Posted on 11/18/2018 6:34:18 AM PST by Kaslin
Once again, faced with the failure of the “press” to educate us on an issue, we decided to go out and research the truth about what appears to be the significant increase in huge forest fires. Once we did the research, we found out major differences in facts from the random barkings in the MSM.
Let us start with this simple aspect. Forest fires are a normal thing. Often caused by lightning or other natural causes, they are God’s way of clearing forests. In those natural forest clearances, the wildlife that exists in them are threatened or their habitat is destroyed. What has changed is mankind’s intervention in the natural process. The question is, what other factors may be causing the change in the intensity of recent forest fires?
We also came armed with a thought. If you believe that global warming is making life more challenging for forest management, then you should support proper forest clearance. Otherwise we will be left with even more intense fires.
For this column, other than reading everything available, we went to two sources: our national Forest Service and the Union of Concerned Scientists to get different perspectives.
Speaking with Chris French, the Acting Deputy Chief of Forest Service (FS), we received a primer on what is really going on with forest fires today.
When asked what he believes is the primary cause of the intense forest fires, Mr. French’s immediate response was “Forests are overstocked. There are more trees than 100 years ago.” He went on to say that part of the problem was the Forest Service’s good work in the recent past stopping forest fires. This meant, however, that their focus was largely directed away from forest maintenance, which caused the elements that fuel a fire like underbrush, dead trees or more density to occur.
The changes French would like to see would be more active forest clearance and clearance of the underbrush. He also wants to do more controlled fires when the risks are minimized. If you are wondering why they are not doing that now it is because of budget restraints.
What government department does not advocate for additional money in their budget? In this case, there may truly be rationale. Because of the good work the FS was doing, they were spending 85% of the budget on forest maintenance and 15% on fire suppression.
Over the recent years as forest fires became more intense, they spent more money on suppression and less on clearance causing a vicious cycle of less money on clearance. At this point French stated that it was projected that 60% of their budget went toward suppression leaving fewer precious dollars for clearance. Recent Congressional budget bills have increased the Forest Service budget providing additional funding for clearance, thus hopefully stopping as many fires from happening and less money spent on suppression.
While doing the clearance the Forest Service does, French stated they were controlled by a myriad of federal laws which limit their actions. These laws include The Clean Air Act, Natural Forest Management Act, Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act to name a few. The Forest Service must put information out to the public before they do their clearance work. They are not always questioned, but quite often interest groups jump in armed with legal briefs to stop the planned work.
Currently there are groups trying to stop certain aspects of the Farm bill from being passed that would enhance the funding for forest clearance because they are against logging even though it is clear much of the land in question has three times the density that it should.
Just a thought: If you have a concern about destroying the natural habitat and thus limit the proper clearance of the areas in question, what do you say about what happens to the improperly-cleared forest during a major fire when the habitat is destroyed and the animals’ lives are put at risk?
One other point French made was about risks being higher today. He stated “People are living closer to where the fire dangers are, causing more damage and peril to human lives.” We asked if this is akin to all the people living in flood plains today. His response: “Exactly.”
This kind of fire has a catchy new name – urban interface fires. The Forest Service defines the wildland-urban interface as the place where "homes and wildlands meet or intermingle". As French described, it's where "humans and their development meet or intermix with wildland fuel". These used to be called fire areas. I live in one and we have to do special clearance each year to make sure that if a fire starts there will be little fuel to feed the fire. Where I live has built up for seventy years. This new situation describes the recent fires in California where people reached further in to these areas to homestead.
What is the government’s responsibility in these cases? Few would restrict people’s rights to build homes on private property. Fewer would suggest the authorities should not protect those people from danger if there is a fire, mud slide or their home is washed out in a flood. Many will question whether the government should have any financial risk to help the survivors rebuild in the areas in question. Others would say that just encourages questionable behavior.
While we can all feel sadness for those who have lost their homes in the fires, many have built homes in areas that are inherently dangerous to be “away from the hubbub.” Their choice; their risk. To build a home near a forest and not accept the uncertainty of fire verges on insanity.
When dealing with an environmental group today, one anticipates that a focal point will be global warming/climate change. In fact, the article I pulled from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) website is titled "Is Global Warming Fueling Increases Fire Risks?" The column is a mix of warnings about how global warming is increasing wildfires and encouragement to do more forest clearance. I spoke with Rachel Cleetus, lead economist and policy director with the climate and energy program for the UCS.
Ms. Cleetus painted a somewhat different picture. She also forwarded a 64-page report she personally authored for the UCS on the matter. She was very aware of the many factors that are involved and echoed many of the same themes that the FS had stated, including the need for a greater budget especially with the extra monies being spent on forest clearance.
Cleetus was unclear whether the organization just supported the procedures that the FS argued for or advocated for them. She stated that they were not involved in stopping the FS from doing their work like some other interests often do.
But she did state the primary reasons for the increased risk of major fires was because of more people living in the areas and the forest management (or lack thereof) being done.
Whether you believe in global warming/climate change or not, it is quite clear that the forest service needs to get a handle on proper forest management to lessen the risks of major forest fires. The only way they can do that right now is to throw more resources at the problem to stop the downward spiral of clearance necessary to halt/minimize the risk of major fires.
Certainly, the federal/state governments need to make clear that they will not assume any liability for financial loss if anyone lives is in a fire zone. Citizens need to evaluate whether the joy of being in these areas is worth the exposure to their belongings and possibly their lives.
One thing we know for sure is that the wild charges made by some that this is all due to change in environmental factors is wrong. Though the UCS is vested in the issue of climate change, they support that there are other factors as proposed by the FS.
Climate change/global warming is not the answer to everything on our planet.
Footnote: We would be remiss if we did not thank the brave people who fight these wildfires for all of us. God bless them.
An environmentalist can view a human abortion with icy indifference but will weep hysterically at the sight of a tree being cut. At the core of policy there are human attitudes, values however bizarre, and beliefs. The environmentalists and their ilk have a solid hold on power in California. Therefore there will be no effective forest management and there will be many more devastating fires.
bump
Yes, the redirection of the discussion toward climate change is stupid and irresponsible. Even if you believe that claptrap, it just makes it that much more imperative to properly manage forest lands to avoid as much of this type of thing as possible. The forests have to be actively managed: logging, burning, clearing, etc. Just letting them “go to seed” does not work. Duh!
I watched a few yeas ago a Colorado fire take out several square miles of suburban neighborhoods that had almost no trees. I watched a fire just after that one take out an entire forested area that was deemed “Firewise” by the federal government.
Being fire minded on your property is one thing, but thinking man can stop forest fires across the vast 750 million acres of forest in the US is just plain childish. Simple math says you cannot afford to do it nor will it have the expected effects.
Let’s do some basic math: 750 million acres times not less than $1,000 acre to mitigate underbrush and thin the trees, is $750 billion, and that is every 2-3 years. Actual total cost estimates exceed $2,500 acre, which comes to about $2 trillion. Toss in federal overhead and the cost per acre will no doubt be far larger than $2,500/acre.
The best thing California could do to control fires would be to deport every other Liberal (i.e. “Democrat”).
I suggest Australia or an island in the South Pacific.
“Certainly, the federal/state governments need to make clear that they will not assume any liability for financial loss if anyone lives is in a fire zone.”
Stupid easterner.
The entire Western US, from the Rockies to the Pacific Ocean is a “fire zone”. Every friggin’ acre.
You are a hateful person.
Australia is a nice place.
Why do you wish to destroy it by sending them our DimmRats???
It’s simple: in natural & regular forest fires the “ green” vegetation mostly survive and the “dry/dead” one – burn. Regularity leads to limited intensity of fires. This worked for thousands of years.
Disastrous and massive forest fires started simultaneously with the start of forest “management”.
Let the nature to manage the nature.
lol, good point!
We just don’t want em in Texas!
I wouldn’t want them going to Alaska either, and any other state is not far enough. Maybe Hawaii!!!???
prescribed burns are good for forests, but the cali idiot greenies are too stupid to get it
take Flagstaff for example.
A healthy forest has only so many trees per acre on average.
Flagstaff area has nearly twice as many trees as is healthy.
Tree huggers wont let the forest be cleaned or thinned.
Cleaning would mean collect fallen pine needles that stack up and become dry kindling/
a fire just waiting to happen.
Logging used to clear the brush , make fire roads and generate massive funding to support the forest service. All that is blocked now by the sierria club types.
For decades the logging was stopped, the lumber mills dismantled and forestry is broke in more ways than one. But, the trees, they dont stop growing...
Oxygen! I tell you, it’s so dangerous that it oughta be controlled by the fedgov.... It is so dangerous it causes steel to virtually melt, often upon immediate contact with it! Grass and other vegetation seemingly explodes when subjected to OXYGEN!It is the number one causes of ….oxidation.... Combustion, well, that is a whole other story....
Combined with CARBON, oh my, it becomes an explosive! ATFE needs to regulate them both.
The sky IS falling!
I have never heard anyone say that anything can stop a fire from happening. Fires are always going to be with us, the difference is in a well managed area you have a normal fire, which often doesn’t even destroy all the vegetation in its path. The critters and most trees survive, renew quickly. What we have now is inferno fires that devastate the land so badly many areas may never grow trees again. Critters are wiped out as are most things in the path of an inferno fire.
That is the difference between managing land properly and having a policy that is total mismanagement.
From an article found in the online news site FIveThirtyEIght, July 17, 2018:
“Fire managers began to change their philosophy and allow some fires to burn in a more natural way in the 1970s, said Bill Gabbert, a former fire management officer and the current managing editor of Wildfire Today. Over the last 15 or 20 years, that’s become more of the norm. In the past, every little fire that started got put out before it burned much land. Today, one fire might be allowed to eat up much more built-up kindling. In addition, Collins told me, managers are now less likely to try to contain those fires to be as small as possible. Instead, there’s more of a wait and see approach, both because of the knowledge that the forests need to burn and because of an increased emphasis on protecting firefighters’ lives. It’s better to let the fire burn more acreage than risk lives unnecessarily.”
The same article noted that, surprisingly, the number of wildfires in the U.S. over the past 35 or so years has NOT increased. In fact, the trend has been an overall reduction; slight, to be sure, and maybe not statically significant, but nonetheless the scattergram indicates a decline. At the same time, however, the number of acres burned on an annual basis has QUADRUPLED. (Along with, one might reasonably presume, costs, and local economic damage relating to evacuations, smoke, etc.)
I am grateful for the men and women serving our communities as emergency responders. I have, though, witnessed over the course of my life a dramatic change in things. Firefighting seems to have evolved/been promoted as an industry unto itself, with politicians eagerly jumping on board for obvious reasons. Those in the Industry have in many eyes risen to the level of the Infallible Hero, which in the end is not good for anyone.
Here in coastal California, naturally arising wildfires (i.e., lighting caused) have historically been rare. Nearly all have been (including those by Native Americans thousands of years ago) caused by we humans. The view of some seems to be that letting forests build up incredible amounts of fuel is “natural” (perhaps true), and that for some reason, this means that when we inadvertently or maliciously set them on fire, we should just “let nature take its course”. If we are to live and thrive as God intended, with dominion over and responsibility for this great gift to us (our planet), this is utter B.S.
My view is that firefighting philosophy should again consider wildfires as an invading enemy, and that they should thus by repelled/extinguished with attendant vigor. At the same time, we should also return to forest management practices of the past, especially in or near populated areas. Early and repeated education, along with some civilian training, should also occur.
I see the Industry as having become uncomfortably aligned with leftist politics, as well. Infuriatingly, there is a bond between it and our CA Governor and democrats, for example. As I was evacuating from my home this last summer, I had to watch him lecture we mere citizens that this was all just something we’d have to get used to, and that we needed to direct more money to firefighting. This with the top state firefighting official standing at his side. I did not like the expression on his face as he heard these words— that’s all I can say. The whole thing has the flavor of the “It’s Global Warming. Give Us Money.” ruse.
There is a subtle militarization of the Industry, too. Using armed National Guardsmen to enforce evacuations is, and should be, disturbing. Understandable, I suppose, given the state of our society, but just the same, unnerving. One could conclude that to a degree we are being prepared for an increased military presence to control our lives “for our own good.” Leftists have latched on to the threat of wildfire as a tool for gaining social control and political power, and the Industry has been too willing to cooperate.
Remember the Spotted Owl Fiasco?
OVER 110 logging mills were shut down because of the cease of logging.
How many jobs did that affect?
The start of these catastrophic fires was the day the Sierra Club got it’s 503 (c) status from the Federal Government.
Remember the Spotted Owl Fiasco?
OVER 110 logging mills were shut down because of the cease of logging.
How many jobs did that affect?
The forests will be cleared out one way or another. Either by plan or happenstance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
