Who or What Is Really Responsible for the Huge Forest Fires in California?

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.

Footnote: We would be remiss if we did not thank the brave people who fight these wildfires for all of us. God bless them.

There’s no doubt that there’s an administrative burden related to prescribed burns, and having spent time in countries that don’t regulate burning I fully support reasonable restrictions.

From your KQED article:

"We have to protect public health; that's our mandate,” says Dar Mims, a meteorologist with the California Air Resources Board. “But we also recognize that we need burning in the forest, and a lot of those trade-offs have to happen in real time because the decisions have to be made—do we want to potentially impact the air basin, or do we want to burn.”

To me that sounds about right in the real world.

Is it possible that air quality restrictions prevented a prescribed burn somewhere in the footprint of the Camp Fire? I suppose, but I haven’t seen any evidence.

Even if they did, given that Cal Fire averages 13k acres of prescribed burns statewide each year and this fire is currently over 150k acres the impact would be minor.

Air quality is one of several factors considered when doing burns, as documented in your links, but your overwrought claims of ‘blood on their hands’ for CARB and Butte County AQ seem simplistic and unsupported by the facts.

Even if they did, given that Cal Fire averages 13k acres of prescribed burns statewide each year and this fire is currently over 150k acres the impact would be minor.

That's my whole point. Instead up to 100's of thousands of acres they only burn 13k on average. Too small since the 2015-16 El Nino growth season. Some years (mainly 2017) there needs to be a lot more burning. Keep in mind the average burn before settlement (1800) was 4,000,000 a year, natural and set by indians.

In the Santa Rosa fire last year the houses were close together and created a high intesity fire that burned just about everything. But in Paradise the houses and stores were spread out and caught fire from the ember storm. The proof is the many intact trees. Look at the "After" photos,. There was no high intensity fire there, just many, probably hundreds, of simulataneous house fires

The fact that there was a high intensity fire on non-federal lands, high enough to create an ember storm downwind, means there was a lack of low intensity fire or equivalent clearing in those locations.

As for blood on their hands, yes, absolutely. Allowing just 6,000 acres of burning out of a million acres is criminally stupid. They should be put on trial.

As for blood on their hands, yes, absolutely. Allowing just 6,000 acres of burning out of a million acres is criminally stupid. They should be put on trial.

The restriction is 6000 acres per day. How much of Butte County do you want to burn?

Even if the private landowners wanted it how big of a burn do you think CalFire can safely conduct in one day?

You act as if these air quality restrictions prevented people from conducting burns in the Camp Fire area but have produced zero evidence.

Worse, you say these authorities are responsible for deaths without even identifying one instance where their actions contributed at all.

I’m not sure what CARB did to you or your family but you’re carrying around a lot of baggage.

CalFire could safely conduct very large prescribed burns, but they don't. The reason they don't is very simple, they are spending their resources putting out minor fires that should be left alone. It is the exact same AQ regulations that force them to put out beneficial fires.

I am also aware that CalFire prohibited residential burning in Butte county around June 11 this year, far too early. The main reason for that is incompetence, they don't understand fire and wildfire. Not a one of them knows that 4,000,000 acres burned every year on average, and they are suppressing fire at a great cost. I'd bet that the prohbition decision was made high up in the bureaucracy. I would fire everyone above the lowest two levels.

My gripe is Californians who blame the USFS, or Trump's budget cuts, or global warming, or other fake news for a problem they created. Many Californians still deny that the AQ regulations apply to the Feds, but they do. California learned nothing from last year's tragedy, and they are well on their way to learning nothing from this year.

I am also fully apprised of the science of low intensity fire. It benefits spotted owls and most other wildlife. OTOH, Jerry Brown worships carbon capture which is basically the opposite. He is emblematic of the problem.

That’s not what they say and their story makes much more sense.

They put out fires more aggressively because they so frequently happen in or near to inhabited areas. Air quality doesn’t enter into it.

The air quality restrictions may occasionally modify when they do burns but it’s a relatively minor factor.

I get that you think there should be more burning. So does most everyone these days. But blaming these deaths on air quality restrictions is intellectually lazy and scapegoating, pure and simple.

CalFire prohibited residential burning in Butte county around June 11 this year, far too early. The main reason for that is incompetence, they don't understand fire and wildfire.

Of course they don’t...

The air quality restrictions may occasionally modify when they do burns but it’s a relatively minor factor.

The regulations state: 9.12.5 Natural Ignition: When natural ignition occurs on a No-Burn Day, the decision to “go/no-go” for resource benefit shall be determined through consultation between the land manager or their designee and the DISTRICT to determine if the burn will satisfy smoke management requirements. The land manager or their designee shall submit a Smoke Management Plan consistent with this Rule within 72 hours of natural ignition.

Remember, a no-burn day means that burning is safe (low mixing) but results in bad air quality. Removing the large threatening fires from the statistics and it shows that CalFire is putting 2-3000 small fires. The report is clear, although understated: https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3798

Currently, CalFire has the stated goal of containing 95 percent of all fires—excluding prescribed fires—at ten acres or less. These firefighting efforts have been highly successful, with the acreage burned by wildfires in California reduced from an estimated annual average of 4.5 million acres in the 1700s to about 1 million acres annually in more recent years. As forestlands have become more developed, firefighting resources have been increased to better protect homes and property, further reducing the number of acres burned annually.

We found in different situations any of these three conditions can impede the ability of a VMP project to proceed. In some cases, weather conditions are such that a prescribed burn might affect air quality conditions in a nearby community in violation of the air quality permit. In other situations, CalFire fire crews are not available to conduct prescribed burns because they are engaged in firefighting activities.

This report is damning although understated. The fact is California will burn 4,000,000 acres on average with a little (unknown) amount of help from indians. Any reduction in that amount of low intensity burning, absent other mitigation, willl result in catastrophic high intensity fires. We can conclude the 4,000,000 is high now, due to development, forest management, grazing, limited logging, and a modicum of prescribed burning. But it's easy to see that managing (all mangement types including burning) less than 300,000 acres after high growth seasons like 2015/16 (and the next season to some extent) will result in catastrophic fire.

”CalFire has maintained its suppression goal, and generally still seeks to extinguish all naturally occurring fires. This is largely due to the nature of the areas the department is tasked with defending, which often are more developed than national forests.”

Someone should tell them that it’s really about air quality.

“CalFire fire crews are not available to conduct prescribed burns because they are engaged in firefighting activities.”

Again, having nothing to do with air quality.

After many posts and hundreds of words you’ve yet to provide a shred of evidence to back up your slur against the air quality enforcement authorities and their role in the Camp Fire.

I can only conclude that you’ve got nothing.

And I can only conclude that you didn't read my last paragraph in post 69. And: they put out fires when it is safe to leave them burning because low mixing causes bad AQ. Evidence?

How about 2000 fires they put out? How about all the times they didn't try to get a permit since it would be denied? How about the report I just linked that states that is the #1 reason for fire suppression / lack of controlled burning.

It's the dog that did not bark. Bay Area AQMD didn't allow range management fires until July 1: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/communications-and-outreach/publications/news-releases/2018/burn_180626_2018_046-pdf.pdf?la=en

That is insane, prohibiting fire until it is actually too dangerous to do it.

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.