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  
•       •       •

13920 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Aug 2013 at 4:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



164 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 14 of 164 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report