
 
2013-08-26 05:54:45 PM

fickenchucker: ph0rk: fickenchucker: When are going to finally split California into three states so their eco-craziness is clipped?  Being so large they get to dictate nearly every policy in America, oftentimes not for the best.

/It's not good to have one state basically the same population of Canada.

So long as the same thing happens to Texas so they can stop farking with textbooks.

Done--no state should be more than 10,000,000.  Split them all up.

/My state has 5.7 million.


We have over 7 million in our state that are here illegally and adding people every day in the baby wards, do we count them??
 
2013-08-26 05:56:39 PM

ga362: Don't be knockin' poached salmon!


Yeah, but many of these are ESA listed 'endangered salmon'.   They go best on a cedar plank*.

*the wild fish are listed as endangered, you can still generally fish for (and keep) the hatchery-raised salmon.
 
2013-08-26 06:03:07 PM
at least they will have something to run the furnaces if there is no coal on the map
 
2013-08-26 06:06:16 PM

LeroyBourne: I wonder if it's hot enough to turn that dirt to glass?  I saw on pbs a long time ago they let like 2 sq/mile forest just grow with out any controlled burns for a decade.  They started that bad boy up to see what would happen, it was so dense with heat it made a 3 inch thick plain of glass over the land.  Crazy stuff.


You and your wife (Morgan Fairchild! - Yeah, that's right...) were watching that show together, I'll bet.
 
2013-08-26 06:08:50 PM
images1.wikia.nocookie.net

This mean I finally might get to carve out
the world's first drive-through humidor?

Yee-Haw!

 
2013-08-26 06:10:07 PM

vudukungfu: No no no no.
Let the white man steward the land.
he knows so much better how to do this than the people that have survived on this land for thousands of years.
You take those slackers and park them on some hell hole of a nuclear testing ground and farking let them rot. They don't know what the fark they are doing. Let the white man steward the land. He is so much better at it.


Like a few tribal assholes knew the difference.
 
2013-08-26 06:11:55 PM

meat0918: Woops, nevermind.  I always though they were closer together.



Oh, thank goodness!  I wasn't sure if I was going to have time to pray for you and Omarion.
 
2013-08-26 06:12:08 PM
One big fire instead of a whole bunch of little ones, subby?  That's called efficiency!
 
2013-08-26 06:14:35 PM

noitsnot: LeroyBourne: I wonder if it's hot enough to turn that dirt to glass?  I saw on pbs a long time ago they let like 2 sq/mile forest just grow with out any controlled burns for a decade.  They started that bad boy up to see what would happen, it was so dense with heat it made a 3 inch thick plain of glass over the land.  Crazy stuff.

You and your wife (Morgan Fairchild! - Yeah, that's right...) were watching that show together, I'll bet.


lol wut?  If I was married to that dime piece we wouldn't be sitting around watching documentaries on pbs, well we could, but I would need sex later.
 
2013-08-26 06:14:44 PM
Ya think Sequoia and Redwood have already thought of fire, once or twice, in thousands of years? Answer C: (they have very fire proof bark)   I would worry more about the Bristlecone, so old it is not even in the dictionary.
 
2013-08-26 06:20:00 PM

abfalter: I know that we want to preserve the park but our mandate should be to preserve nature from man and not preserve nature from itself.

It is natural for a forest to periodically burn down.


Man is nature.  We are natural.
 
2013-08-26 06:21:10 PM

HeadLever: ga362: Don't be knockin' poached salmon!

Yeah, but many of these are ESA listed 'endangered salmon'. They go best on a cedar

Sequoia  plank*.

Window seat please.
 
2013-08-26 06:22:50 PM

JamesSirBensonMum: Federal Fire Map (the "Rim" fire is a USFS fire)


Check out "Mississippi" a fire in Alaska.  Wow...

Also, other fires to date: 838k acres out of a total of a total of 926k.

At times it seemed like the whole state was on fire.  Even miles away the smoke was so thick it was like fog.
 
2013-08-26 06:24:35 PM

hailin: I guess they didn't learn from Yellowstone National Park. That part of the park still hasn't grown all the way back yet and that was almost 20 years ago.


uh, last I knew it takes about 100-250 years for a typical lodgepole pine to be considered mature.  http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_rn029.pdf
So unless you want to replant Yellowstone with Poplars, you're just going to have to wait a bit.
 
2013-08-26 06:27:27 PM
I demand we smother this fire with old bacon grease.

/Because fried woodland critters can be tasty
 
2013-08-26 06:28:45 PM

HeadLever: Add to the fact that many environmental organizations consider logging to be the debil's work and you end up with a logjam in forest management .


The problem is that the logging industry wants to take the tall, healthy trees, not the old dying trees or accumulating dead underbrush. Republicans are trying to use "look, forest fires!" as an excuse to allow loggers to take the exact fraction of the forests we need to preserve, leaving behind the exact fraction of the forests that causes the problems with vast forest fires.

It is just another example of how every Republican populist talking point is fraudulently disingenuous.
 
2013-08-26 06:28:58 PM

Droopy Dro: Ya think Sequoia and Redwood have already thought of fire, once or twice, in thousands of years? Answer C: (they have very fire proof bark)   I would worry more about the Bristlecone, so old it is not even in the dictionary.


I've seen where they grow. There is not much around them to burn. Lazarus and its ilk will survive.
 
2013-08-26 06:31:46 PM
send in the giant sta-puft marshmallow man!!!!

kingsford now lining up to "vacation" in town.
 
2013-08-26 06:35:29 PM

LeroyBourne: mcreadyblue: LeroyBourne: I wonder if it's hot enough to turn that dirt to glass?  I saw on pbs a long time ago they let like 2 sq/mile forest just grow with out any controlled burns for a decade.  They started that bad boy up to see what would happen, it was so dense with heat it made a 3 inch thick plain of glass over the land.  Crazy stuff.

Wood turns into glass??!!

No. Wood floats too. Do you know what else floats? Tiny rocks.



And bread.
 
2013-08-26 06:36:00 PM

Enigmamf: The problem is that the logging industry wants to take the tall, healthy trees, not the old dying trees or accumulating dead underbrush. Republicans are trying to use "look, forest fires!" as an excuse to allow loggers to take the exact fraction of the forests we need to preserve, leaving behind the exact fraction of the forests that causes the problems with vast forest fires.


The trick to this is that you can easily mandate removal of the underbrush along with the trees the timber industry wants.
 
2013-08-26 06:45:21 PM

HeadLever: you are probably too young to remember the backlash that Reagan got for the let it burn policy in Yellowstone. In any case, this is not a new debate.


I remember stomping around Yellowstone in 1978.  All the lodge pole pine was old growth and probably a 1/4 was already killed by bark beetles. So really what was burning was stands of old and dead trees.  There was a picture from the fire that tells you all you needed to know. Press crews  lined up waiting for their turn at a spot on the road where if you pointed the camera just right you could get a shot of the reported with a burned out wasteland behind them.  The other side of it was of course timber companies that start slobbering at the idea of getting a hold of timber from national parks for 5 cents on the dollar.
 
2013-08-26 06:46:57 PM

Enigmamf: The problem is that the logging industry wants to take the tall, healthy trees, not the old dying trees or accumulating dead underbrush.


They will take what ever you give them if it makes economical sense.  Firewood, fence/poles, saw logs, etc.  yes, you generally get more bucks for the bigger trees that you can make lumber out of, but that is just the economics of the situation, and really has nothing to do with what the logging industry 'wants'.

What the logging industry really wants to do is just stay in buisness.

Republicans are trying to use "look, forest fires!" as an excuse to allow loggers to take the exact fraction of the forests we need to preserve, leaving behind the exact fraction of the forests that causes the problems with vast forest fires.

You really don't know much about forest management.  On public land It is not the logger's decision on where to log.  It is the land managers decision to open up a logging sale where they see fit.  The logging companies then have bid thier price out for these trees.  Of course the stands of mature fir is going to bring a better price than a stand of beetle-killed lodgepole.  That is the economics of the situation.  It doesn't mean that the Forest Service cannot initiate a timber sale in said lodgepole area, however, they are not going to get a very high bid price and it may not even cover the expenses of them issuing the sale.

Add in the cost of lawsuits from multiple environmental organizations and you can see how these sales become very tough to sell by all involved.  I heard a stat where I grew up and the number of sawmills in southern Idaho went from 35 or so back in the 70s to 3 today.

Of course, this little conflagration had a bit to do with that as well
 
2013-08-26 06:48:14 PM

alienated: You sound brown. smart .

And racist.

ftfy


No. No, you really didn't.
 
2013-08-26 06:48:20 PM
FTA - We're going to do our best to rebuild it back for the grandkids and great grandkids to enjoy it.
I hate to break the news, but you're gonna need to find some logs to rebuild that log cabin.
 
2013-08-26 06:49:38 PM
They've known about the value of periodic fires for a while. They've even been doing it on purpose.
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/haase/psw_1998_haase001.pdf
 
2013-08-26 06:49:41 PM

Apik0r0s: That sound you hear is a million Republicans fapping to the idea of the Sequoias burning, shows them darned liberals for not letting them make picnic tables out of them in the first place.


Look how stupid you sound...
 
2013-08-26 06:52:40 PM

Enigmamf: HeadLever: Add to the fact that many environmental organizations consider logging to be the debil's work and you end up with a logjam in forest management .

The problem is that the logging industry wants to take the tall, healthy trees, not the old dying trees or accumulating dead underbrush. Republicans are trying to use "look, forest fires!" as an excuse to allow loggers to take the exact fraction of the forests we need to preserve, leaving behind the exact fraction of the forests that causes the problems with vast forest fires.

It is just another example of how every Republican populist talking point is fraudulently disingenuous.


Have you ever seen a selectively logged forest? How about one that was extremely overgrown?

Have you ever seen one that has been so badly burned due to overgrowth and "forest protection" policies?
 
2013-08-26 06:54:43 PM

give me doughnuts: LeroyBourne: mcreadyblue: LeroyBourne: I wonder if it's hot enough to turn that dirt to glass?  I saw on pbs a long time ago they let like 2 sq/mile forest just grow with out any controlled burns for a decade.  They started that bad boy up to see what would happen, it was so dense with heat it made a 3 inch thick plain of glass over the land.  Crazy stuff.

Wood turns into glass??!!

No. Wood floats too. Do you know what else floats? Tiny rocks.


And bread.


And witches!!
 
2013-08-26 06:55:12 PM

gibbon1: All the lodge pole pine was old growth and probably a 1/4 was already killed by bark beetles.


old growth and lodgepole are not really used in the same context, but I understand what you are saying.  It is part of the issue we have here as well.  The fuel buildup continues to pile up and we are doing nothing about it.  I would recommend that we allow the loggers into certain swaths of these forest where we can reduce fuels and create useful firebreaks for any fire that happens to hit these areas.  Or once the firebreaks are constructed, we can begin a regiment of prescribed burns.

However, that idea is Dead on Arrival as the access limitations on public lands here are extensive and certain environmental lawsuits would make it a very expensive idea.  Again, the technical aspects are not that hard to figure out.  The political fight, however, is exhausting and frustrating.
 
2013-08-26 06:58:14 PM

Mr. Breeze: Have you ever seen a selectively logged forest? How about one that was extremely overgrown?

Have you ever seen one that has been so badly burned due to overgrowth and "forest protection" policies?


His type of response is what leads many folks to really belive that the liberal environmentalist would rather see the forest burn in the catastrophic wildfires than see anyone allowed to log an area.  It appears that they can only see the logging industry as an enemy and refuse to see them as a tool that could help if the circumstances were right.
 
2013-08-26 07:01:49 PM

HeadLever: Apik0r0s: That sound you hear is a million Republicans fapping to the idea of the Sequoias burning, shows them darned liberals for not letting them make picnic tables out of them in the first place.

Yeah, because you hear all the republicans in Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Arizona excited about wildfire in thier state.

Forest Management is not really a hard issue to solve from a technical stanpoint, however, it is a nighmare from the political perspective.  You either need to reduce the fuels on human terms or let the wildfires run their course.

If you pick the first option, you have only 2 effective ways of doing this - prescribed burns or some type of logging.  Neither one is really attractive to the environmental/nimby community.  Aslo some fuel loads are high enough that prescribed burns are very risky.

If you pick the second option, you are going to see continued loss property and firefighters lives.

I work for an environmental organization and we like what is going on in Montana, particularly what is going on with the practices on the eastern slopes and are trying to convince our government to look at those practices instead of  clearcutting which is currently being practiced.
 
2013-08-26 07:02:58 PM

Occam's Nailfile: Now do you see how racist you sound?


Yep, you're a moron. This was obviously parody of Native American words and feelings.

Back to school with you, child.

Oh, wait, the last vestiges of a good education died in the mid-90s. So you're shiat out of luck, child.
 
2013-08-26 07:10:08 PM
Betcha, a lot of marijuana grow ops have gone "up in smoke" too
 
2013-08-26 07:11:39 PM

mtbhucker: I work for an environmental organization and we like what is going on in Montana, particularly what is going on with the practices on the eastern slopes and are trying to convince our government to look at those practices instead of clearcutting which is currently being practiced.


It sounds like you work for a environmental group that is willing to work with land managers and the logging industry.  Good for you.  I agree that the practices of logging always needs to be scrutinized and we do need to attempt to be better stewards.  However, we also need to recognize that logging is a tool that should be utilized and can work for the communities and the forest.

Generalizing loggers into a Republican arm that only wants to destroy everythign in their path is the wrong way to look at this issue.
 
2013-08-26 07:16:18 PM

AllUpInYa: Betcha, a lot of marijuana grow ops have gone "up in smoke" too


Yep and the cost for it has just gone up...ha, ha
 
2013-08-26 07:23:24 PM
Everything burns ...

archive.4chon.net
 
2013-08-26 07:32:28 PM
This is bullshiat.

All we need to do is get some libs in office and this shiat will be taken care of.

God damn farking republicans. They are destroying this country.
 
2013-08-26 07:37:04 PM

HeadLever: mtbhucker: I work for an environmental organization and we like what is going on in Montana, particularly what is going on with the practices on the eastern slopes and are trying to convince our government to look at those practices instead of clearcutting which is currently being practiced.

It sounds like you work for a environmental group that is willing to work with land managers and the logging industry.  Good for you.  I agree that the practices of logging always needs to be scrutinized and we do need to attempt to be better stewards.  However, we also need to recognize that logging is a tool that should be utilized and can work for the communities and the forest.

Generalizing loggers into a Republican arm that only wants to destroy everythign in their path is the wrong way to look at this issue.


We do try to work with industry and government, but there is a small contingent of powerful land managers and civil servants in the govt that are holdovers from the 70s and 80s who only see trees as a source of wood fibre and nothing else.  It doesn't help that the lone sawmill in the area has very powerful allies. They push clearcuts as the only way to control fire and pine beetles.  Recently they've added water harvesting as a way to justify clearcuts, which I don't think will go over well in an area that is still cleaning up from the worst flooding In decades.
 
2013-08-26 07:41:13 PM

I Like Shiny Things: This is bullshiat.

All we need to do is get some libs in office and this shiat will be taken care of.

God damn farking republicans. They are destroying this country.


Huh???

10/10??
 
2013-08-26 07:44:14 PM

Okieboy: vudukungfu

"The people that have survived" are doing great here in Oklahoma between smoke shops and casinos they are buying up pretty much everything.

/wish I had my Cherokee ID card...


wait, being Cherokee gets one something now somewhere?  I've been out of touch...

I think most of the relatives I had what used to be very active Cherokee-ians are all dead now, but...hey, I'd like to buy up everything too.
 
2013-08-26 07:52:18 PM
Yes, forests used to burn down

There also used to be a lot more forests.  When NPS is charged with protecting the remaining pockets, they are justifiably hesitant to let it burn.
 
2013-08-26 08:07:29 PM
Of course the answer to this is more government!
All government failures mean more government.
And more failures. And more government and more failures and more government.
 
2013-08-26 08:08:20 PM

Occam's Nailfile: vudukungfu: No no no no.
Let the white man steward the land.
he knows so much better how to do this than the people that have survived on this land for thousands of years.
You take those slackers and park them on some hell hole of a nuclear testing ground and farking let them rot. They don't know what the fark they are doing. Let the white man steward the land. He is so much better at it.

You sound brown.

And racist.


and correct, don't forget he is also correct. which is probably why you have all that sand in your vagina.
 
2013-08-26 08:09:58 PM

Norfolking Chance: HeadLever: abfalter: It is natural for a forest to periodically burn down.

It does not have to 'burn down'.  Many of the big tree forest (Doug Fir, Yellow Pine, Redwood) are pretty fire resistent so long as the fire is small and contained to the forest floor.  However, when you let fuels build up over the years without allowing perodic firest, prescribed burns, selective logging, etc. you end up with fires that are much hotter and will find ther way into the canopy, effectivly killing everything in its path.  Some can even burn so hot as to sterilize the forest floor, making regeneration much more difficult.

LEt me guess, wealthy people have built holiday homes in the forests and have activly lobbied for the laws that built up the brushwood?


DING! DING! DING!
 A winnar is you!
 
2013-08-26 08:25:20 PM

CliChe Guevara: Norfolking Chance: HeadLever: abfalter: It is natural for a forest to periodically burn down.

It does not have to 'burn down'.  Many of the big tree forest (Doug Fir, Yellow Pine, Redwood) are pretty fire resistent so long as the fire is small and contained to the forest floor.  However, when you let fuels build up over the years without allowing perodic firest, prescribed burns, selective logging, etc. you end up with fires that are much hotter and will find ther way into the canopy, effectivly killing everything in its path.  Some can even burn so hot as to sterilize the forest floor, making regeneration much more difficult.

LEt me guess, wealthy people have built holiday homes in the forests and have activly lobbied for the laws that built up the brushwood?

DING! DING! DING!
 A winnar is you!


Being from the area, I have to say it's pretty hard to fight the "flat landers" on stuff like this. After Sonora lost the gold mine in the 80s a ton of good paying jobs just disappeared. The mill is still there, but the only major industry left besides lumber is tourism.

My family could lose the house I grew up in, my grandparents house, my cousins house, my uncles house and two other homes we've had in the area. I remember the 1987 Stanislaus Forest complex fire, seeing an entire mountain burn can fark with a kid.
 
2013-08-26 08:49:39 PM
After the government gets done administering the public lands, turn it loose on the economy, jobs, Wall Street, your diet, your health care, your kid's education, all of it. Paradise shall surely result.
 
2013-08-26 08:55:25 PM

leadmetal: Of course the answer to this is more government!
All government failures mean more government.
And more failures. And more government and more failures and more government.


Can't decide whether you're trolling, or just REALLY farking stupid.

Leaning towards the latter.
 
2013-08-26 09:00:02 PM
We're going to need bigger s'mores
 
2013-08-26 09:30:16 PM

damonm: leadmetal: Of course the answer to this is more government!
All government failures mean more government.
And more failures. And more government and more failures and more government.

Can't decide whether you're trolling, or just REALLY farking stupid.

Leaning towards the latter.


Why do observations disturb you so as to lash out like that?

That's how this country 'works' and has worked for decades.

More government is always the answer to problems that were created by a government solution.
 
2013-08-26 09:40:57 PM

happydude45: give me doughnuts: LeroyBourne: mcreadyblue: LeroyBourne: I wonder if it's hot enough to turn that dirt to glass?  I saw on pbs a long time ago they let like 2 sq/mile forest just grow with out any controlled burns for a decade.  They started that bad boy up to see what would happen, it was so dense with heat it made a 3 inch thick plain of glass over the land.  Crazy stuff.

Wood turns into glass??!!

No. Wood floats too. Do you know what else floats? Tiny rocks.


And bread.

And witches!!


Don't forget root beer!
 
Ral
2013-08-26 10:06:39 PM

ski9600: FTA:  still threatens some 4,500 structures as well as the power and water utilities in San Francisco, roughly 200 miles to the west

What?


The power lines that run electricity to San Francisco pass through the area where the wildfire is moving.  The fire could potentially damage that connection, which would cut off power for the city.  Also, SF gets its water from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, which is currently experiencing issues with ash contamination that might worsen.

Personally I don't have a problem with SF losing power and water services.  Isn't that what the enviro-hippies want?  For us to all return to the stone age?
 
2013-08-26 10:09:34 PM

Norfolking Chance: LEt me guess, wealthy people have built holiday homes in the forests and have activly lobbied for the laws that built up the brushwood?


Last time I was in Colorado, it seemed people were gnashing their teeth over just that.  You got the old retirement cabin in the 'woods' where nothing has burned for 100 years.  Trees are dead or old and dry.  Lots of downed wood.  And the old farts go mad if you try to force them to clean up the mess.  They don't want to pay to have the dead wood removed nor allow anyone to clear cut. But they want the state and feds to save their asses when there is a fire.
 
2013-08-26 10:39:29 PM
See http://www.inciweb.org/  for the scariest info. CA has nothing on Idaho.

Sort the fires by acres burned.

There are 5 active fires over 100,000 acres. The Rim (CA) and the Pony Complex (ID) are tied neck and neck for first at 149K acres. Two other fires are also in Idaho. So, 3 of the top 5 all in ID. CA is third in size. ID is 14th.
 
2013-08-26 10:57:20 PM

JamesSirBensonMum: / "Sequoias" is the shortest word with all five vowels.


"Eunoia" is shorter by two letters
 
2013-08-26 10:57:37 PM

bikerific: Yes, forests used to burn down

There also used to be a lot more forests.  When NPS is charged with protecting the remaining pockets, they are justifiably hesitant to let it burn.


Except it is part of the natural lifecycle of a forest, especially out west. The dead timber and excessive growth of saplings and brush is a problem that mother nature will remedy one way or another regardless of our experiments with forest management.

We can put out all the fires we want, but the underlying problem is still there.
 
2013-08-26 11:56:54 PM

pedobearapproved: vudukungfu: No no no no.
Let the white man steward the land.
he knows so much better how to do this than the people that have survived on this land for thousands of years.
You take those slackers and park them on some hell hole of a nuclear testing ground and farking let them rot. They don't know what the fark they are doing. Let the white man steward the land. He is so much better at it.

Well that's a logical fallacy...and racist, but whatever.


It  ACTUALLY HAPPENED, you moran. What, were you sleeping when your elementary school history class covered White Man's Burden?

/Damn, this thread is full of idiots
 
2013-08-26 11:58:12 PM

LadySusan: Sort the fires by acres burned.


In terms of acres burned, this year is tame compared to last year.  Just in central Idaho we had the following:
Halstead fire was 182K acres
Mustang Fire was 340K acres
Trinity Fire was was 148K acres

This year, however, many of the fires are much closer to civilization.
 
2013-08-27 12:00:14 AM

Mr. Breeze: Except it is part of the natural lifecycle of a forest, especially out west. The dead timber and excessive growth of saplings and brush is a problem that mother nature will remedy one way or another regardless of our experiments with forest management.

We can put out all the fires we want, but the underlying problem is still there.


Unless we remove those fuels ourselves via logging.
 
2013-08-27 12:09:06 AM

happydude45: give me doughnuts: LeroyBourne: mcreadyblue: LeroyBourne: I wonder if it's hot enough to turn that dirt to glass?  I saw on pbs a long time ago they let like 2 sq/mile forest just grow with out any controlled burns for a decade.  They started that bad boy up to see what would happen, it was so dense with heat it made a 3 inch thick plain of glass over the land.  Crazy stuff.

Wood turns into glass??!!

No. Wood floats too. Do you know what else floats? Tiny rocks.


And bread.

And witches!!


And ducks!!
 
2013-08-27 12:40:04 AM
I know everyone is enjoying standing on their farking soap boxes and spouting their favored and myriad creeds, but
-  the fire isn't all that close to any sequoias and isn't going to burn any of them.
- this fire is in the middle of nowhere in rough terrain; its burned a dozen cabins and other various structures in an area almost 200 square miles. There's no nimbys there isn't much residential/forest interface, there isn't much of anything but a bunch of trees and lot of granite and a whole lot of up and down.
- The fire isn't particularly hot. There hasn't been much fire suppression up there, things burn through now and then.
 
2013-08-27 12:50:24 AM

HeadLever: I would recommend that we allow the loggers into certain swaths of these forest where we can reduce fuels and create useful firebreaks for any fire that happens to hit these areas.


Problem is, "selective" logging generally winds up with the timber company taking all the large, healthy trees -- the trees that could withstand moderate-intensity fires -- and leaving behind smaller trees, undergrowth, and slash -- aka fuel. The problem gets worse instead of better. There are solutions that involve logging, but that isn't one of them.
 
2013-08-27 01:15:38 AM
Hi Farkers!

Friendly fire ecologist and park ranger here!

A few tid-bits that every little camper should understand. Even you, over there, using that knife in an unsafe manner to carve a sharp stuck for who-know-what use!

1. Land management agencies, and their missions, are very different; get mad at the correct one. They include private land owners; local, state, and federal governments; and NGOs. The subby is woefully ignorant of this, somehow saying "Park system" when he really should refer to "National Forests, private inholdings, and other land management agencies responsible for managing the forests of the Sierra Nevadas." The National Park Service and National Fish & Wildlife Service pioneered the use of prescribed burns, yet manage a relatively tiny percent of lands in the Lower 48. It's mostly Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management down here.

2. All wildland fires are not the same. They burn differently for myriad reasons; overall climate, recent or ongoing weather events and winds, slope, vegetation, land use history, time since last fire (of some kind, also variable), forest pathogens, etc. Because of all these inputs, many significanly influenced by human activities also in a dizzying variety or ways, few fires and "natural" anymore. Doing nothing is just as unnatural as any other forest management choice.

3. Go ahead and get angry at the Forest Service, the National Park Service, or whomever you want - but it's your own damn fault nobody cares about forest health until there's a fire. Send me some God damned money and I can fix this problem. We, the fire fighting community, know what the fark to do - but our hands are tied. Instead of the proactive forest health and management we want to do with controlled burns and mechanical treatments, we are underfunded, hounded by idiots who either don't realize the American West is smokey from time to time and get pissy about our burns, or sue us for cutting too many trees (you know, the dense thickets that cause catastrophic crown fires).

These is a solution. It requires people to a) care and b) vote. Please, elect officials that raise your taxes. There, I said it. Fixing our forests is going to be expensive. But we have to do it, or we will lose most of them by 2050. Look it up.

(Steps down off smoldering stump and shoulders his Stihl)
 
2013-08-27 01:16:34 AM
These = There is. Ooops
 
2013-08-27 01:31:54 AM

Low Budget Dave: The big sequoias can live through pretty bad fires.  Part of their natural cycle is for fires to burn through and kill all the small stuff.  Of course, we are talking about one of the worst droughts in recorded history, so it might not be fair to blame it all on the Forestry Service.


Thank you
It seems that most don't understand what part of the Forestry Service does
From studies done over countless years, they have obtained knowledge of what helps a healthy forest grow. Yes, we have made mistakes in our past.
The Forestry Service allows and will initiate burns in forest areas to simulate what nature seems to prefer. The problems arise when human population gets in the way. Control burns, have gotten out of control. People don't like that, and they complain. So, it kinda puts a damper on such things. Also, some people who don't live anywhere near those areas complain about money being spent in those areas. So there's that also.
Just saying that there are efforts to strike a balance between nature and humans. But finding that balance isn't easy.
 
2013-08-27 01:52:30 AM

vudukungfu: No no no no.
Let the white man steward the land.
he knows so much better how to do this than the people that have survived on this land for thousands of years.
You take those slackers and park them on some hell hole of a nuclear testing ground and farking let them rot. They don't know what the fark they are doing. Let the white man steward the land. He is so much better at it.


This is very late in the thread to comment... but you sound drunk.

Also, maybe kind of a racist idiot.
 
2013-08-27 02:05:48 AM

0z79: vudukungfu: No no no no.
Let the white man steward the land.
he knows so much better how to do this than the people that have survived on this land for thousands of years.
You take those slackers and park them on some hell hole of a nuclear testing ground and farking let them rot. They don't know what the fark they are doing. Let the white man steward the land. He is so much better at it.

This is very late in the thread to comment... but you sound drunk.

Also, maybe kind of a racist idiot.


when the indigenous peoples of the americas gathered together in large urban groups it was common for the local large fauna to become extinct
If you weren't elite you were eating rats
you don't want to know what the elites were eating
 
2013-08-27 02:22:12 AM

jigger: Mad_Radhu: On the bright side, this does help a bit with that wild horse problem.

What's the problem? Too much poo?


Cattlemen and sheep ranchers want the wild horse land too.
 
2013-08-27 02:35:01 AM

Aurric: "Racism" against white people: Occam's Nailfile's feelings are hurt.


My feelings aren't hurt, Aurric.  I just call out racism when I see it.  I agree, the thread isn't about race...or rather, wasn't, until some jackass started spouting off about "the white man", as if that has a farking thing to do with wildfires.  What's odd is that when someone starts blabbing about how something is white people's fault, everyone here on Fark (and just about any public forum) just goes about their business, as if those kinds of statements are just A-OK.

They're not.  They're racially divisive and inflammatory.  A person can't honestly can't claim to be against racism and then ignore statements like that.  It's like the feminists being silent when people make misogynistic comments about conservative women.  If someone can't speak out against all examples of bigotry, then they're just another jackass with an agenda.

Sorry for the thread jack though.
 
2013-08-27 05:31:04 AM

vudukungfu: No no no no.
Let the white man steward the land.
he knows so much better how to do this than the people that have survived on this land for thousands of years.
You take those slackers and park them on some hell hole of a nuclear testing ground and farking let them rot. They don't know what the fark they are doing. Let the white man steward the land. He is so much better at it.


Wow, it took two posts to this to degenerate into hatred of whitey.

/ let your anger go, racebaiter.  Stop hating the white man.
 
2013-08-27 08:44:05 AM

Occam's Nailfile: Aurric: "Racism" against white people: Occam's Nailfile's feelings are hurt.

My feelings aren't hurt, Aurric.  I just call out racism when I see it.  I agree, the thread isn't about race...or rather, wasn't, until some jackass started spouting off about "the white man", as if that has a farking thing to do with wildfires.  What's odd is that when someone starts blabbing about how something is white people's fault, everyone here on Fark (and just about any public forum) just goes about their business, as if those kinds of statements are just A-OK.

They're not.  They're racially divisive and inflammatory.  A person can't honestly can't claim to be against racism and then ignore statements like that.  It's like the feminists being silent when people make misogynistic comments about conservative women.  If someone can't speak out against all examples of bigotry, then they're just another jackass with an agenda.

Sorry for the thread jack though.


No, that was a brilliantly stated observation. Kudos.
 
2013-08-27 12:21:44 PM

Worldwalker: Problem is, "selective" logging generally winds up with the timber company taking all the large, healthy trees -- the trees that could withstand moderate-intensity fires -- and leaving behind smaller trees, undergrowth, and slash -- aka fuel. The problem gets worse instead of better. There are solutions that involve logging, but that isn't one of them.


The swaths that I am disucssing here would have to be clearcuts as you can't leave any trees in these fuel-laden forest if you want to make an effective firebreak.  When the fires get into the canopies of the forest, it does not matter if you take out all the dead and small trees and leave the larger mature trees.  The fire will rip through them pretty much the same.  If you are going to create a true firebreak that has a chance to stop these types of fires, you are going to have to take all the fuels, not just part.

The only reason that loggers want to take the mature trees is that they are what actually makes the money for them.  Trees that you can make into lumber are much more valuable than trees/brush that you can only use for pulp or maybe firewood.  Again, the public land managers can dictate what trees the logging companies can remove, however, if you limit it to the 'trash wood' then don't be suprised if you don't get a very good offer from the logging companies (if you get any offer at all).  In order to do this correctly, you are going to have to make it work for everyone.  You can allow some logging of the mature trees, but dictate that the logger also remove all the trash wood as well.  Don't forget that many of these stressed foreste that many of the large mature trees are on the verge of dying as well.  If you are looking at a simple fuel reduction type project, you can flag these to be removed, while keeping the more healthy trees there.
 
2013-08-27 12:29:34 PM

rangerdavid: Go ahead and get angry at the Forest Service, the National Park Service, or whomever you want - but it's your own damn fault nobody cares about forest health until there's a fire. Send me some God damned money and I can fix this problem. We, the fire fighting community, know what the fark to do - but our hands are tied. Instead of the proactive forest health and management we want to do with controlled burns and mechanical treatments, we are underfunded, hounded by idiots who either don't realize the American West is smokey from time to time and get pissy about our burns, or sue us for cutting too many trees (you know, the dense thickets that cause catastrophic crown fires).


Great post.

Yep, like I said, the technical solutions to this issue are pretty straight forward.  The political side of the issue is a nightmare.  The ignorance of the general public on public lands never ceases to amaze me.  Which folks really took more time to actually learn and care about the forest and public lands than what they spend biatching about what others may or may not be doing about it.
 
2013-08-27 12:42:18 PM
How is it that the fire is threatening a large body of water?
 
2013-08-27 01:00:17 PM

HeadLever: Forest Management is not really a hard issue to solve from a technical stanpoint, however, it is a nighmare from the political perspective.  You either need to reduce the fuels on human terms or let the wildfires run their course.

If you pick the first option, you have only 2 effective ways of doing this - prescribed burns or some type of logging.  Neither one is really attractive to the environmental/nimby community.  Aslo some fuel loads are high enough that prescribed burns are very risky.

If you pick the second option, you are going to see continued loss property and firefighters lives.


Property, sure, but firefighters don't have to be put at risk.

Dear Los Angeles, every year large swathes of the entire area your city is built in burns.  Starting today, the fires will be allowed to burn unchecked until they finish.  If you don't like it, buy insurance and have good backups or GTFO.  If you opt to relocate and cannot afford to, FEMA will provide you with temporary assistance.  Love, Everybody else who doesn't live in a natural fire zone.

Simple.

That goes for the rest of Southern California too.
 
2013-08-27 01:38:41 PM

bikerific: There also used to be a lot more forests.


Common misperception.  Due to tree-planting campaigns there's actually more forest today than they used to be.  Every copse in North Dakota, for example, was started by humans.
 
2013-08-27 02:24:39 PM

Firethorn: bikerific: There also used to be a lot more forests.

Common misperception.  Due to tree-planting campaigns there's actually more forest today than they used to be.  Every copse in North Dakota, for example, was started by humans.


Depends on what date you arbitrarily decide means "used to be". Yes, there is a bit more forest land today than there was 50 years ago. However, there is quite a bit less than there was in 1630. (a billion acres down to 745 million by 2002), a less arbitrary time as it predates destruction by European settlers.

The regional picture is more complicated. The north and south regions of the country were very heavily cleared by humans while the less settled Pacific and Rockies were not as hard hit. The picture is also much more complicated than just the number of acres of forest. Old growth forest were mostly eliminated and they are far more valuable for species diversity and density than a 50 year old replanted forest. Also small, divided patches are less useful for animals, especially larger animals, than extended unbroken acreage. I mention this because we don't have a right to pat ourselves on the back too much for raw acreage of forest.
 
2013-08-27 04:44:12 PM

Kensey: Starting today, the fires will be allowed to burn unchecked until they finish.


Um, no.  Reagan tried that in the 80s and it did not work too well.  Your brilliant 'idea' is as about as dumb as they come.
 
2013-08-27 04:45:07 PM

whtriced: How is it that the fire is threatening a large body of water?


Contamination of the drinking water supply.  The Water Treatment Process is not set up to handle the ash.
 
2013-08-27 05:55:18 PM

HeadLever: Kensey: Starting today, the fires will be allowed to burn unchecked until they finish.

Um, no.  Reagan tried that in the 80s and it did not work too well.  Your brilliant 'idea' is as about as dumb as they come.


It's going to burn eventually -- might as well let it do its thing on its natural cycle.  Plus it's borderline criminal to suck the Colorado dry to water SoCal and on top of that use even more water to suppress the natural fire cycle.

That goes for any place subject to a characteristic natural disaster, as far as I'm concerned.  Get insured and learn to deal with it, or GTFO.
 
2013-08-27 06:10:54 PM

Kensey: It's going to burn eventually -- might as well let it do its thing on its natural cycle.


Not necessarily.  It could be removed or it could just decompose back into the soil.

That goes for any place subject to a characteristic natural disaster, as far as I'm concerned.

Want to know how I know you have never spent much time in the Western US?
 
Displayed 164 of 164 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report