The West Is on Fire. Trump Hasn’t Bothered Mentioning It

[Moi621]

BS. Only some are on federal lands. And like Ive already said. It is the Utility companies responsibility to cut back the trees that can contact the lines. Here in Texas, even on private property it is the Utility companies duty to cut back the trees where THEY have constructed power lines. That's why the California utility was sued into bankruptcy BECAUSE THEY are liable

I wish we had a reliable map whether Federal occupied lands
or State if not privately owned!

The Federals maintain dominion over 45% of The State of California.
That 45% is where the fires are happening. Sierra Nevada.
Don't like 45%, show contrary link, etc.



Moi
Californian in favor of herbivores!
Goats. Sheep. Horses. Cattle. Native types.

 

[dixon01767]

I wish we had a reliable map whether Federal occupied lands
or State if not privately owned!

The Federals maintain dominion over 45% of The State of California.
That 45% is where the fires are happening. Sierra Nevada.
Don't like 45%, show contrary link, etc.



Moi
Californian in favor of herbivores!
Goats. Sheep. Horses. Cattle. Native types.

ONE single fire on non federal land proves you wrong and I right. Its BS.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Trump Silent on Western Wildfires as Historic Disaster Continues


Crickets. Such leadership.

I think the vast forest fires in California is a way to end the Covid Virus.

 

[dcsports]

I wish we had a reliable map whether Federal occupied lands
or State if not privately owned!

The Federals maintain dominion over 45% of The State of California.
That 45% is where the fires are happening. Sierra Nevada.
Don't like 45%, show contrary link, etc.



Moi
Californian in favor of herbivores!
Goats. Sheep. Horses. Cattle. Native types.

That's silly. You really just said 'the federal government controls 45% or the land, therefore 45% of the federal land is on fire'.

If you look at maps, most of the federal land is on the east side of California (to the right). Most of the fires are on the west side of California, where there is more private land. Which makes sense since that's the more populated area of the state, and most of these fires are the result of human activity.

The state of California is 100% responsible for enforcing standards on the electric utilities, which is the biggest cause of these fires (I've seen estimates of 40% - 70%). They are 100% not responsible for sufficient firebreaks in the area. 100% responsible for maintenance of roads. They share responsibility with local area in developing building codes to make communities more resilient to fire.

 

[Logophile]

I wish we had a reliable map whether Federal occupied lands
or State if not privately owned!

The Federals maintain dominion over 45% of The State of California.
That 45% is where the fires are happening. Sierra Nevada.
Don't like 45%, show contrary link, etc.



Moi
Californian in favor of herbivores!
Goats. Sheep. Horses. Cattle. Native types.

Yeah, I like goats, sheep horses, cattle. I just don't like slaughter. But here's the real problem, and it's called ag status. So, everybody that raises goats, sheep, horses, cattle and can prove - doesn't take much - that they sold a livestock or two, doesn't PAY MUCH IN TAXES. THEY GET A HUGE DISCOUNT. They have an agricultural exempt, just like every other state.. Heh, all for it, except that that tax exempt doesn't stop there. The big Ags get a big tax exempt, AND they get the bulk of the water, so the Californians don't unless they are in Hollywood or have a ton of money. Yeah, I know, but they're all liberal until they cut off their pool water. For all it's worth, California is THE most corrupt state in the union in my humble opinion, but heh, we all like California wines, or do we?? Thanks!!

 

[apdst]

I agree that we need to get back to managing the forests for stand density and fuel load.

What some seem to forget that some of the larger fires in CA are not in "forests". The fires are burning in chaparral stands and grasslands. So managing the fuel on the ground won't work in these areas.

They should be cutting massive firebreaks in those areas. That way, when they catch fire, the fire is contained

 

[Lursa]

Make that "most of the trees contacting the lines" THAT CAUSE FIRES "aren't in peoples yards but instead on uninhabited land". And a downed line in a residential area that does spark a small fire is put out before it gets big. Residential lines are insulated, transmission lines covering large tracts of uninhabited land are not. Branches simply brushing up against them can spark fires.

Depends on the weather conditions. They came down in residential neighborhoods here in Aug/Sept and caused major fires.

The power lines in E. WA and W. WA are all wide and trees falling on them rare. OTOH, lightning is way more common, as is arson.

 

[Lursa]

Money is going to become irrelevant. We're going to have to spend it, like or not. Underground electric lines coupled with renewables will be the only solution, simplistic as it may be. And the farmers and the ranchers are going to have to embrace renewables. Thanks!!

The farmers and ranchers need to buy food, animal feed, machinery, use banks, send kids to school, get vehicles repaired, etc etc etc

And here when the power goes out, which is frequently, it can be located and fixed very quickly. Millions without power get it restored quickly. If the lines are buried, it takes alot longer to find the break, dig it up, and fix it. There are trade-offs. It's not simple at all.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Historic?

I can't speak to Oregon.

But have you lived in California?

I have.

It's almost an ANNUAL tinderbox. These kinds of fires happen all the time there.

The President has nothing to do with this. It is a STATE issue, and the California government at all levels should have been maintaining disaster planning and funding countermeasures.

IMO money that would have been better spent to protect CA residents, property, and natural resources, than on all those "Sanctuary State" money-pit programs.

Perhaps the Pacific Northwest should have been too? You'd know better than I up there.

We didn’t have a major forest fire for three decades from the 50s until the 80s, then the endangered species act came around and some urban activists spun some yarn about the spotted owl and now we have annual major fires.

The clearcutting of forests denied fires enough fuel to get big

 

[EMNofSeattle]

In 2015, Obama declared a National Disaster over the giant wildfire then. He called the governor, and he proposed funding changes to address the problem.That's what Presidents do when one of our states is in crisis.

Trump should not authorize a penny of federal dollars to these states until they publicly purge environmental activists from their forestry departments

 

[Logophile]

The farmers and ranchers need to buy food, animal feed, machinery, use banks, send kids to school, get vehicles repaired, etc etc etc

And here when the power goes out, which is frequently, it can be located and fixed very quickly. Millions without power get it restored quickly. If the lines are buried, it takes alot longer to find the break, dig it up, and fix it. There are trade-offs. It's not simple at all.

Well, sorry, but that's not a trade off if fairness counts. Its a rip off, and will continue to be so until

The farmers and ranchers need to buy food, animal feed, machinery, use banks, send kids to school, get vehicles repaired, etc etc etc

And here when the power goes out, which is frequently, it can be located and fixed very quickly. Millions without power get it restored quickly. If the lines are buried, it takes alot longer to find the break, dig it up, and fix it. There are trade-offs. It's not simple at all.

I don't care. The farmers and ranchers that don't pay taxes shouldn't have a say on what part of California and its wildlife get to burn while they pay next to nothing in taxes, rape federal land and use up all the water. I couldn't care less what oafs get their lines repaired when they put the whole state in danger. Its just plain selfish and self-serving and unprincipled. Thanks!!

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Well, sorry, but that's not a trade off if fairness counts. Its a rip off, and will continue to be so until


I don't care. The farmers and ranchers that don't pay taxes shouldn't have a say on what part of California and its wildlife get to burn while they pay next to nothing in taxes, rape federal land and use up all the water. I couldn't care less what oafs get their lines repaired when they put the whole state in danger. Its just plain selfish and self-serving and unprincipled. Thanks!!

Lol totally unhinged.

 

[mike2810]

They should be cutting massive firebreaks in those areas. That way, when they catch fire, the fire is contained

Firebreaks do little to stop a fire spread during high wind events. The embers produced by the fire can carry a long distance and potentially starting new fires (spot fires).

That said, fuel breaks is not that bad of an idea in brush fields for typical fire conditions. What also needs to be done is implementing Firewise standards for buildings and homes. A home and property that meets firewise standards stands a good change of surviving the type of fires people are experiencing.

What many people don't realize is it is generally the ember wash on a home that ignites them and not the flaming front of the wildfire. High density housing tracts are susceptible to house to house fires once one is ignited. For example is Paradise CA and how close houses were together.

 

[apdst]

Firebreaks do little to stop a fire spread during high wind events. The embers produced by the fire can carry a long distance and potentially starting new fires (spot fires).

That said, fuel breaks is not that bad of an idea in brush fields for typical fire conditions. What also needs to be done is implementing Firewise standards for buildings and homes. A home and property that meets firewise standards stands a good change of surviving the type of fires people are experiencing.

What many people don't realize is it is generally the ember wash on a home that ignites them and not the flaming front of the wildfire. High density housing tracts are susceptible to house to house fires once one is ignited. For example is Paradise CA and how close houses were together.

Cutting the brush back and even clearing the brush and grass out completely is the cheaper option. The objective is to stop the fire from getting to the homes. Fire proofing homes is unrealistic.

 

[rocket88]

We didn’t have a major forest fire for three decades from the 50s until the 80s, then the endangered species act came around and some urban activists spun some yarn about the spotted owl and now we have annual major fires.

The clearcutting of forests denied fires enough fuel to get big

Can't have forest fires if there's no forest!

 

[dcsports]

They should be cutting massive firebreaks in those areas. That way, when they catch fire, the fire is contained

Yes. And create them around roads and transmission lines to limit the ability of fires to start to begin with.

 

[Logophile]

Lol totally unhinged.

So it would appear. Sorry about that. Thanks!!

 

[dcsports]

Cutting the brush back and even clearing the brush and grass out completely is the cheaper option. The objective is to stop the fire from getting to the homes. Fire proofing homes is unrealistic.

It's not fire proofing, but making them more resistant. Yes, allowing gaps between houses, maintaining undergrowth, cleaning up pine needles and dead wood, and not having the trees right up next to the house is important. Things like metal roofs or cement siding also help.

The paradise fire is interesting, because the damage to the homes was so severe - but many of the trees around them survived. The houses caught each other on fire. A little spacing between each other, and between them and the forest, would have made a difference. Clearance on each sides of the road (rather than having trees right up to it) would have let people escape.

 

[Logophile]

Cutting the brush back and even clearing the brush and grass out completely is the cheaper option. The objective is to stop the fire from getting to the homes. Fire proofing homes is unrealistic.

Well, the latest announcement of a big fat tax hike has got the rich and their corporations scrambling to get out of California, so an even cheaper option may be the only option. And that option is just let people's houses burn down. The insurance companies will quickly pull out, and that will leave a significant amount of people unable to build again, so unless they want to permanently camp out like the homeless, they'll have to move to a safer area, which is where they should be. The redwood trees depend on fire to propagate. Given the age of the trees, it's pretty obvious that drought and fire has been part of the natural cycle in California for thousands of years. It's only getting worse now because of selfish human expansion and exploitation. Thanks!!

 

[mike2810]

Cutting the brush back and even clearing the brush and grass out completely is the cheaper option. The objective is to stop the fire from getting to the homes. Fire proofing homes is unrealistic.

From your last statement you do not understand Firewise. Look it up and educate yourself.

 

[Logophile]

From your last statement you do not understand Firewise. Look it up and educate yourself.

Mike, what do you suggest?? People can succumb to fumes and heat unless evacuated. And then there's the soot and the infrastructure. When fires reach certain degrees, they can actually render concrete useless. So, it's not as if there's some practical building material that can resist these fires. And embers are airborne, so even if brush is removed, embers still fly over fire lines. I don't see anything viable in the way of "firewise." I just see people not living in vulnerable areas as the solution. Thanks!!

 

[mike2810]

Mike, what do you suggest?? People can succumb to fumes and heat unless evacuated. And then there's the soot and the infrastructure. When fires reach certain degrees, they can actually render concrete useless. So, it's not as if there's some practical building material that can resist these fires. And embers are airborne, so even if brush is removed, embers still fly over fire lines. I don't see anything viable in the way of "firewise." I just see people not living in vulnerable areas as the solution. Thanks!!

- I have never said people should stay in place. There are reasons they need to leave the area.
- Modify the fuels in and around the structures. (especially the ground fuels)

Take a look at Paradise. It had high density homes with vegetation up to the structure..
- https://www.nfpa.org/Public-Education/Fire-causes-and-risks/Wildfire/Firewise-USA

I suggest you study up on how homes ignite from forest fires.

https://wildfiretoday.com/2020/09/2...extreme-wildfires-is-a-home-ignition-problem/

Take a look at this article
https://wildfiretoday.com/2018/02/12/prevent-house-burning-wildfire/?hilite='jack','cohen'

 

[dcsports]

Mike, what do you suggest?? People can succumb to fumes and heat unless evacuated. And then there's the soot and the infrastructure. When fires reach certain degrees, they can actually render concrete useless. So, it's not as if there's some practical building material that can resist these fires. And embers are airborne, so even if brush is removed, embers still fly over fire lines. I don't see anything viable in the way of "firewise." I just see people not living in vulnerable areas as the solution. Thanks!!

You can protect houses from embers with certain building materials. For example, embers are unlikely to catch a house on fire that has a metal roof and brick or concrete (hardy plank) siding. If the grass is maintained around the building, small brush isn't right next to the structure, and tree limbs aren't hanging over it, it's pretty 'fire-proof' - or at least fire resistant. Space the houses apart sufficiently and one won't catch the next on fire.

Again, look at the Paradise fire above. The trees didn't fall. Whole trees are intact - there's even green grass. There's even a commercial building in the back that's fine. The houses are smack next to each other, and brushy area up next to the houses. Once the fire started, it spread from house to house.

 

[Lursa]

Well, sorry, but that's not a trade off if fairness counts. Its a rip off, and will continue to be so until


I don't care. The farmers and ranchers that don't pay taxes shouldn't have a say on what part of California and its wildlife get to burn while they pay next to nothing in taxes, rape federal land and use up all the water. I couldn't care less what oafs get their lines repaired when they put the whole state in danger. Its just plain selfish and self-serving and unprincipled. Thanks!!

Uh huh...you've gone off the rails here.

At this point, 'I dont care' about your opinion on this, which is pretty uninformed and so not particularly credible.

 

[Lursa]

We didn’t have a major forest fire for three decades from the 50s until the 80s, then the endangered species act came around and some urban activists spun some yarn about the spotted owl and now we have annual major fires.

The clearcutting of forests denied fires enough fuel to get big

Wrong. When I was a park ranger I sat in on the spotted owl hearings.

The reason for the build up in the forests was COMMON forest company practice at the time to preserve the forests and not let the regular normal wildfires run thru them and take out the flammable understory.

Clear cuts were never enough to reduce fire danger, they didnt reduce the understory but they almost immediately created a new one with no trees when the pioneer species started growing back in.