elad wrote:
I suppose that on Google one can find the answer one favors:
In fact, regardless that he expressed his opinion in classically inelegant Trumpian terms, the president is correct in at least this: The state of California has been doing an awful job of managing its forests.
The degree to which that mismanagement contributed to this latest round of wildfires may be called into question, but the fact of the state’s mismanagement itself is beyond doubt.
The non-partisan California Legislative Analyst’s Office released a report entitled “Improving California’s Forest and Watershed Management” in April of this year. In a related fact sheet, they recognized that “[m]ost of the forests across the state are in an unhealthy condition.” They further stated that overgrown, unhealthy forests resulted in “increased risk of severe forest fires” and recommended actions to thin California’s many overgrown, unhealthy forests that have developed in the name of environmental puritanism.
And no, this sad situation is not the federal government’s fault. While the feds own the land on which the wildfires occurred, the Bureau of Land Management delegated its authority to manage that land—and most of the rest of the federally owned forests in California—to the state’s Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) as part of that agency’s State Responsibility Area (SRA) a long time ago.
The fire that consumed Paradise, California, occurred in a part of Northern California within the state’s SRA, as is most of the state outside of the deserts in Southern California. Some say these fires started in the high chaparral, a bush-like vegetation that is unrelated to forestry management. Perhaps that is the case.
Whatever the facts, no one can question that the fires started in a part of the state for which California itself is wholly responsible for fire protection and that California’s irresponsible forest-management practices are sure to lead to more fires in the future. It’s just a matter of time.
I suppose that on Google one can find the answer o... (
show quote)
In 2008, just 10 years ago, that part of California was logged in an effort to clear out fuels and make the area safer. That is a fact. Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me. That very act of thinning the forest left more room for grass and weeds and brush and saplings to grow, and those plants burn a lot faster than the old mature trees. It was the speed of the fire moving through the thinned out areas that caused the deaths of those people. More thinning of the forests just isn't the answer, when flaming dry grass and weeds are just as deadly and harder to escape from. The area hadn't had any appreciable precipitation for more than 200 days. No amount of forestry management can easily overcome that, especially when accompanied by high daily temperatures.