Some days you just have to wonder about the sanity of environmentalists, today is one of those days. The photo below, Twittered by PBS station KQED in San Francisco, would be considered “not safe for work” not only just for the content, but for the facts these lunatics used a child to further their goal. Use of children by unhinged environmentalists in protests is something we are seeing more and more of these days, such as we recently saw in Canada when Ezra Levant was asked by a parent to interview their child holding a sign. The parent then went on an online rant about it.
As for Berkeley, the Daily Caller writes:
Activists at the University of California at Berkeley got naked on Saturday to show their love for nearby trees that authorities are planning to cut own.
About 50 people showed up at a grove of eucalyptus trees on the campus of UC-Berkeley, stripped off their clothes, and began to intimately interact with the trees in the grove for the benefit of photographer Jack Gescheidt.The nudity was organized by Gescheidt as part of his Tree Spirit Project, an effort to create fine art photographs by, well, taking pictures of naked people while they cavort about in nature. The project’s website describes it as an attempt to “raise awareness of the critical role trees play in our lives, both globally and pesonally [sic].”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/20/tree-huggers-at-berkeley-get-naked-with-trees/#ixzz3gpYKvK3h
https://twitter.com/KQED/status/622901409361604608/photo/1
Gotta love the grandma type who didn’t think getting naked was such a good idea, but hugged the tree anyway. What these clueless enviros seem to miss, is that eucalyptus trees are non-native to California, and are considered invasive:
Since the 1850s,Californians had assisted a continuous introduction of eucalypts punctuated by two frenzied periods — one in the 1870s,the other from 1907 to 1913.Planters believed variously that eucalypts would provide fuel,improve the weather,boost farm productivity,defeat malaria,preserve watersheds,and thwart a looming timber famine. First and foremost,however,Californians planted the trees to domesticate and beautify the landscape,to make it more green.
California has been trying to get rid of them for years, due to their extreme fire hazard which ironically, KQED has also reported on:
There is one particularly pert bottom otherwise it a useless gesture
Are you talking about the guy nearest the camera?
oh HELL no. Second from the left.
Glad I don’t live in the flats [not really the wilds, is it?].
Cascade of cold soda water, perhaps?
Auto
I thought the one right foreground might be me. But I don’t have a current passport.
But eucalypts are not called ‘widow-makers; for nothing, Beware falling limbs.
FINALLY!!! An accurate criticism of (some) Eucalypts! Yes, they do drop branches a LOT more than other species. Although if you keep a regular lookout, you can usually see the branch dying weeks before it bashes your car (or head) to a pulp.
Does the guy on the right have wood?
Actually there are plenty of a$$es in this picture.
The gesture was caused by an old man telling the sincere environmentalists a joke they didn’t get.
Putting on a deadpan expression and a fake Australian accent, he told them the natives of Australia had lore of how the Eucalyptus got its name. Then he looked at the trees thoughtfully. Only when the environmentalists begged did he explain:
The native’s lore told that long, long ago Eucalyptus did not have bark, but rather grew curls of long, golden hair. The trees grew so vain that the Creator had to do something, so he shaved them while they were asleep. When they woke they exclaimed, “You clipped us!”, and that became their name.
After telling the the environmentalists this balderdash the old man nodded with round eyes, and added that in a wind you can see the “You-clipped-us” tree’s leaves shaking, because they are so cold.
After the old man walked away the environmentalist became indignant about the Creator’s cruelty, and decided to show solidarity with the trees. They are hugging the trees to keep them warm. Please observe all have shaved their bodies.
Could that be considered child pornography? Sure doesn’t seem to be any artistic merit to the picture.
Depends on if you enjoy the pic. Do you?
BTW, I have no idea how different states define pornograffy, but I understood a minor sending a selfie could qualify somewhere?
I am not a lawyer. However my understanding is:
1, Child pornography is a federal offense.
2. Federal Prosecutors have tried to go after a couple of photographers for naked baby on a bear rug photos, but so far have not been successful.
3. Yes, a few minors have been charged for naked selfies, but none have been successfully prosecuted. Also, all the ones I am aware of involved frontal nudity.
My guess is that this would not be prosecuted because it does not involve frontal nudity.
It might not be child pornography, but it does come pretty close to contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
I don’t see this as any worse than the old Johnson and Johnson logo. Let’s call them out for the stupidity of what they are doing, and not make things up
The greens in Germany had an official policy of legalising paedophilia until 1990.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/10312930/Germanys-Green-Party-leader-regrets-campaign-to-legalise-paedophilia.html
Any news yet on whether the trees have been impregnated and harvested by Planned Parenthood?
We have a winner–Best Comment–2 thumbs up!
Careful where you put those thumbs!
Is that not Planned ParentWood?
‘Planed Parentwood’
Anthony 5,
You gotta lot of s’Planin to do for that one..
How did they managed with the splinters???
Unfortunately they’re called “environmentalists” when nothing could be further from the truth. Most of them have absolutely no understanding of ecology or even basic biology, and do things based on a Bambi-like notion of the world. Fortunately they’re no match for a trusty Stihl MS 880 Magnum, with 24 inch bar and full-chisel chain.
A 24″ bar might be a bit small for some of those trees.
Many would require heavier blades than 24 inch….on the plus side they are great firewood!
It can be done with a 24 if you’re willing to live with a lot of cracks and splinters at the point of the hinge wood, (not cool if you’re trying to get nice saw logs) I’ve Never cut a Eucalyptus, so I have no clue how they behave, but the 24 inch bar makes you so much more nimble when you’re working around tree huggers.
They have tree harvesting machines. I’ve seen them used in logging videos.
I gave a hitchhiker a ride on Vancouver Island who with three other guys cut down a 16ft diameter cedar tree with 60″ bars. Took them four days. The trick is to cut out a four ft high slice so you can get inside.
Imagine when they used to do it all with hand saws!
Fun fact: the first chainsaws took two men to operate, and were electric.
Primacord.
Old Calfire friend refers to the Eucalyptus as the :”Australian gasoline tree” .
Re: Oakland Hills fire….
Sounds like good biomass fuel to export.
Not good in your fireplace or steam engine either. The high amount of oil in the wood causes rapid creosote build-up which in turn can lead to flue fires. Flue fires are difficult to extinguish which means that the burning of your home will release excess CO2 leading us ever closer to CAGW and all sorts of tipping points unless you tip the euc. into your nearby composting pile thus avoiding the entire problem.
Burning any green wood will cause creosote build up.
Never fear, Nanny almost never allows us to burn wood anymore anyway…
RayG: eucalypt is used almost exclusively for firewood in Aus. Not many flue fires. Just need to get a sweep in once every couple of years and/or throw on one of those little burn bags which break down the creosote every so often. Most flue fires are associated with vermin infesting the flue.
Re flue fires, quick solution grab 1/2 gal of water throw on the fire in the fireplace in small amounts about a cup at a time but do not put out the fireplace , it causes steam and puts out the fire in the chimney
( steam causes a lack of 02 as it sucks up the chimney)
The trees evolved to create massive fires (a lot of oil in the leaves and litter) that wiped out the competition. They renerate from blackened trees quickly themselves.
http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2011/04/17/1226040/600359-gum.jpg
1. Trees don’t create fires, since they can’t generate sparks or use butane lighters or drive cars with catalytic converters or build campfires or use fireworks.
2. All species of trees CAN burn if the conditions are right, and become fuel in a fire. Eucs aren’t the volatile oil champions. Theirs are just more fragrant to our relatively underdeveloped noses.
3. Many types of tree survive and benefit from rapid moving wildfires that don’t linger long enough to bake the trees to death. Redwoods, sequoias, probably any tree in a forest, where there is competition for sunlight.
4. It almost always a mistake to say “X evolved because of Y.” Things are rarely that simple.
Firefighters can be wrong, too, tgm. 🙂
Its a very simple cognitive error. Eucalyptus trees burned by the thousands in the Oakland Hills Fire BECAUSE THEY WERE THE TYPE OF TREE THAT WAS THERE. Any species of tree in those circumstances would’ve done the same. Check out any other of the hundreds of wildfires that happen in an average year in the US. None involve Eucs.
The Oakland hills fire wasn’t caused or exacerbated by the particular species of tree that comprised the forest. It started in grass and litter, and became a disaster because of all sorts of human error.
If all greenery nationwide were replaced with asphalt, I imagine the number of wildfires would shrink drastically…
takebackthegreen- create the ‘large’ rather than the ‘fire’. Nobody claims that they spontaneously combust.
“since they can’t generate sparks or use butane lighters or drive cars with catalytic converters or build campfires or use fireworks.” Our fires start mostly by fire bugs, farm equipment and more likley by glass bottles than the last two.
97% consensus here in Aus that the large amount of oil in the leaves gives the tree an evolutionary advantage by making the fires larger. Not my theory. There is evidence that when Australia was still mostly lush vegetation that eucalypts cut out niches where fire was common and then spread out as fires became more common in a drying climate. Part of the evidence is the regrowth. The pine plantations in last years fires are dead. The eucalypts bounced back within half a year. Its an amazing sight. (major one started by a glass bottle focussing light on litter.)
I agree Robert. Adaptation to fire is an amazing thing. And I agree that some trees make better firewood than others. Unfortunately it is usually the same trees that are good for woodworking.
We can only speculate what actual difference the particular species makes when a fire has reached the critical conditions necessary to travel through green canopy. Pine vs. Euc vs. Laurel vs. Cedar vs. Fir. etc. So many factors to consider and so few ways to study them.
It remains my unproven conjecture that at that point, the only significant difference would be between forest and no forest. If you have a forest on fire, its composition probably ranks near the bottom of your concerns.
Hey, at least when the Earth incinerates in five years because of CO2, the Eucs will be ready…. 🙂
Being an Aussie and living in the state of Victoria I have been in three major bush fires. Two of them were during drought conditions, eucalypts in these conditions when burning and high winds are involved give of huge quantities of flammable gas. This creates fire balls that can travel a mile or more and when they land on more trees the trees explode rather than burn, the branches are just blown off. If they land on a house it explodes like a bomb hit it.
Seen it all, California needs to do some serious pruning, to protect a house three rows of Pinus Radiata grown three years apart to form a ramp makes the fire balls go over your house. The other cure is cut down all the Eucalypts within a hundred yards of your house. Then pray. Wayne
I cannot help but wonder how many of these who care so much for the trees live in wood frame houses, sit on wood furniture and picnic benches, play wooden pianos, violins, violas and bass fiddles. Do they also stand in front of and admire wooden sculptures, large and small? Where does all this wood come from? Trees, of course, which have been felled by men to fill the desires of ‘tree huggers’ and other ‘ecologists’.
Q: What’s a violin good for?
A: Lighting a viola.
Q: What’s the difference between a violin and a viola?
A: A viola burns longer.
Q: What do a violist’s fingers have in common with lightning?
A: They never strike the same place twice…
(Apologies from the land where there’s always room for cello)…
Most of them have absolutely no understanding of ecology or even basic biology, and do things based on a Bambi-like notion of the world.
Actually, the book was pretty stark and nasty.
You have to be from the “everyone gets a trophy” generation to think that will produce fine art photography.
It is possible to think about a naked bottom as symbolizing innocence or babyhood or helplessness. In this photo, the symbolism is quite different, showing a desire to dominate and influence others into doing things they otherwise might not do. The child in the midst of the adults seems to show the innocence; obviously she [assuming the gender here] is under others’ influence and would never expose herself like this on her own. Innocence [lack of guilt] is sometimes confused with ignorance [lack of knowledge]; the child seems to exhibit the former, the adults the latter, all in the service of a mistake.
Welcome to the Hotel California. You can check out. But you can never leave.
+1
Aunt of mine planted her Christmas tree after the holidays but 20 years later it’s height worried her. She needed to ask for municipal authorization to fell it but that was refused by someone who informed her that she should be ashamed of herself for wanting to cut down the native trees….. huh??
I was in New Zealand many years ago and had the occasion to talk with locals about invasive species. They were at war with introduced rabbits who because there were no natural predators did what rabbits do and became pests.
On the lighter side I talked with some hikers who carried spray bottles of herbicides while they hiked to kill pine trees–an introduced species. A nearby area was famous for its fall colors due to introduced species. I asked why kill pine trees but support poplar trees and related species which were also introduced?
The nature of the reply boiled down to this. Pine trees were introduced to provide harvestable timber of commercial value for construction, etc., but the deciduous trees were ok because they were pretty but had no economic value.
I didn’t understand it then and I do not today.
The Greens are the new Reds.
Me thinks you have it backwards. The old Reds are the new Greens.
You need the mindset; that selling natural resources is evil; the Mantra of the Sierra Club,
Sorry, I stopped reading at “Berkeley”…although I probably should have stopped at “University”.
BTW, some Animal Liberation Front types have released thousands of minks from mini farms here in Ontario, Canada the last few weeks.
If this goes like all the other “rescues” of minks, most will die of starvation, but only after killing everything they can find they can think of as food. Like pets. Sorry, “companion animals”.
Drove over to Burlington, VT yesterday – lovely and actually a warm day,for a change. Berzerkly East. Walking about, the gals were showing their wares. I kept saying, “wow, wow – reminds me of Cambridge sex, drugs, and rock n roll way back in 60’s”. My daughter (yup, and doing grad work in physics besides) kept telling me, “think of the baggage, think of the baggage”. As I am so much more mature now (heh), I said to her, “just watch how many I hook by hugging this tree …” Good thing we had the attack dog along.
And this was a testable hypothesis! ah, science
Happy Friday
Yup that happened in Surrey uk for many years a whole area was devoid of small mammals and few birds!
Pity they weren’t hugging the trees that are cut down,pulverised, tuned into pellets, then shipped across the Atlantic to give us Brits “green” electricity.a couple of the protesters might be good for a kW hour or so
Or hugging Malaysian rainforest trees that are to be clear cut for palm oil production for “renewable” fuels.
Meanwhile a huge furor erupts from the eco-left when a small area of trees is removed for a fracking pad or mine entrance or supermarket.
So who are currently responsible for the most forest destruction?
Capitalists or environmentalists? I’d like to see the figures.
It must be a close run race, these days!!
Bet they wouldn’t be so keen if they were Holly trees!
James Bull
Here are two summaries of Eucalyptus trees in California.
http://www.gardenguides.com/120712-eucalyptus-tree-history.html
http://www.elcajonhistory.org/pdf/eucalyptus_trees.PDF
One of the reasons for importing them was for railroad ties. Problem was that they wouldn’t hold the spikes. Hard to drive, but you could pull the spikes out with your fingers.
“Eucalyptus Bust
“The Central Pacific Railroad, after planting nearly one million eucalyptus trees in 1877 and 1878, discovered that eucalyptus railroad ties, posts and poles spit, twisted and cracked, unlike products made from the older eucalyptus trees in Australia.”
They probably grew too fast in Calilala land compared to Australia, thus not a very compact growth ring construction.
You are correct, Pamela.
Eucalypts were also planted to provide tree cover in areas that were almost devoid of trees. Yes, people settled a City and landscaped it from scrub grass to thriving forests. Much better, IMHO.
They were planted in Ethiopia but killed all the undergrowth
Hans: Another myth. Many types of trees and shrubs (including California “native” Claro Walnut) secrete hormones that inhibit the growth of some types of plants. But the undergrowth in our Euc forests is thick and thriving. Want pictures?
they will be fine the timber of Euc’s is fine even if it grows fast.
We in New Zealand rotate them on 25 years and they are very good timber.
When I worked in Ethiopia 25 years ago, the Development Banks were talking about funding to remove Eucalyptus that had been introduced. But it grows like a weed so once introduced, it seems it is very difficult to eradicate. Plus the native forests around Addis Ababa had been mostly cut down to make charcoal and the fast growing Eucalyptus made a very good fast growing replacement. Hundreds of people worked every day hauling Eucalyptus branches into the city for fuel. Not an issue for the locals.
takebackthegreen:
Not a myth, some plants are intolerant to the oil in the eucalyptus leaf mulch.
You are correct that some Eucalyptus species exude a growth inhibiting hormone. My point was that Eucalyptus is far from the only type of plant that does this. The best known “native” example of the exact same phenomenon is Black Walnut. Juglone is the hormone.
This is an example of withholding part of a story to propagandistically demonize an entire genus.
Perhaps the wrong variety. Ironbark is almost exclusively used for railway sleepers here.
Red Ironbark (Euc sideroxylon) is also one of the most beautiful woods around. The bark looks like lava in cross section.
In fact you Aussies sent all kinds of incredible wood our way… Black Acacia, Lemon Gum… why didn’t we get any Jarrah trees? I’ve only ever seen one small turning blank of Huon Pine and “Wow” is an understatement. There is a single Huon Pine in a private yard here that makes my 460 Magnum itch…
What were we talking about?
A huge amount of eucalyptus trees were planted in California as wind blocks for agriculture…In long, straight rows to cut down the wind on the fields.
laughing..yes we use gum for sleepers, and fenceposts and all sorts BUT theyre slowgrowing rock hard to cut n work REDGUM. the old sleepers they ripped up after many decades of use on rail lines got reused if tidy as garden edges in many homes parks etc
and the semi rotting n split ones got used for firewood in many homes.
Im grab the odd one at the tip for garden or fire even now
theyd have to be over 70 yrs old in many instances.
excellent hot burning clean firewood and very little ash
Is that the Mann on the right?
One should never suggest he or she recognizes a bare butt. LOLOLOL!!!!!!
It was the chromium cranium that caught my attention.
Dave: It was the chromium cranium that caught my attention.
It does catch the light wonderfully. Perhaps he can be fitted with solar panels.
Please! The human mind can only process so much. Mann in the nude is beyond the ability of the mind to comprehend. Or, of the stomach to retain food.
Every species is “invasive”, supposedly. Especially humans. The whole concept has become an absurdity.
A botanist friend once told me “any plant, even a rose bush, is technically a weed if its growing somewhere its not wanted”.
Something I’ve always told my wife. Has four letters, must be a weed.
A s a wise man once sed: “There’s your Sign”
His friend: “If you get naked to be photographed hugging invasive species trees in an effort to save them from being cut down – you might be a redn…… I mean, IDIOT”
Bill Engvall – “Here’s your sign.”
Jeff Foxworthy – “You mignt be a … ”
It is believed that the eucalypt trees were introduced accidentally by returning Californian gold miners who went to Australia in quest of the riches they missed at Sutters Mill. The huggers should make the trip to Oz they could copulate to their hearts content with the billions of trees here,
We don’t mind, always space for another nutter or three
This is also why they were introduced to South Africa. When they take load and begin to fail (i.e. when the roof is about to fall in), they make a squeaking noise, thus giving the miners warning. This is a very useful property not found in other timbers. In coal mines, when modern forms of steel roof support were introduced, the old timers would still install “squeaker props” in strategic spots to provide warning.
Aw come on! No one else giggling at the radio station call letters K*Q.E.D.?
yep “demonstrandum”
Or “dumb-onstrandum” to be more accurate.
Did anyone ask the trees for their consent in this sordid orgy?
they are carbon based life forms, after all, and have rights
But Bubba, I thought carbon was illegal now. Or evil at least.
The Oakland Hills fire in the ’90’s was fueled by groves of them; —AND they’ve been eradicating them as fast as Oakland can; or dare?—-lol
Nope. Urban myth. Not the fault of the Eucalypts. Very complex issue.
Simple answer: yes, there would be less fire hazard if everything green were replaced by asphalt, but Eucalypts are not a problem.
Eucalyptus are a firestorm. The oil in Eucaluptus leaves evaporates in hot weather leaving a oily haze in the air. If there is a fire this oil ignites in advance of the fire front. Scary when there is a breeze let alone a decent wind blowing. Also Eucalyptus trees drop a large amount of litter on the forest floor creating a beautiful fire starter. So sorry but Eucalyptus are the problem.
Steve: I respectfully suggest you read other sources on the issue and question what you know. Eucalypts are no more or less a fire hazard than other trees. All trees drop leaves, which dry out and become easy fire fuel. No trees ignite easily. Try it sometime. Would you like me to find the link to an East Bay wildfire that leveled an entire subdivision without burning a single Eucalyptus tree, which were mere feet away from the incinerated houses?
The sense of smell leads to all kinds of delusions. Eucalypts have a strong scent that smells vaguely like kerosene. Must be explosive. And toxic. RUN!
Indeed many (most?) eucy species require fire for germination. The nuts are opened by the heat of the fire. The green regrowth soon after a bushfire in Oz is something to behold.
“Require” and “benefit from” are not the same, Woz.
Some arguments disprove themselves: If Eucalypts are invasive and require fire to reproduce, and there are no Euc fires, how can Eucs reproduce and invade?
Not a problem?, tell that to the home owners who have lost their homes in Scripps Ranch San Diego. Damm fire was like a bomb going off.
Well David, here’s a picture from the Scripps Ranch fire for you:
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/10/27/national/28fire.l.jpg
Sorry I don’t know how to format the link.
See how all the houses burned completely? See how all those Blue Gum Gasoline Trees were left untouched? Australia will accept your apology now.
🙂
At our first house there was one in the garden planted by the previous owner right over the main drain! Grew very fast and took several years of heavy “pruning” to get rid of it. burning the stuff was no problem as even the freshest cut branches burned readily on the bonfire in a loud and hot fireball. The dried leaves went like a bomb in a few seconds, great fun for the children to watch but not so much to be near.
James Bull
Takeback, Please share your source. While I agree with your statement that any tree would have burned under the circumstances, I want to know why you claim the eucalyptus has no more propensity to burn. I believe it does but if you can show me otherwise, please do. On the day of the Oakland fire the conditions for an uncontrollable burn were as perfect as could be: high temperature, high wind and a lot of fuel. Similar conditions in Colorado (East Peak Fire) and the big burns in Yellowstone burned as completely as the Oakland fire. Under those conditions any fuel source would ignite and sustain. However, I believe the eucalyptus produces volatile and flammable compounds that make it more likely to ignite. If you have information to the contrary, please share.
If I read your comment correctly, I agree with everything you said.
Why do I say the Eucs have no greater propensity to burn? I’m too lazy to look up any numbers other than the ones I have in memory: California Bay Laurel volatile oil percentage: ~15%. Eucalypts volatile oil percentage (average): ~4-5%.
My point is: unless someone undertakes a very difficult and expensive set of controlled experiments, it’s not possible to quantify with any accuracy how flammable any species of tree is. How do you even define the terms you use to design the experiment? What are the conditions? Why choose those conditions? Ad nauseum…
So… you take a step back and try to make statements that can be useful without proof. Such as
–There are a certain number of tree species that are less flammable than Eucalyptus species. There are a certain number that are more flammable.”
–Under ideal lab conditions, the range of flammabilities might be measurable.
–Under the conditions of a high-wind wildfire, the range of flammability ratings would almost certainly be insignificant compared to difference between 1) the flammability of trees in general 2) ALL OTHER FUELS, such as grass, brush, homes, creosote-soaked telephone and electrical poles, etc. and 3) complete removal of all vegetation.
Do you get what I mean? Eliminate all the trees and replace with grass and shrub: possibly different fire outcome, although offset by higher number of fires due to grass flammability, much more rapid spread of fire, unpredictable fire travel. The type of tree isn’t significant.
It was reported that the big expansion of Eucalyptus in California followed the notion that the fast growing trees could be processed into railroad ties for Standford and Crocker. Except the spiral core tree won’t process into useful lumber for anything more than a novelty.
whoops Niel Jordan already covered that!
And as Pamela explained above, the conditions here were too ideal, causing the trees to grow too rapidly to provide tight-ringed, more stable wood. Plus the Railroad barons did not educate themselves on proper seasoning techniques.
Reminds me of a Mother Goose and Grimm cartoon where Grimmy (a dog) is walking out of the Adult Dog Store with an inflatable leg.
Hey, I resemble that!
Tree molesters!
It really says it all… not the nude protest, but the fact they’re protesting about an imported pest that is a real danger.
Eucalyptus tree absolutely require fire to propagate. During summer, that lovely eucalyptus smell is the tree saturating the air with flammable oils, just waiting for the right fire to come alone. Once the fire comes, the eucalyptus seed is able to burst and drop onto the ground, where there is now an abundant supply of food.
Eucalyptus fires flash across the treetops, and are generally over with quite quickly. The big problem comes when ground litter is allowed to build up: the tree can easily survive a crown fire, but if the trunk starts burning the tree can be killed.
Australian environmentalists have caused so much damage to the ecology because of their misguided principles. By actively preventing back-burning, they ensure that when a fire takes hold it’s so much more destructive. And as for the poor animals that get swept up in it all… most can either get out of the way or burrow down and allow it to pass overhead. Those that don’t make it… natural selection at work.
Non-environmentalists cause problems, too: by actively building into the bush, then kicking up a ruckus when back-burning is considered, they are condemning their homes to fire.
But I digress: if you’re worried about bush-fires, eucalyptus trees are the last thing you plant. Protesting to save them is the height of stupidity.
Most of what you say here is wrong. The highlights: Eucs don’t require fire to reproduce and spread. They have a lower volatile oil content than other California “native” trees.
Wildfire prevention IS a problem, but isn’t the fault of any particular tree species.
Trees don’t start wildfires. GRASSES do. Lightening strikes, cigarettes, car exhaust, campfires. Trees contain too much moisture to easily burn until a wildfire is already raging, at which point EVERYTHING is fuel. Including you and your home.
You don’t have to be a tree hugger to like shade on a hot day, tree-lined streets and the occasional tire swing.
With all due respect, I suggest you read up about Eucalyptus trees. I don’t know about the oil content of the trees cf. Californian natives, but the trees do require fire (ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus#Adaptation_to_fire).
A key point from the referenced article:
The whole point of a crown fire it that it is super-fast to spread but does minimal damage.
Neil:
1. You site Wikipedia as a reference.
2. Use logic. Do the wildfires that rip through the non-California West involve Eucalypts? No. Trees CAN BE fuel; but they don’t start the fires and aren’t “responsible” for the fires. Eucs are no different from any other type of tree.
I don’t know about eucalypts specifically needing fire for reproduction, but they certainly are very well adapted to regenerate afterwards. Many other Australian plant species do require fire for reproduction (Banksia, Hakea, grass trees etc).
And they certainly do produce a lot of volatile oils. The Blue Mountains just west of Sydney are named because of the blue haze from these oils.
The bulid up of fuel in the understory is a huge issue, but my understanding is this is because it allows the fire to become a large, raging canopy fire, rather than a smouldering undergrowth fire.
And Neil, the crown fires do by far the most damage and take the most lives. Once a crown fire starts, its like a chain reaction. A few years back we lost 173 people and 2000 homes on a single day.
plantation pines would be my pick for nasty, followed by the idiot bluegum plantations..though they are at least trimmed a bit.
and the worst offenders are usually human firebugs lighting them
more of them than lightning strikes id say.
and yeah understory is where it starts
so of course the greentards got grazing Banned! in major hilly mountain areas where the need to thin it is the most urgent..and they cry rivers over the tree n animal loss they were the bloody cause of!!
Hey ozspeaks. Haven’t heard of plantation pine. Is it a true pine? Or like Huon Pine, which isn’t really a pine, but produces one of the world’s best woods?
Btw, we don’t just mistreat Eucalypts here… Black Acacia in the landscape is called a trash tree and cut down along freeways and everywhere it appears. When the exact same species (A. melanoxylon) is imported, it’s called Tasmanian Blackwood and sells for upwards of $15/bdft, or $6/lb green.
It is irritating when someone rejects solid information:
” In contrast a eucalyptus forest tends to promote fire because of the volatile and highly combustible oils produced by the leaves, as well as the production of large amounts of litter which is high in phenolics, preventing its breakdown by fungi and thus accumulates as large amounts of dry, combustible fuel.[22] Consequently, dense eucalypt plantings may be subject to catastrophic firestorms. In fact, almost thirty years before the Oakland firestorm of 1991, a study of eucalyptus in the area warned that the litter beneath the trees builds up very rapidly and should be regularly monitored and removed.[23] It has been estimated that 70% of the energy released through the combustion of vegetation in the Oakland fire was due to eucalyptus.[24] In a National Park Service study, it was found that the fuel load (in tons per acre) of non-native eucalyptus woods is almost three times as great as native oak woodland.[24]”
wiki is generally useful unless climate hacks mess with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus#Fire_hazard
hunter, it’s also irritating when people can’t think critically.
Question: WHY did Eucalypts provide the fuel for the fire? Think about it.
(Hint: I don’t know what kind of trees burn in gigantic wildfires in Idaho or Montana; but it ain’t Eucalyptus.)
Answer: Because that’s the kind of tree that was THERE. It could’ve been apple trees or lollipop bushes. 100 mph winds. No fire hydrants. Narrow roads. Years of uncleared brush. Panicked drivers blocking fire crews and evacuating citizens. Delayed calls for mutual aid.
It’s much easier to blame the trees, right?
Cut down the Euc forest and let grass grow in its place. In a drought. Hillsides covered in dry grass instead of watery trees. MUCH safer.
Also, what were the other devastating euc-fueled wildfires that have struck the Bay Area in the last 100 years? Hmmmm…
If you want to eliminate risk, eliminate all vegetation. Pave it over. WAIT, San Francisco burned to the ground in 1906 and was as close to vegetation-free as you can get. They must have been THINKING about Eucalyptus! RUN!
Well you covered all the bases. Non native weed. Check. Screws up the natural environment. Check.
Fire hazard especially in dought years. Check.
Nothing left to say really, except got a light?
No no no. These trees need to come down because the campus needs to expand. Simple.
All Eucalypts don’t need to come down. You are arguing on the side of the extreme environmentalists I would guess you don’t agree with normally…
Oh is that all? The naked tree huggers are doing the public a favor then, because Berkeley is already bloated and prohibitively expensive with a piss poor state approved product to boot.
Expanding the campus will permit granting degrees to increasing hordes of idiot academic intellectuals “educated beyond their intelligence” and useful only for teaching social science drivel.
Undoubtedly.
But remember that decent smart and valuable people will also emerge.
Yes, we’ve all heard of someone getting a ‘woody’ but this is taking it to the extreme.
+1, re the child pornagraphy comment
I don’t like pornography – but then I don’t play chess.
I’m sure there’s a woodworm joke to be had here too.
woodpecker ?