Boy, Greg, can you ever wrangle a BlackBerry. :) Great rant. My brother is the superintendent of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area (encompasses Malibu, Topanga, Agoura and inland to Calabasas and points further east) and I dare say he'd agree with (almost) every point. Comes under national park system rather than forest service, but have the same problems when it comes to fire. It's California. Shit burns.
I just got home from a marathon cross-country trek to cover the Virgin FreeFest (no jokes please!) in Maryland and one leg of the journey home today included an Amtrak charter bus from LA to Bakersfield that took a detour east on the Pasadena Freeway, which took us right past the western fire zone. I'd seen it from the air Friday and again last night. Seeing it from 30,000 feet is like watching a movie, but seeing it from the ground was something else. One thing that may not be obvious to those who aren't that intimately familiar with Los Angeles -- "100 suburbs in search of a city" -- is that the area these fires are in is a transitional zone. The threatened homes are mainly in foothill areas that are hardly "forest" but more chaparral and scrub, and it's dry as a bone right now as we all know. Actual forested areas are much higher up and sparsely populated (for LA County), and I don't believe even these are very useful for logging purposes. No idea what kind of forest management practices are in use up there but I am quite sure it isn't nearly as big an issue as, say, in the Sierra Nevada. And apparently the eastern edge of this fire is now burning toward the Mojave Desert. I'm guessing the reason parts of it hasn't burned in 60 years isn't so much because of "no burn" management practices but just because, hey, mother nature just hasn't seen fit to torch it until now. FWIW, when I was shuttling from LAX to downtown this morning, it was sprinkling. Good sign. I have some fairly shitty photos taken thru a bus window I'll post to Facebook later. Oh, and World News Tonight is now on and somebody needs to work on Charlie Gibson about his pronouncers. Tejunga is teh-HUNGA, not teh-chun-ja. :) --Deb --- On Tue, 9/1/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: media firewatch: teevee transmitters for Los Angeles > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2009, 4:08 PM > Oh, there is a reawson for this... > > Soap box mode on... > > There are millions of acres of national forest land in what > is known as the wildland-urban interface (the parts that > touch civilization -- also known as the WUI) that have been > left similarly untreated. Although there are numerous > reasons for this, but two are key. > > First, the Forest Service is chronically underfunded. This > is a fault of both Republicans and Democrats. Moreover, the > Forest Service regularly raids funds in the forest > maintainence budget to pay for firefighting (these transfers > are allowed because you don't stop fire fighting just > because you run out of money). This means that maintenance > projects often have no money left until Congress > replentishes the fund down the road in an emergency > supplemental. > > Second, the forests have essentially been on lockdown since > the 1980s as politicans, timber companies and the > enviromentalists battle over how or whether we should manage > them -- the federal laws that created the national forests > saw they should be managed as a national trust and for > timber production. To do the kind of maintenance on the raw > materials that are accelerating the fires, you have to cut > down trees. Timber companies like to cut trees while > enviros don't. The environmental movement started using the > courts 1980s to block logging on federal lands. Originally > this was done to prevent large scale clear cuts. When > the Clinton adminstration came into office, large swaths of > forests were put off limits while the companies and the > enviros battled over what to do with the rest. President > Bush tried to open some forests to logging, but was often > rebuffed in the courts since the environmentalists were > usually able to find a judge, especially in the 9th Circuit, > to block a forest mangement plan on account that the forest > didn't adequately consider the affect on the spotted owl or > downstream water quality or some other reason. > > Unfortunately, these battles became so heated that basic > forest management, such as brush maintenance in the WUI or > salvage operations, was often stopped, even when there was > local agreement that such action was necessary. (There are > some great shots of what the area around Mt. St. Helens > looks like ten years later -- compare the private lands that > were maintained with the public lands that were left > unmanaged/left to let nature take its course.). As a result, > other some limited maintenance at the start of the fiscal > year or under stwardship contracting programs, nothing > gets done. Thus, we are likely to see more of this than > less. > > Soap box mode off > > Greg > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Elrod <[email protected]> > > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 14:31:42 > To: World News Now Discussion List<[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: media firewatch: teevee transmitters for Los > Angeles > > > > On Aug 30, 11:56 pm, danny burstein <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Crews were clearing brush around the structures, but > fire officials were > > not sure if they could leave personnel on the mountain > to fight the flames > > because of the danger and limited escape routes. The > fire is less than two > > miles away. > > With the mention of "40 years of unburned brush" in some of > these > pieces, it would be useful to go back and see if "10 > years", "20 > years", etc. were mentioned at all at the appropriate times > in the > past. Or is this the kind of thing that's only > remembered when it's > too late? > > Surely, there's someone in authority who keeps track, isn't > there? > But even so, I would hope that, given the consequences, the > media > finds opportunities to mention "situations of growing risk" > in the > future! > > Is there some kind of intervention that can be done, say at > the 20- > year mark (if not earlier)? > > -Doug Elrod ([email protected]) > P.S. The "World News Now team as the 'Fantastic > Four'" bumper was > pretty nice to see today! Thanks, Donna! > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "World News Now Discussion List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wnndl?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
