Chris: You are right about crown fires, no question about it.
There is no foolproof way to contain forest fires. OK, but if we try 4 or 5 systems there should be at least limited success. Maybe that is the best we can hope for, but it is better than nothing. Another idea is to require -in all areas where there is fire danger- ALL new construction to be fireproof. As fireproof as possible. Again, this is not a perfect solution, when temperatures reach 1000 degrees F, what can anyone expect? But as things are any kind of fire and plain wood homes and businesses go up like kindling, there is zero fire resistance. Want to build in a fire zone? Be prepared to spend twice the cost of normal construction. Otherwise, no permits, simple as that. All kinds of steps can be taken, like re-inforced concrete for all structural elements, all wood in situ must be fire retardant, no vegetation (except really small stuff) within 50 yards of buildings, in-place high performance sprinkler systems, interior and exterior, roofing made of ceramics or other non-inflammables, etc. No magic bullet here either, but this kind of plan should be a real help. Billy ________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Chris Hahn <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 9:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [RC] Re: etc [ RC ] WSJ ...Trump is a bully, but he’s right about bad forest management. You are thinking Billy! The firebreak idea has validity. When in the mining business, I recall seeing many ridgetop bulldozer tracks that were designed for this purpose, as well as access. The problem is that when you have really hot crown fires the burning vegetation gets blasted high into the air. This burning debris then gets blown over fire breaks, rivers, the 10 lane 101 Ventura Freeway, etc. When these fires get revved up, about the only thing that can stop them is a wet and cold winter storm. The best management practice in the wilderness is to let them burn. The burned area creates a very effective fire break for the next fire. The problem is, we have buildings all over former wilderness. We then go in and put out the fires, as best we can. There go the future fire breaks. So we get bigger and bigger fires. Smoky the Bear actually compounded the problem, over time. You are right. Selective logging and forest thinning is a good idea. Chris From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Billy Rojas Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 7:18 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Billy Rojas <[email protected]> Subject: [RC] Re: etc [ RC ] WSJ ...Trump is a bully, but he’s right about bad forest management. Chris: You may be right, sure sounds like it. There is one factor, tho,' that no-one seems to have done anything at all about, firebreaks. I get the idea that clear-cutting is normally a bad idea. But what about fire lanes, areas where all possible fuels are removed, creating, in effect, very wide "highways" in wooded areas that stretch for many miles? I'm all for environmentalism but with extreme fire danger now an every-year thing, something has to be done. Oregon is a prime example. This year has been bad but last year was ridiculous. We went through one stretch where the smoke from fires 100 miles away choked the city of Eugene and simply breathing was a problem. Fires need to be contained and the best way to do this, seems to me, would be to create a system in which the whole landscape was divided into sections each of which was surrounded by really wide firebreaks so that flames could not, not easily anyway, jump to the next section. But there are so many enviro laws in this state that it is difficult in extremis to clear away dead trees or to even harvest trees already dead from last year's fires. The trees are supposed to decay naturally so that the bugs and bacteria can take over and create a green wonderland. Sounds good in theory but in practice you get thousands of square miles of perfect fuel for forest fires. AND, as an added bonus, you get abandoned towns because the lumber industry has been largely killed off. Which is another example of an idea that, in theory is good, but that in the real world is partly a disaster. Billy ________________________________ From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Chris Hahn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 3:09 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [RC] WSJ ...Trump is a bully, but he’s right about bad forest management. Billy, Trump is only partially right. For the last 15 or 20 years, forest managers have woken up to their decades-old err in trying to automatically put out all fires. Now, forest managers are using prescribed burns to get rid of the fuel loads so that when wildfires happen, they burn with much less intensity. I can give an example of a project that I was a part of in Incline Village that worked as described. It isn’t just forest management, it is also the massive building of homes in areas that create a MUCH bigger urban/forest interface. Chris From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Billy Rojas Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 1:41 PM To: Centroids Discussions <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Billy Rojas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [RC] WSJ ...Trump is a bully, but he’s right about bad forest management. California’s Paradise Lost Trump is a bully, but he’s right about bad forest management. The problem is also that Trump is so poorly educated that it is embarrassing to agree with him because he sounds like a functional illiterate. -BR comment Wall Street Journal 401 Comments<https://www.wsj.com/articles/californias-paradise-lost-1542068600?mod=hp_opin_pos1#comments_sector> By The Editorial Board Nov. 12, 2018 [A firefighter is silhouetted by a burning home along Pacific Coast Highway during the Woolsey Fire in Malibu, California, Nov. 9.] One problem with President Trump’s bullying rhetorical style is that he gives his critics reason to ignore him even when he has a point. Consider his weekend threat to yank federal funds from California amid its horrific wildfires. Three fires are raging across the state, killing at least 31 people and scorching more than 200,000 acres, including the town of Paradise in the Sierra Nevada foothills. “There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor,” Mr. Trump tweeted. “Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!” Mr. Trump has no empathy gene even if he is right about forestry ills. Relentless winds and low air moisture make California’s fires harder to contain while development is putting more people in danger. But also fueling the fires is an overgrown government bureaucracy that frustrates proper forest management. About 57% of California forestland is owned by the federal government while most of the rest is private land regulated by the state. Nearly 130 million trees died in California between 2010 and 2017 due to drought and a bark beetle infestation. Dense forests put trees at greater risk for parasitic infection and enable fires to spread faster. When dead trees fall, they add more combustible fuel. Once upon a time the U.S. Forest Service’s mission was to actively manage the federal government’s resources. Yet numerous laws over the last 50 years, including the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act, have hampered tree-clearing, controlled burns and timber sales on federal land. California also restricts timber harvesting and requires myriad permits and environmental-impact statements to prune overgrown forests. As the state Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) dryly noted in April, “project proponents seeking to conduct activities to improve the health of California’s forests indicate that in some cases, state regulatory requirements can be excessively duplicative, lengthy, and costly.” One problem for landowners is disposing of deadwood. Dozens of biomass facilities that burn tree parts that can’t be used for lumber have closed due to emissions regulations and competition from subsidized renewables and cheap natural gas. To burn leaves and tree limbs, landowners must obtain air-quality permits from “local air districts, burn permits from local fire agencies, and potentially other permits depending on the location, size, and type of burn,” the LAO explained. “Permits restrict the size of burn piles and vegetation that can be burned, the hours available for burns, and the allowable moisture levels in the material.” The LAO recommended that California prune its regulations, facilitate timber sales and ease permitting for burning biomass. Environmentalists oppose this, but one irony is that destruction from fires imperils species far more than does regulated tree-clearing. Thinning forests could also save Californians billions of gallons of water each year, according to an April study by the National Science Foundation. The good news is that the Trump Administration is expanding timber sales on federal land and this year’s harvest will be the biggest in two decades. Restoring California’s forests to health could take years, but the lesson of these fires is that the feds and state should drop their political blinders and do it. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
