T1B

California wildfires are being magnified & made so much worse
by the bad environmental laws which aren’t allowing massive amount
of readily available water to be properly utilized. It is being diverted
into the Pacific Ocean. Must also tree clear to stop fire spreading!

Governor Jerry Brown must allow the Free Flow of the vast amounts
of water coming from the North and foolishly being diverted into the
Pacific Ocean. Can be used for fires, farming and everything else.
Think of California with plenty of Water - Nice! Fast Federal govt. approvals.

1. Last I heard, most rivers sort of flow into the ocean on their own.
2. Water isn't used much to fight wildfires.
3. There are no "vast amounts of water coming from the north" and any that does isn't "diverted into the Pacific Ocean."
4. Cut trees down to save the trees?
5. Most of the area burned is covered with dry grass.
6. Not even going to bring up the connection between climate change, Trump pushing to roll back emissions standards, and the worst fire conditions ever, not only in California but the entire West and Europe as well.
7. Thanks for the shout-out to the 15,000 plus who are risking their lives fighting these fires, and the thousands who have evacuated their homes or lost them completely.

I could go on.

What a fucking dumbass.

...Cue Meltspray with some idiotic TAD video...
#CultofTrump

CA has plenty of water issues. Some of them Federal issues (EPA) and some self inflicted. But most states have these issues and calling out CA when they are in the midst of fires is bad pool.

No denying that CA has water issues. But, other than record drought and heat, they have no bearing whatsoever on any of the wildfires.

Papa Willie wrote:You live in a desert.

Now there's an intelligent response.
Congratulations on showing how smart and well-informed you are. Almost as much as your Dear Leader.

How do 6 people die and over 100 houses get destroyed in a car fire?

Mikey wrote:But, other than record drought and heat, they have no bearing whatsoever on any of the wildfires.

Totally disagree on that. Fewer lakes regardless of size make fire fighting more difficult. For example where my mom lives in Northern NM, a group of 83 homes got together and is in the planning stages of building a small dam. This will retain water over no more than 10 acres, but would be vital in efforts to fight any fires in their area. If a fire were to break out now in their community the closest water is a 13.6 mile flight. This would make water available less than a mile from all of the 83 homes. Huge difference when a fire is in it's infancy or if it is threatening your home.

Quit being distracted, Mike. Focus on the criminal conspiracy.

Mikey wrote: 4. Cut trees down to save the trees?

Yes. It's a new revolutionary, environmental concept called "forestry".

Left Seater wrote:

Mikey wrote:But, other than record drought and heat, they have no bearing whatsoever on any of the wildfires.

Totally disagree on that. Fewer lakes regardless of size make fire fighting more difficult. For example where my mom lives in Northern NM, a group of 83 homes got together and is in the planning stages of building a small dam. This will retain water over no more than 10 acres, but would be vital in efforts to fight any fires in their area. If a fire were to break out now in their community the closest water is a 13.6 mile flight. This would make water available less than a mile from all of the 83 homes. Huge difference when a fire is in it's infancy or if it is threatening your home.

Different area, different kind of fire.

In the conditions that exist up there now, having a lake nearby wouldn't make any difference. A small fire turns into a large fire before anybody has time to even react. These fires are fought with bulldozers, picks, shovels, sweat, foam and other kinds of fire retardants. Oh yeah, and back fires.



The Carr fire has plenty of lake water in the area. Whatever you may have been told by the Donald, these lakes are not dry. I think that fire is now about 160,000 acres.

http://google.org/crisismap/google.com/2018-carr-fire

The main goal in these back country wildfires is to build a break around it, maintain the break, and keep it away from as many structures as possible.

When we were evacuated last year they did have come heavy lift choppers ferrying water from the ocean, but I also had one of those DC10s fly about 100 feet over my head on its way to make a drop about a half a mile away.
Having water around can help save some structures, but it's not going to slow down the main fire. You can be sure the fire departments around here know where all the swimming pools are.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:

Mikey wrote: 4. Cut trees down to save the trees?

Yes. It's a new revolutionary, environmental concept called "forestry".

You're about as quick as Melty.

There's not exactly a lack of water around the Mendocino Complex fire either.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mi ... 00002&z=11

Clear Lake, believe it or not, has not been drained into the Pacific Ocean.

Water isn't used much to fight wildfires.

Yes it is. There were over 326 engines and tenders on the Ranch Fire at Clearlake. All of them carry water.

There are no "vast amounts of water coming from the north" and any that does isn't "diverted into the Pacific Ocean."

I take this as a reference to Californication's inability to come up with any kind of infrastructure that they can impound additional water for both municipal uses and not flush it down the rivers so the pussy eating mini chub can get through the polluted Delta.

Cut trees down to save the trees?

Here is a term unfamiliar to liberals even the most environmental ones. Managed forests. Logging helps prevent fuel build up and these huge fires.

Not even going to bring up the connection between climate change, Trump pushing to roll back emissions standards, and the worst fire conditions ever, not only in California but the entire West and Europe as well.

I am sure the Forest Service had nothing to do with this in letting these forests get this way over the last 8 years. They spend over 50% of their budget on fire suppression. Follow the money.

Goober McTuber wrote:How do 6 people die and over 100 houses get destroyed in a car fire?

The #CarrFire was started by a car fire that spread quickly. Given the weather, topography and fuel loads this was a monster of a fire. I listened to a lot of the first and second days when it was near and in Redding. You are completely fucked when something like that comes along.

Nice to see that mikey is familiar with the term fire break.

Here's a novel idea. Cut the firebreaks before the damn fires start.

Put PV farms in these cuts so all the greenies will be happy.

Is it expensive?

Sure. So is fighting fires and rebuilding thousands of homes.

But, I guess having these fires and putting it on the news and blaming evil right wingers is more fun.

Holic’s take on fire breaks is right on. There are far too few fire breaks in much of the west. On top of that the ones they do have are far too small. A road isn’t a fire break when on either side of the road the trees are taller than the road is wide.

Our government hasn’t helped the issue either. They have bent over to groups like the Sierra Club and others that have prevented logging in many area. This has meant that there is a ton of fuel when fires do break out.

Left Seater wrote: Our government hasn’t helped the issue either. They have bent over to groups like the Sierra Club and others that have prevented logging in many area. This has meant that there is a ton of fuel when fires do break out.

The issue really isn't that cut & dry. What needs to happen in a lot of cases is a clear out of all the dead and dying trees, but these trees are not the type loggers want.

While logging removes all or most trees, the area looks apocalyptic, with mostly stumps and seedlings replacing forest. Similar to how strip mining changes the landscape.

Like living in tornado alley, or hurricane country, there are no easy fixes to this problem beyond fire proofing ones house & yard as best as possible, and adding more fire breaks.


Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Joe in PB wrote:

Left Seater wrote: Our government hasn’t helped the issue either. They have bent over to groups like the Sierra Club and others that have prevented logging in many area. This has meant that there is a ton of fuel when fires do break out.

The issue really isn't that cut & dry. What needs to happen in a lot of cases is a clear out of all the dead and dying trees, but these trees are not the type loggers want.

While logging removes all or most trees, the area looks apocalyptic, with mostly stumps and seedlings replacing forest. Similar to how strip mining changes the landscape.

Like living in tornado alley, or hurricane country, there are no easy fixes to this problem beyond fire proofing ones house & yard as best as possible, and adding more fire breaks.

Agreed, that the dead and dying trees aren't the ones the loggers want. But the loggers would love to have access to certain areas and instead of saying there will be no logging, they could be granted access to some tracts. Give them the requirement to remove all the dead and fallen fuel. Require them to then cut the stumps within a few inches of the ground level. This has multiple benefits including creating natural fire breaks in the areas logged along with removing all the old fuel.

Granted it does change the way the landscape looks, but in 18-24 months it will again be green. While it might look apocalpytical for a small area for a few months, it is still much better looking and over a smaller area than an out of control fire after it has burned out.

Agreed there are issues, but we can do more than we are currently. I don't think though that the rest of the country turns their back in times like this.

Agreed, that the dead and dying trees aren't the ones the loggers want. But the loggers would love to have access to certain areas and instead of saying there will be no logging, they could be granted access to some tracts. Give them the requirement to remove all the dead and fallen fuel. Require them to then cut the stumps within a few inches of the ground level. This has multiple benefits including creating natural fire breaks in the areas logged along with removing all the old fuel.

Loggers are just that. They log for timber companies. The timber companies make the rules, and most of the harvest is on private ground anymore. Managed forest. Monoculture for sure but some level of management. Most of these fires are taking place on Federal lands. Where there has been no logging and management for close to 30 years now. Limited logging on state tracts as the states need money. None of it is premium timber that the retail or building market wants. A lot is pure shit that is going to the pulp markets for a low price.

Processing the logs has become a very localized thing. Mostly private timber sales and farms, that are within 60 miles of the mill. Because it does not pay to haul it any farther. There is a finite amount of timber under management any more and you will never see mills start back up since Federal sales will never start back up. Nobody will pay the bazillions it will take to build a new mill. I see premium logs going down the highway past my place every day. probably close to 100 loads some days. Going to 2 different mills. The only mills in 70 miles to the next closest and 100 to the next closest.

As far as management for fire suppression, it would be more expensive than letting it burn and containing it. Fact. There are millions of acres that have heavy fuel loads that there is simply no cost advantage to do any kind of thinning, or other management activities. It is simply more cost effective to let it burn and put money in the pockets of the fire contractors and the various government agencies involved. The forest have not been managed for timber growth, the under story is completely over grown, and if you were to thin or start managing it right now, you would not have marketable timber, so why bother ???

Log it ...graze it...or burn it.