Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Greens have reacted with fury at Trump Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke‘s suggestion that opposition to sensible forestry management is exacerbating fire risks.
Wildfires seem unstoppable, but they can be prevented. Here’s how.
Ryan Zinke, Opinion contributor Published 6:00 a.m. ET Aug. 8, 2018
Actively managing our forests benefits the environment, the economy, and most important, it saves lives.
The flames of the Ferguson Fire in California have become the latest symbols of a seemingly perennial challenge of fighting fires in the West. I just returned from the Ferguson Fire camp, where I met with firefighters who are working to combat the fire as it bears down on Yosemite National Park and its visitors, workers and nearby residents.
…
Why we need to manage our forests
There are three reasons for active forest management:
First, it is better for the environment to manage the forests. Wildfires produce smoke and emissions. The release of gases and particles can negatively affect air quality. Fires also damage watersheds, and as we see fires burning hotter and longer, the soil is actually becoming scorched and sterilized, preventing regrowth. In addition, while many of the frivolous lawsuits waged to stop timber harvests cite habitat as a concern, environmental litigants are little concerned when an entire forest burns to the ground and the habitat and wildlife are lost.
Second, active forest management is good for the economy. Logs come out of the forest in one of two ways: They are either harvested sustainably to improve the health and resilience of the forest (while creating jobs), or they are burned to the ground. Jobs matter, and logging has long been a cornerstone of rural economies. Fortunately for all, these economic benefits go hand-in-hand with our goal of healthy forests.
Third, and most important, the active management of our forests will save lives. The Carr Fire in northern California has already claimed half a dozen lives, and the Ferguson Fire has taken the lives of two firefighters. Sadly, these are not the only wildfire casualties this year.
Every year we watch our forests burn, and every year there is a call for action. Yet, when action comes, and we try to thin forests of dead and dying timber, or we try to sustainably harvest timber from dense and fire-prone areas, we are attacked with frivolous litigation from radical environmentalists who would rather see forests and communities burn than see a logger in the woods.
…
Seems sensible – if you clear or burn off excess undergrowth and log a few trees, reduce the amount of fuel, when a fire starts there will be less fuel available to burn.
Not according to greens.
‘No, Secretary Zinke. Record-Breaking Wildfires in California Have Everything to Do with Climate Change’
People who actual understand science, and also care about planet’s future, accuse Interior Secretary of “either being willfully ignorant or purposely deceptive.”
by Jon Queally, staff writer
After U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke over the weekend outrageously and falsely declared that the largest wildfires in the history of California have “nothing to do with climate change,” it was up to people who actually understand the science—and give a shit about the future of the planet—to set him straight.
No, Secretary Zinke. The record-breaking wildfires in California have everything to do with climate change. We must confront the reality that climate change is already destroying tens of thousands of lives, and take concrete steps to avoid its worst consequences. https://t.co/qSfahHcbeS
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) August 13, 2018
…
CWP STATEMENT:
As California Burns, @SecretaryZinke Buries his Head in the Sand. Ignoring science, forestry experts, and common sense, Zinke tells reporters the West’s fires have “nothing to do with climate change.”https://t.co/joanFpMSrI pic.twitter.com/u7SSb8mXKO— Western Priorities (@WstrnPriorities) August 13, 2018
…
“It doesn’t matter whether you believe or don’t believe in climate change. What is important is we manage our forests.”
—@RyanZinkeYes, Zinke, it *does* matter if you believe in climate change.
It’s happening. All around us. Right now.https://t.co/8ZnIWWel4S
— Eric Holthaus (@EricHolthaus) August 14, 2018
…
My question – why do US greens seem to believe advocating forestry management is synonymous with opposing climate action?
Surely it is possible to be concerned about climate change, yet also support sensible forestry management policies.
In my native Australia the issue of forestry management is barely a debate anymore. It is common in winter to see controlled burn operations to clear undergrowth, even in states with green governments, because the alternative is unthinkable. Australia might be famous for our catastrophic bushfires, but we have learned through bitter experience that forestry management mitigates the risk.
Lives will be saved if US greens drop their senseless opposition to effective forestry management.
This one is too obvious for the leftists to spin their way out of. That’s why there’s no longer a debate in Australia. The same thing will happen here.
There’s a limit to denial.
Between green fury and Google garbage searches the world is quickly going to Helena Handbasket.
Just did a Google search for Ferguson fire burn zone
This was the result (warning contains questionable sites, not suggested to click through)
https://www.google.ca/search? as_q=&as_epq=Ferguson+fire+burn+zone&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=
1 news article and 4 porn listings. What is Google thinking??
Don’t use Google. Use DuckDuckGo.
Frederick, sorry there is no limit to denial, most especially in the USA. After catastrophic fires in the early 1990s, where the affected property owners were up in arms demanding things be done differently, a decade later opinions and beliefs were back to where they had been prior to the fires. One of our problems in the USA is the really short attention span and the lack of historical perspective. The lack of honest historical perspective is due to poor quality education.
We battle in our state over issues that began well over a century ago. Example, draining wetlands started at the end of the 19th Century. Some people, especially the environmentalists, act as if it all only happened since such in such person, usually a Republican, was elected. Remind any liberal or environmentalists in any SE US state that Democrats have controlled their states since Reconstruction through ca1990s and they just give you a blank stare.
Frederick, we can be more specific about the facts climatists like Brown are denying.
1. The World and the US are not burning.
2. Public forests are no longer managed due to litigation.
3. Mega fires are the unnatural result of fire suppression.
4. Bad federal forest administration started in 1990s.
5. True environmentalism is not nature love, but nature management.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/08/17/why-the-left-coast-is-burning/
Exactly right, in Australia bushfires are far less numerous or severe than they used to be. The huge fire in Victoria in 1851 which was caused by loss of indigenous fire control and neglect by settlers, has never been repeated, as people became aware of the terrible hazard. At the height of that destruction on Black Thursday, 6 February 1851, fires covered a quarter of what is now Victoria (approximately 5 million hectares). At present (winter) in the cool season there are daily burn-offs near Sydney and elsewhere in high hazard areas to reduce fuel load and undergrowth constantly. Even the Greenies are on board with this in all states, as they know the alternative.
Bernie Sanders is no fool so his reaction must be to cling on to young followers i.e. it is pure political cynicism.
Bernie is a pure-as-the-snow-flies socialist.
Not only that, but a socialist at the top of the heap.
An extremely wealthy socialist, who aims to stay that way by using OPM.
I always like to tell the local Bernie fans (here in VT) how much he is worth (all in his wife’s name of course) and watch their brains short circuit…
Don’t you mean how much he has acquired which is hugely different to what he is worth?
“Bernie Sanders is no fool”
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Love exploding Liberal heads. Drive them to fits of rage please!
Progressives hate hearing the truth. Keep pushing back on their lunacy.
And I note Eric Holthaus came out of his SafeSpace to comment. He must be on his meds.
Agree, it’s so easy to trigger ’em. Just put a couple trigger words in (Trump), and they blather and stutter, run around in circles, cry and wring hands, grind teeth, etc.
Forest fires take $millions to fight and consume $millions in forest products. The consequence is the ugliest scene on planet earth, and many fires claim lives.
But leave it to the Greenies/Leftists to be amazingly stupid in their denial and excuses. (Maybe “climate change” is such a panacea excuse they can’t get through life without it…)
‘…Greenies/Leftists…religious beliefs cause them to be stupid in their denial and excuses. This is all about virtue signaling. Of making a burnt offering of trees and brush and houses and wildlife and, yes, even people.
Climate change!? Pfffh! Drought? Every summer is a drought in California. Every summer it gets hot and dry. And with torrential rains winter before last (Does anyone remember Oroville Dam in near collapse?) there was amazing brush and tree growth that is now hot and dry. Just like it is every summer. And when a knucklehead accidentally or purposefully sets it on fire IT WILL BURN SPECTACULARLY!, just like it always has.
We need a new version of the old CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) to go out into the woods and thin, grub, and improve the timber for use by humans. What better way to sequester carbon (if that is your bent) than to lock it up in trees and then turn those trees in to lumber for all kinds of use. Thinned stands of trees are not nearly as susceptible to bark beetles and other pests. Thinned stands of trees withstand fire better than unmanaged forest lands. Even one tenth of the current fire fighting budget could make a difference over time.
We need timber sales on federal land the mandate the thinning of non-salable trees and brush to take the fire load out of the forest. We could even sell the material to the Brits for their insane wood fired boilers. Or make some of our own boilers. Fire suppression makes sense when other means are employed to maintain healthy, renewable forests. It makes no sense to burn all down man…as these progeny of the 60’s echo the cries of their forbears and we continue to pay the consequences.
A few years ago, the U.S. Forest Service had a conference on PYROTERRORISM. Arson is encouraged against Infidels as JIHAD. Plans exist on the internet for the manufacture of remote-controlled incendiary devices. Nothing else explains the increased frequency and perceived randomness of these fires. Unfortunately, it is not politically correct to even discuss the possibility of Pyroterrorism even though it is discussed within the U.S. Forest Service.
There is eco-terrorism. People have been convicted and sent to prison so its existence is not just a conspiracy theory. Yes, there are some really vile nutters out there.
And as far as Forrest mismanagement having contributory negligence goes, go to 37.7417443, -119.8246753 and look at all the deadwood right in the middle of the Ferguson fire area. Pan around and all you see is more of the same
Forrest mismanagement
That was a handful even for General Sherman.
I’ll Grant you that.
Sherman was a great mismanager.
He managed [mismanaged] to extend the Civil War for over 100 years
“Pyroterrorism” is currently in action on the Gaza/Israel border, where HAMAS is encouraging youths to fly kites with incendiary devices over Israeli farmland and nature reserves.
Special question to Nick and all alarmists
Nick just so we can be clear about this. Do you agree that John Christy and Roy Spencer would never fudge the UAH figures? Because if the climate was truly headed for disaster and they knowingly made things look like everything was all right that would be like committing suicide or treason, right? Therefore we can all keep debating with bated breath on the UAH results. Climate science will live or die on the UAH satellite data cause its the only data that both sides trust? Correct?
Sadly it is not. You are lacking two vital pieces of infirmation. One is timescale and the other quite simply is the lack of ANY statistically significant data sets which PROVE man = temperature increase and second climate change. Anyone claiming the contrary is either a fool or a liar. There is no third position. I am sure like me you have developed an awareness which is a very western opinion, of the place of man on the planet. Feelings are not facts. Now I lsten to so many people who have been sensitized on this issue to the point of absurdity. You have every right to believe in what you want but do not confuse belief with fact and the bottom line is WE DO NOT KNOW. Be objective and realize there are a lot of people who profit from the climate industry. The Canutian idea that man causes climate and can control it is to defy basic principles of physics. You live in a warm period in a glaciation. Feel very very lucky and celebrate that fact.
>>Feelings are not facts. <<
++
If the UAH temperature dataset eventually shows catastrophic warming then I am willing to concede that I and other skeptics have been wrong all along and that something is wrong and that maybe CO2 is the cause. We skeptics live and die by good data and the UAH set is good data. I simply want to know whether the alarmists will concede their side of the argument if the above shows not to be the case.
Not a Canutian idea. Canute did what he did to demonstrate that no mortal king could control nature, operated by GOD. But your points are otherwise sound. A quick survey of the facts makes it clear that nothing changes significantly in a human life, or several, and relocation in the event of peristent one way change can be organised over many, many lifetimes, far longer than the life of most cities. As will be required when the ice returns and the shorelines disappear 100m downhill again, as certainly as we orbit eccentrically around the Sun. . As a clincher, check out what happens at the end of an interglacial warming, in a short 7Ka rise of c.0.001 deg pa. It stops in less than 1Ka, mainly due to clouds, ignoring increasing CO2 completely. Clouds are simply the massive control of solar insolation, deliver 140W/m^2 of cloud control feedback from evaporation and albedo that make a great job of keeping us inside the narrow range of ice age temperatures. More than powerful enough to manage a few W/m^2 from trace gasses. And then there are the bio feedbacks the models ignore…etc.
Off topic.
Nick brushes (no pun intended) aside the UAH data during WUWT discussions because it doesn’t directly measure “surface” temps. He ignores/pretends to ignore that climate science says the UAH data should be warming at least as fast as the surface and often much faster (depending on location).
Balloon data verifies the satellite temperature data
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/satellite/msu/comments.html
VERIFYING THE ACCURACY OF MSU MEASUREMENTS
A recent comparison (1) of temperature readings from two major climate monitoring systems – microwave sounding units on satellites and thermometers suspended below helium balloons – found a “remarkable” level of agreement between the two.
To verify the accuracy of temperature data collected by microwave sounding units, John Christy compared temperature readings recorded by “radiosonde” thermometers to temperatures reported by the satellites as they orbited over the balloon launch sites.
He found a 97 percent correlation over the 16-year period of the study. The overall composite temperature trends at those sites agreed to within 0.03 degrees Celsius (about 0.054° Fahrenheit) per decade. The same results were found when considering only stations in the polar or arctic regions.”
end excerpt
Now they need to compare the balloon data to the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick surface data.
One more thought: Which satellite do the balloons favor now that adjustments have been made to RSS to bring it more in line with the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick charts?
I guess since the balloons have already confirmed the satellite temperature data, we don’t really need to compare the balloon data to the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart, we can just compare the Hockey Stick to the UAH satellite data and we will see how far off base the Hockey Stick really is.
Here’s one of those bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick charts:
And here’s the UAH satellite chart:
It looks like the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart is Waaaay off! 🙂
But you are talkung about Nick….
facts and reason are a seperate issue.
“After U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke over the weekend outrageously and falsely declared that the largest wildfires in the history of California have “nothing to do with climate change,” it was up to people who actually understand the science—and give a shit about the future of the planet—to set him straight.”
And then they opt for Bernie Sanders?
He’s the one who’s promising them the most free stuff.
“… who actually understand the science …”
I assume the “science” in question here is “political science”. The cursing in Queally’s outburst indicates emotion rather than intellect. (I also assume one can proof-read before posting). Other than that, are we supposed to be persuaded by hand-waving, unsubstantiated claims and hysteria?
Look in the mirror Bernie.
The one thing to note is that the Interior Department has responsibility for US National Parks and BLM lands. But National Forests are under the control of Department of Agriculture.
The culture in those two agencies couldn’t be more different.
Think blue for Interior.
Think red for agriculture.
Zinke running Interior is undoubtedly triggering many TDS paroxysms of weeping and teeth gnashing in Interior bureaucrats, just as Pruitt and now former coal executive Andrew Wheeler is shaking things up at EPA.
But Forestry under DOAg still advocates equitable forest use by all “stakeholders” including logging and mining companies. Logging companies also prioritize harvest over control burns, because they see that as product.
Joel,
In recent decades, the USFS has become much more like the Interior Dept.
It can’t build any more roads. They’re already built. It can’t log any more, since now Forest Supervisors tend not to be from the lumber or grazing end of the business but recreation, water supply, species protection, historical architecture preservation, etc.
And instead of old, white, straight men, they tend to be lesbians. And like the BLM, they hate private ownership within forest boundaries, and anywhere near them.
USFS regulations and statutory guidance from Congress are still very different from NPS.
Joel,
Yes, obviously National Park Service operates under different rules from National Forests. But the Interior Department is much more than the NPS.
Unfortunately, we in the Intermountain West must deal with the Nazi-dominated BLM. If you cross them, they call in federal law enforcement to shoot you dead, as seen most recently by the state-sanctioned murder of LaVoy Finicum. Same as with the murders at Ruby Ridge.
At best, the Nazi feds trump up bogus criminal charges and railroad you, as with the Hammonds in Harney County, OR.
Besides which, Clinton and Obama declared National Monuments by EO, without any input from Congress. Interior as a whole remains more the enemy of freedom than the Ag Dept, but the latter is catching up.
I doubt we will see that kind of behavior with Zinke at Interior or Sessions at DoJ.
That kind of behavior happens of course in Democratic Admins, like Clinton’s Janet Reno of RubyRidge and Waco infamy.
Joel,
I was concerned until Trump at long last pardoned the Hammonds, as he should have done on the first day of his administration.
You’re right, but after Trump, then what Dumpocrap Nazi will succeed him? The charming, adorable, winning young lady and socialist heroine from the Bronx?
Odds are good.
She’d be likely to follow the Clinton Administration paradigm and burn your babies alive, as under Janet Reno, who “took responsibility” for the Waco atrocity, but then did nothing, to include not resigning and killing herself, as would have been proper.
Considering the large Democrat field that is assembling to oppose Trump-Pence in 2020, the reasonable white guys in that Party of Identity Politics don’t stand a chance to get the nomination. Guys like Montana Gov Bullock or Col Governor Hickenlooper would probably beat Trump, but they’ll never get the nomination in a party of straight, white male haters. Someone like Cal Senator Kamala Harris is my bet, and she has only appeal on the Left and East Coasts.
Joel,
Hard to say which fruitcake PoC or septuagenarian white male will emerge victorious after the 2020 primaries, but IMO anyone capable of winning the Dumpocrap nomination won’t be able to beat Trump.
Two years is an eternity in politics. But the “Democrats” are likely only to become more socialist between now and early 2020. By a big margin, public opinion surveys show that todays’ Dumpocraps prefer socialism to capitalism by double digits.
Independents and Republicans, not so much.
Sessions? Mr. Asleep at the wheel?
Acually, it’s their hate of capitalism that prevents forestry management. The idea that someone might make money harvesting trees is too much for them to take, so much so that they’d rather see the forests burn than see capitalism practiced for the greater good.
Wait, what? How has climate changed in CA? I thought the likely scenario embraced by IPPC was like 2.0 C warming by the end of this century. But we’ve already had the warming? How did I miss that?
In addition, many recent fires in CA have been human-caused, either through carelessness (cluelessness) or outright arson. Ipso facto the only real human causation explained.
What’s more? When every fire is presented as an evidence, in fact the only tangible evidence, that climate changers can point to, they will encourage every nutjob with a matchstick to make their fever dreamed prognostications come true.
It has become fashionable to claim that global warming can happen in one place. That is the basis for claims that local heat records are evidence of global warming – but it isn’t really global if it’s local. Anyway…that’s how the Greens want to see it. Suppose we do the same?
Fire-bug forest fires are definitely a sign that Man’s activities has increased local temperatures – sometimes as much as 800-1000 degrees C.
If Green opposition to sensible forest management contributes to this 800 degree rise in the local temperature, they should pay for global warming offsets. That’s the way, right? If, by your actions, you create conditions that result in the destruction of property, which includes causing local global warming by 800 degrees, then you can expect to bear the consequences in law and liberty.
“Wait, what? How has climate changed in CA? I thought the likely scenario embraced by IPPC was like 2.0 C warming by the end of this century. But we’ve already had the warming? How did I miss that?”
You have to be quick. California got all hot and bothered for a time while a high-pressure system sat on top of it, but then the CO2-caused (just kidding!) high-pressure system moved and it’s nice and pleasant in California now. Well, with the exception of the fires. So the CAGW has moved on and left the fires behind. It only hangs around for a few weeks most of the time unless you get very unlucky and have to sit under one for months at a time.
Anyway, CAGW has moved on from California and is out looking for more victims to plague.
And the alarmists have moved up the timetable. It’s not the end of the century we need to worry about, CAGW is here and now and causing havoc. Any extreme weather is CAGW happening now, according to alarmists.
As someone that actually owns and has experience with wooded land, if the woods are not thinned out periodically, the trees will become unhealthy specimens of their species. The trees spend all their energy trying to grow taller to gather more sunshine. This results in slender trees that can be knocked over in a windstorm leaving fuel for a fire that the slender trees cannot withstand.
It took 20 years for me to do my first selective cut. I just thin out the woods to allow the young sprouts to have a chance at the sky, not a clear cut.
“… if the woods are not thinned out periodically, the trees will become unhealthy specimens of their species”
One exception – Lodgepole Pine? “Hair on a dog’s back” comes to mind. Ironically, Lodgepole in certain habitats thrives almost as a shrub, nearly unrecognizable as “lodgepole”.
It’s called tundra. As soon as it warms enough, the shrubs turn into large tree plantations without the planting part. That’s why the silly alarm over melting permafrost is so far beyond the pale. As soon as it melts, the thawed vegetation feeds the trees above. And in any case, how did the vegetation get there? Was it put there by an ancient civilisation? Or did it grow there all by itself the last time it was warm?
Maybe we had better stop the warming – I am not sure if there is enough CO2 available to feed another trillion lodge pole pines.
Many of the great stands of lodgepole pine have been seriously damaged by the pine borer beatle. We had large swaths of them in the Uintas in Utah while I lived there. About 20% were dead standing, killed by the beatles. The forest service let us cut as many as we wanted for pioneering projects to reduce the fire load that could jump to the canopy. I don’t think the are has recovered yet (20+ years on). Lodgepoles also need fire to germinate the seeds in the cones, as do some other evergreen species.
” …killed by the beatles.”
So John, Paul, George, and Ringo killed the lodgepole?
However, there is NOTHING wrong with clearcutting. Indeed, it is at worst genetically neutral. It is frequently one of the best choices for forest regeneration, especially from an economic point of view. Logging is expensive, and you have to be able to pay your way out of the woods. As well, many of the most important timber species are shade intolerant, so clearcutting provides the sunlight necessary for such valuable species.
I am a retired forester, and own a small woodlot. I have conducted logging operations on my woodlot, removing over mature trees that were of sawlog size, and favoring the longer lived, more valuable, and healthier trees. Clearcutting wasn’t appropriate for my woodlot, but often it isn’t for small woodlots that have been neglected. However, for large forests that cover millions of acres in the west, clearcutting is very appropriate.
Sadly, frivolous lawsuits, fueled by the forced payment by American taxpayers through EAJA, have essentially shut down logging on forests “managed” by the federal government. And, increasingly devastating wildland fires are the result. Oh yeah that, and the economic strangulation of the rural west.
Trump needs to make Logging Great Again.
People who have worked in land management agencies in government knows there is some truth in this.
I worked in forestry and national parks in government committees in Australia in the 1990s-2000s, when large areas of forest previously periodically logged and managed by the forestry service were transferred to national park estates, without thought for changes in fire risks or consequences. Since these areas were no longer going to have any vegetation reduction or be periodically logged, the fire risk greatly increased. No account was also made of areas transferred to conservation status in areas very close to townships. Subsequently, some towns suffered severe losses, partly due to the massive change in fire management of these areas once transferred to conservation status. Most prescribed burn zones now concentrate on areas close to towns for obvious reasons.
I recall a story a few years ago of a guy fined for not following local laws about brush clearance. At the end of the fire his was the only house in the area left standing.
Did anything come of that, law-speaking?
In Queensland the practice seems to have been clear-fell, then declare an area a national park, and then ignore it. I suppose that may work okay for some of the open forest areas where regeneration isn’t very dense, but other areas are almost impenetrable with regrowth and weeds like lantana and look like disasters waiting to happen.
Lantana is an invasive non-native to Australia.
Eucalyptus is invasive non-native to California.
So-called “enciros” don’t seem to care.
Forrest fires in California – it’s hard to think of a state more deserving of punishment for stupidity.
(Trees) … “ are burned to the ground ”
Most trees that get burned (some don’t die) remain standing with many branches. The branches are a hazard as are the trees. A tree that dies naturally may stand for many years (20, 25?). Such are also, more or less, spaced randomly in time and spatial extent.
When a forest is burned, trees can deteriorate and fall more quickly. Folks that must work near such trees encounter many close together and this complicates what they do, and makes any activity more dangerous.
I give Ryan Zinke the benefit of poor word choice. Most people would make the same mistake. It is similar to the often repeated remark about “chopping” down trees and sending them to DRAX power station.
If they are so upset about the direction of leadership on fires then maybe California would like Christine ‘I had to eat’ Nixon to take a seat in the big chair.
I seem to recall the last major fire outbreak in Oz was as a result of failure to clear fire paths, a clear years of deadwood (fuel) lying on the ground, via Greenalist policies & resistance! For many years it was Forestry Commission policy in the UK to undertake such “duties” to protect our woodlands & forests from such devastating destruction!
Shhhhhh! We don’t do that anymore in Aus.
No Alan. “the last major fire outbreak in Oz was as a result of” mid forty degree temperatures, low humidity and strong winds. Next time those conditions occur there will be major fire outbreaks. Blaming anyone is just political point scoring.
You are wrong, Ryan! What you have merely stated are the environmental conditions that can feed any fire outbreak that occurs! Blaming bad & poorly thought through policy decisions has always been the correct thing to do, especially when lives are put at risk, remember, Ryan, FIRE KILLS, as 35 years of structural engineering has taught many in my profession!!! It is also indiscriminate & doesn’t select its victims through any known thought process, therefore sensible forest management practises help nature & Humanity!!!
I don’t know if you have any experince of an Australian summer Alan, but I can tell you there are days when policy is not going to make the slightest difference…none. Forest management practice can help but sometimes nothing will save lives.
No fuel = No fire.
“but I can tell you there are days when policy is not going to make the slightest difference…none.”
I wouldn’t disagree with that statement, who would? One can never stop lives being lost under any circumstances with the best will in the World, we after all are only Human. Nor can we stop forest fires from occurring, but we can do the best we can by managing our environment as well as we can. However, as you well know, many plant species need fire to enable them to spread their seeds to other areas!
Ryan, read the damn reports. Every major fire has an inquiry into it and they ALL, without exception blame poor practices. Get an education, rather than an opinion. Read the testimony.
http://royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Commission-Reports/Final-Report.html
In your opinion, only the present matters when it comes to how bad a fire is?
The amount of fuel on the ground isn’t relevant?
And to think, you actually believe that you understand science.
“why do US greens seem to believe advocating forestry management is synonymous with opposing climate action?”
Who said that? There is nothing like that in your quotes. What they are saying is that the predominant cause of the fires was weather – heat and drought. And they think global warming contributed. I don’t see anyone there deprecating forestry management.
According to Zinke “extreme environmentalists” are vigorously opposing forestry management. The statements on the second quote appear to be accusing Zinke of ignoring the real cause of the fires – without any acknowledgement of the role better forest management could play in mitigating fire damage and risk.
My point is forestry management and climate action should be treated as separate issues. It should be possible for greens to acknowledge that mistakes have been made with forestry action, while at the same time advocating stronger efforts to oppose climate change. Instead they seem to have rolled both issues into one.
Whatever my thoughts are on ‘climate change’, my wife expects the lawn to be mowed and trees trimmed.
Nick, there is only one non-human cause of fire and that is lightning. The idea that 40° or even 50° temperatures “cause” fires is nonsense. Whether it’s arson or a cigarette end or a spark from some piece of equipment or the magnifying effect on a shard of glass the initiator somewhere is related to human activity.
The seriousness or otherwise of the blaze may be temperature-related but only to the extent that a) there is fuel, b) that fuel is dry enough to combust.
The debate is over the swivel-eyed loon division of the eco-army’s insistence that forests should not be managed and that fallen trees, etc. should be left to provide habitat. Up to a point most of us would agree — I have a small area of my garden where I do just that — but not up to the point where it threatens life and limb.
Oddly enough my first responsibility is to my own species —just like every other being on the planet (eco-nuts excluded, of course).
(According to Pierre Gosselin at Notrickszone the incidence of wildfires is in decline. Sorry I can’t give you a link; the site appears to be having problems.)
Apparently eucalyptus trees have been known to spontaneously combust in Australia.
Nick
This issue is not about climate change at all. It’s about irrational eco extremists out of control, indirectly exacerbating forest fires.
Do you have some sort of climate moron filter in front of your face that filters out all the insanity from the climate cult?
And who said that? That is what’s called an interpretation based on their actions. Some of us still believe that actions matter far more than words.
Nick: Please search for “Giant Redwood Tree” and “Smoky Mountain Forest” for images. Compare the photos taken back in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s with those taken recently. notice that the present day photos have underbrush and heavy overgrowth. There is one taken in the Smoky Mountains over a hundred years ago with a Model T in it. The photo shows that there is enough room between all trees in the photo for the Model T to pass through between the trees easily. However the same area shown recently is covered with underbrush, fallen trees, overgrowth, excessive vines, etc. I person on foot would have trouble walking through these “Managed Forests” They are now a giant forest fire waiting to happen. There are areas of forest in the East and South East that are so overgrown by Kudzu that they are as hazardous as gasoline a storage area when dry. I spend days cleaning the one acer lot I have of the weed every year. Has taken me four years to get down to a one day job. NO ONE is cleaning the nearby forest or parks – in the name of environmentalism they leave it to nature.
Hundreds of years ago the occasional lightning strike caused a fire in the undergrowth and kept the area from having massive fires. Today the undergrowth load of dry fire material is so heavy the forest will be wiped out. Proof of this is in the before and after photos of recent fires.
” . . . predominant cause of the fires was weather – heat and drought”. Not much of a drought. Remember the panic about Oroville Dam? Too much rain.
The big drought in California was broken only 18 months ago, in rather spectacular fashion. Excessively so for the residents of Oroville and other towns on the Feather River.
What has actually happened, (it seems to me) is that the rains of February 2017 generated a huge forest greening. But now, what where green shoots back then, are dry tinder now. I suggest that such fires are more likely to occur in the first serious dry spell after a wet spell.
Nick, try reading before dismissing.
You notice that the people who claim climate change is to blame quote zero data to back up their claim? When the number of wildfires vs. acreage burned is examined, one sees that the number of fires per year is decreasing since 1985. However, the amount of acreage burned has increased dramatically.
The Wildfire Today website, from where I got these numbers, who got them from the National Interagency Fire Center, lists several reasons why the number of fires could be decreasing, while the acreage is increasing. Of course, the first is climate change: “Weather that is warmer and drier making fires more difficult to suppress.” But then they go on to list the more likely causes, given that they gave no data indicating that the weather has been warmer and drier over the past 30 years.
“Another factor to consider is that there was a gradual 30 to 70 percent reduction in the number of large air tankers on exclusive use contracts from 2002 until 2014 when the fleet began to be partially restored.”
Based on these numbers, and the comments from the site, it seems apparent that forest and wildfire management has far more to do with the acreage burned than does a 1-2 deg. increase in temperature.
You notice that the people like Eric who claim environmentalists are to blame quote zero data to back up their claim?
I thought Zinke’s point was very clear – by launching “frivolous lawsuits” every time the government tries to mitigate fire risk by clearing some undergrowth or cutting down a few trees, environmentalists are causing unnecessary deaths.
Hi Griff
While obstinant, Griff at least had a modicum of intelligence.
You notice that to people like Ryan, facts are facts, only when they support his position.
And even an opinion can be a fact if it does.
If you can’t or refuse to read the data or science, bad on you.
You are going to try telling the rest of us that Environmentalists never try to stop forest clean up projects, via lawsuit?
You are in delusion, since it has been occurring for a long time.
This from year 2002, SIXTEEN YEARS AGO is this post from the GUARDIAN
Bush vows to halt forest fires by cutting trees
“The president’s plan offers controlled burns and mechanical thinning to prevent fires raging out of control. Gale Norton, the interior secretary, said “Much of the west is a tinder box waiting for a spark”, and blamed “a century of well-intentioned but misguided management”.
Environmentalists favour letting nature take its course away from settled areas, and building firebreaks round communities.
The White House accuses objectors of worsening the problem. In an official briefing paper it said Oregon’s Squires Peak area, devastated by fire after a lighting strike last month, was identified as a high risk area in 1996.
Finally, “after six years of analysis and documentation, administrative appeals and two lawsuits, work was allowed to begin on [thinning] 430 acres of the original 24,000-acre project.”
The thinned area was unharmed, the White House said. “In unthinned areas, the fire killed most trees, sterilised soils and destroyed the habitat of threatened spotted owls.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2002/aug/23/usnews.worldsummit2002
======================
We have this from 2015
Anti-logging lawsuits hurt fight against forest fires, officials say
https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/fires/article21016266.html
======================
From 1999,
Endangered Property Rights
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/16375-endangered-property-rights
======================
From NYT in 2012
Harvesting Trees Will Prevent Fires
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/07/11/does-the-government-cause-or-prevent-widlfires/harvesting-trees-will-prevent-fires
======================
Obstruction or obligation? The case for and against environmental litigation
https://helenair.com/news/local/obstruction-or-obligation-the-case-for-and-against-environmental-litigation/article_0dbe0e83-6ad3-580f-a916-f6f6d25d649c.html
on and on it goes…..
Wind speed is the most important factor in the California fires. It can be hot as hades but if there isn’t any wind, the fire isn’t going to go very far.
This is a well known problem. Enviros stopped clearing the forest floor of debris, hence bigger and more fires.
At my place in France it is the law to clear the forest debris withing 50 meters of your house and access road, and to pay attention to bushes growing under pine trees. If the bushes are too tall, fire can get to the forest canopy. Kept low, the fire just runs along the ground.
According to the state of California, France’s laws cause cancer.
This is just so frustrating. California is one of the wildfire capitals of the world. Just as the State of Victoria in Australia is.
Our last horrible disaster was in 2009 and called “Black Saturday”. It was catastrophic and directly caused as a result of people not understanding nature.
Australia’s vegetation relies on moderate fires every 15 years or so. The seeds need the temperatures to propagate and maintain the canopy of grasses, heath, shrubs and then trees (typically). When you get idiots refusing to allow this to occur you get a whole lot of trees with a whole lot of fuel ready to burn at temperatures unheard of naturally. That is what happened on Black Saturday.
I expect I am right in assuming a similar scenario applies to California?
A quick corollary- A resident of one of the towns cleared his multi acre site of trees and was facing a fine of about $150,000 for his temerity. His was the only property to survive in his area.
Ah – they dropped the charges and whilst not funny is sad indeed.
I wonder if the refusal to consider rational forest management policies has anything to do with the principle that we not consider any steps to ADJUST to a changing climate, but rather we focus all efforts on PREVENTION only. Because once you start to consider the option of adjusting instead of mitigating, the cost benefit analysis leads you inevitably to the conclusion that radical, expensive measures do not have benefits that are worth the costs. And that’s even if you believed everything the alarmists said!
And then there’s no way to justify new taxes or massive wealth transfers.
Ah yes, but new taxes and wealth transfer are the object of the green exercise.
There was a massive forest fire in Australia a couple of years ago that was finally put out. When it was over, wildflowers that had not been seen in literally years started to grow and blossom. That makes it as clear as glass that controlled fires clear out trash that prevents regrowth and restocking of biologics that will otherwise be crowded out.
I have two friends who are firefighters in California. They get livid when this subject of eco-hippies comes up, because the firefighters are the people whose lives are at most risk fighting these fires. They know how to prevent the fires but getting past the stupid ecohippies is the real problem.
Controlled burns not only encourage regrowth, but also return nutrients to the soil and open space for new plants to emerge. We have controlled burns around here every year, spring and fall. It’s partly to get rid of the invasive plants that don’t belong here, like buckthorn and purple loosestrife, but also to prevent even the remote possibility that a wildfire will start up.
These so-called environmentalists are among the MOST ignorant creatures on the planet. They don’t want to ‘save’ the planet. They want to destroy it, turn it into a desert. They are ignorant at an astonishing level.
Fortunately, there are more of us than there are of them.
>>Fortunately, there are more of us than there are of them.<
I hope you are right. It doesn't feel that way in the NE US.
A forest has a lifespan, at the end it either burns down, or gets cut down, choose one. Choosing neither, is by NATURE, not an option.
Every once in a while, nature gets creative and blows one down with a volcano. Every once in a while, we get creative and flood one with a dam.
>>My question – why do US greens seem to believe advocating forestry management is synonymous with opposing climate action?<<
Liberals are religious zealots masquerading as thinking people. The cannot listen – literally cannot hear – opposing points of view. Their brains filter what they do not believe. We all do this, actually, and it takes a hard, willful action to overcome this unconscious bias and force yourself to look at unpleasant facts. Liberals cannot bring themselves to do this, they'd rather live in a comfortable bubble of "facts" that make them feel good.
A few years ago I attended a managment course at the Darden School of Business. One exercise we performed was to watch a video of playing cards being dealt quickly onto a table. We were to count the cards as they dropped. Unbeknownst to us, several of the cards had been altered to change the relationship between symbol and color, i.e. black hearts or red spades. Those cards were invisible: our brains skipped them and refused to see them because they did not fit our preconception of "playing cards". Only after the first couple did I see the game and count the altered cards too. Most of my fellow students never saw the trick until it was explained to them.
Facts that don't fit your world view are filtered and ignored unless you make a concerted effort to see them.
Those of us that make things all know the mental pain that comes from a design not working, a wiring job with a short, an engine rebuild where the rings don't seat, a board cut too short. People that don't make things try to avoid the anguish of a screw up, because fixing screw ups requires that you admit unpleasant facts. Its even harder to admid that you are the one who made the mistake.
A few years ago Mother Jones Magazine ran a piece on some research wherein the experimenter had "discovered a scientific way to identify conservatives." I can't find the article on-line to cite, if someone can find it and post the link its a great article. The author had devised a mechanism to see where people were focusing their attention by bouncing a laser off their eyes. He then showed his subjects a series of poster boards which held a montage of photographs: some happy (puppies and children playing) and some less so (piles of garbage and dog crap on the sidewalk). He interviewed his subjects to determine their political leanings. His conclusion: liberals were happy people who focused on happy things, while conservatives were grumpy people who allowed their attention to shift to unhappy things.
My interpretation of his results differs: I think liberals ignore the harsh realitites of life, while conservatives focus on life's problems in order to devise solutions to the world's ills.