605: Picking Sides

[be leaves]

Originally Posted by Keith

A SUPER shitty contract. 5 million dollars a year with 3 million in incentives. Fuck that shit! And fuck anyone that's even WEARING socks right now!

rofl

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Keith

A SUPER shitty contract. 5 million dollars a year with 3 million in incentives. Fuck that shit!

hah, yeah that's true. He was supposedly pissed because it was a $2.5 million pay pay-cut from what he made this past season, and it was only a one-year deal.

I still think he was a good coach, though. He made the playoffs a bunch of years in a row. I'd fuck him. I'm just sayin'.

[Blitzgal]

I don't know what that guy was talking about concerning controlled burns in California. When I was out there several years ago we drove past the remnants of one; freaky thing to see the ground still sizzling and smoking, all dead and black. Anyway, I googled it a bit and came across several news articles talking about other controlled burns in California -- one in February of last year went out of control and forced evacuations. I did find one article from Reason magazine in 1999 that discussed the issues he was talking about, but it claims that the US Forest Service had realized back then that letting the underbrush get purged through natural burning was better in the long run. So those scary hippies aren't stopping anyone from conducting controlled burns. That guy's talking out of his ass.

The current fires that are going on are the result of some asshole arsonists who probably wanted to beat off to the pretty pretty flames -- one of them was shot dead by police after ramming their cars as he tried to escape.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/25/fir....ca/index.html

[Mickey]

I'm not sure if it is funny or disturbing that the words

"Yeah, I coulda punched him or stick a key in his neck" rolled off of Chemda's tongue as if she were deciding to use sugar or Sweet and Low. And equally disturbing was Keith not missing a beat.

[arcatacat]

The guy who wrote in was partially right. The reason forest fires are more intense recently is because there are more fuels to burn. More, larger fuels = hotter, more intense fires. There's no question. However, the reason there are more fuels have nothing to do with hippies and tree-huggers.

In fact, the US Forest Service has a mandate to provide the country with economic benefits. That means they are required to harvest trees, allow mining and other resource extraction. That's where the politics of the forest service gets fucked up. Hippies do not like the Forest Service.

One of the comments I remember Keith reading was "Why doesn't the US Forest Service just do their job?"

Well, the problem actually lies in the Forest Service doing their job TOO WELL. Ever hear of Smoky Bear? That campaign, launched in 1944, was part of the Forest Service policy to to extinguish EVERY SINGLE forest fire within 24 hours. That was their mission. Because the public perception of fire was this destructive, killing, horrible thing, all fires were put out as soon as possible. Ever see the movie Bambi? That whole movie was an advertisement on how destructive forest fires are. "Oh fuck, don't let the baby deer die! Put out the fires! Put out the fires!" Even the natural ones which may have burned with a low intensity and cleared out much of the fuels that had been building up in our forests.

The reason we are seeing so many huge, unstoppable fires in the last 10-20 years is because we have not let natural fires burn up the fuel loads. 50-100 years of putting out beneficial fires helped the fuels build to unnatural levels.

That guy was correct in his letter that prescribed burns would take care of some of this, and forest managers are doing prescribed burns all the time. Yes, they do get out of control occasionally. Also, now that forest managers have a better understanding of the benefit of forest fires, many that are burning in wilderness areas and places where they don't pose danger to people or property, are allowed to burn on they're own without being put out as soon as possible.

Blitzgal is correct also... the fires in SoCal were started by arsonists. They were started with the intention of getting attention. They were started with the hopes of national media coverage and death and destruction. They were started in weather that would make the fires go out of control more quickly and cause the most amount of damage. But in is case, it was the Santa Ana winds that were the main problem for the firefighters, not heavy fuel loads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_ana_winds <= LINK

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

I don't know what that guy was talking about concerning controlled burns in California. When I was out there several years ago we drove past the remnants of one; freaky thing to see the ground still sizzling and smoking, all dead and black. Anyway, I googled it a bit and came across several news articles talking about other controlled burns in California -- one in February of last year went out of control and forced evacuations. I did find one article from Reason magazine in 1999 that discussed the issues he was talking about, but it claims that the US Forest Service had realized back then that letting the underbrush get purged through natural burning was better in the long run. So those scary hippies aren't stopping anyone from conducting controlled burns. That guy's talking out of his ass.

The current fires that are going on are the result of some asshole arsonists who probably wanted to beat off to the pretty pretty flames -- one of them was shot dead by police after ramming their cars as he tried to escape.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/25/fir....ca/index.html

[ncfcyank19]

Blitzgal, there are the occasional controlled burn but a lot of these fires in San Diego are coming from areas where controlled burns HAVEN'T happened because the residents nearby are afraid of the burns getting out of control. There are also uneducated nutballs like Barbara A. Lund who believe the burns actually HURT the environment. I've got three people in my family who have studied forestation, herbology, habitats and bunch of other shit that's way above my head and when I questioned controlled burns, I got a long lecture on exactly why these burns are essential for the environment.

At least one of these people, my uncle Jim, could definitely be classified as a hippie but he's saying controlled burns are not only a good thing but are essential to keep forests healthy. In fact, pines need the heat from flames to release their seeds and the ash of burned brush and twigs helps to give those seeds the nourishment they need to grow.

Each area of California is different. Some areas have no problem and controlled burns happen regularly. Other areas are full of NIMBYs who are either afraid it'll get out of control or will harm the environment. So they sign petitions and picket and scream and the fucking weak pussy NFS in the area panders to these people and doesn't do what's necessary. Then a burn happens due to an arson, flick of a cigarette out a car window, blown transformer or whatever and these people lose their homes anyways when it could have been avoided.

Going around to the other side is these people who insist on building homes in areas that are prone to natural fires. Compare this pic of the Cedar and Laguna Fires with this pic of the current Witch, Harris and Rice Fires. STOP LIVING IN THESE AREAS EAST OF CIVILIZATION! Notice how most of the time, the cities near the coast don't suffer widespread fire damage? Instead of spreading our population out, maybe if we built UP like areas of the east coast we might be a little better off and these wildfires won't get so out of control AND when they DO, they won't threaten as many homes as they do now. Just a thought.

[arcatacat]

Originally Posted by ncfcyank19

At least one of these people, my uncle Jim, could definitely be classified as a hippie but he's saying controlled burns are not only a good thing but are essential to keep forests healthy. In fact, pines need the heat from flames to release their seeds and the ash of burned brush and twigs helps to give those seeds the nourishment they need to grow.

Correct, to some extent.

Many trees release their seeds when a fire goes through. The heat from the fire melts the sticky sap that holds the cones together and the seeds fall out. This is how the majestic Giant Sequoia trees reproduce. (Fire suppression in the Giant Sequoia forests may cause these trees to become extinct when all the living trees finally die.)

However, if a fire is too intense, it will just burn the seeds and cause the soil to become sterile, making it too harsh of an environment for any surviving seeds to germinate. Low intensity fires = good. High intensity fires = not so good.

[Blitzgal]

Originally Posted by arcatacat

Well, the problem actually lies in the Forest Service doing their job TOO WELL. Ever hear of Smoky Bear? That campaign, launched in 1944, was part of the Forest Service policy to to extinguish EVERY SINGLE forest fire within 24 hours. That was their mission.

That's why I posted that article from Reason magazine in 1999. It said the exact same thing.


Ah, you're all on a fucking faultline anyway. I'll remember that the next time you assholes start ripping into Midwesterners when their houses get flooded out.

[arcatacat]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

That's why I posted that article from Reason magazine in 1999. It said the exact same thing.

You're right. That article does a good job of boiling it down.

The ardent fire suppression of the past few decades means that a lot of underbrush, fallen branches, and dead and dying trees; that would otherwise burn away every couple of years haven't done so. So now, when the fires do start, there's a huge amount of highly flammable material lying around. That's a recipe for massive, often catastrophic wildfires, the likes of which have been more common in recent years.

[ncfcyank19]

Well yeah it appears to be a much more complex issue than just "Set controlled fires" and "Don't live in high-risk areas". So, what can be done to lower the risk of another wildfire getting out of control like this anytime soon? How can we correct the mistakes that have been made in the last thirty or so years?