Page 42 of 43 FirstFirst ... 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 LastLast
Results 1,026 to 1,050 of 1064

Thread: Wildfire 2021

  1. #1026
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Keep Tacoma Feared
    Posts
    2,715
    So what are these scientists' who criticize Hanson end game? They want to come up with millions, if not billions, of dollars from the federal government to fund an endless operation of thinning and prescribed burns. The end result being forests devoid of all underbrush, similar to Bavaria. And like Bavaria, the natural biodiversity will plummet. And with our fire resistant, Bavarian-like forests, living in the forest will be even more heavily subsidized than it already is. Wildfire insurance premiums will plummet. Millions of Americans priced out of the city will flock to forested lands, the last remaining private developable land. The wildfire urban interface will swell even more dramatically than it already is.

    Fast forward 100-1,000 years. There will millions of people living in the woods of California. Biodiversity will be non-existent. Once you loose biodiversity you lose the very planet we are living on. By far, the biggest threat to the forests and the wildlife in the forests isn't fire, it is human encroachment. Modern humans have repeatedly proven that they cannot co-exist with the natural environment. Our only hope for long term survival is to concentrate human habitat, and leave the rest of the world as natural as we possibly can. And everyone will look back and say, maybe we should have listened to that Hanson guy.

  2. #1027
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    18,794
    Quote Originally Posted by altasnob View Post
    So what are these scientists' who criticize Hanson end game? They want to come up with millions, if not billions, of dollars from the federal government to fund an endless operation of thinning and prescribed burns. The end result being forests devoid of all underbrush, similar to Bavaria. And like Bavaria, the natural biodiversity will plummet. And with our fire resistant, Bavarian-like forests, living in the forest will be even more heavily subsidized than it already is. Wildfire insurance premiums will plummet. Millions of Americans priced out of the city will flock to forested lands, the last remaining private developable land. The wildfire urban interface will swell even more dramatically than it already is.

    Fast forward 100-1,000 years. There will millions of people living in the woods of California. Biodiversity will be non-existent. Once you loose biodiversity you lose the very planet we are living on. By far, the biggest threat to the forests and the wildlife in the forests isn't fire, it is human encroachment. Modern humans have repeatedly proven that they cannot co-exist with the natural environment. Our only hope for long term survival is to concentrate human habitat, and leave the rest of the world as natural as we possibly can. And everyone will look back and say, maybe we should have listened to that Hanson guy.
    I don't know the forests of Washington, where you are, but I know that the forests of California are not Bavaria. The climax forests of the Sierra Nevada are widely spaced big trees with a shaded forest floor with little in the way of undergrowth--and what undergrowth there is burns off every 10-15 years. Most of the wildlife habitat is along rivers and streams and in meadows. There also used to be grasses that stayed green all summer--those were long ago replaced by grasses brought by white settlers which dry up and burn in the summer.

    We have German friends--she is American married to a German, whose family has a house near us at Donner. The live in southern Germany, along the Rhine, and she advocates in her village for people to let their lawns turn back into native vegetation in order to support wildlife. Which is fine in southern Germany, but she refuses to allow proper defensible space work to be done on her family's property here--it's overgrown with brush and small skinny closely packed trees.

    I think you know better, but I think you're starting to enjoy trolling.

  3. #1028
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Access to Granlibakken
    Posts
    9,338
    From that sacbee article:

    Knapp, a U.S. Forest Service research ecologist, is a co-author of several studies highlighting the benefits of more aggressive fire fuels management. “To me, it just really illustrates that if you change the fuels,” Knapp said, “you change the fire behavior.”

    Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/californ...#storylink=cpy
    My understanding is that fuels reduction is the objective to enable a relatively safe cycle of periodic underbrush growth and removal thru prescribed burn and inevitable lightning induced fire. Once you’ve entered that virtuous cycle, mechanical thinning becomes rare or unnecessary.

    The reading I’ve done indicates studies either conclude a mild biodiversity benefit from entering this cycle, or no distinct benefit or disadvantage vs letting shit just grow down low.

  4. #1029
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    underground
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    I don't know the forests of Washington, where you are, but I know that the forests of California are not Bavaria. The climax forests of the Sierra Nevada are widely spaced big trees with a shaded forest floor with little in the way of undergrowth--and what undergrowth there is burns off every 10-15 years. Most of the wildlife habitat is along rivers and streams and in meadows. There also used to be grasses that stayed green all summer--those were long ago replaced by grasses brought by white settlers which dry up and burn in the summer.

    We have German friends--she is American married to a German, whose family has a house near us at Donner. The live in southern Germany, along the Rhine, and she advocates in her village for people to let their lawns turn back into native vegetation in order to support wildlife. Which is fine in southern Germany, but she refuses to allow proper defensible space work to be done on her family's property here--it's overgrown with brush and small skinny closely packed trees.

    I think you know better, but I think you're starting to enjoy trolling.
    It kind of depends on your forest, your elevation, the slope and aspect, and whether you're on the east side or the west side. And of course the history of fire and fire suppression for whatever forest you're in. It's as risky for you to judge California forests based on your back yard as it is for German woman to judge from Bavaria.

    Someone posted above a photo of the post-fire ecosystem around Whiskeytown, showing all the burned-over Manzanitas. Having spent a month hiking all over that forest, bushwhacking through the dead manzanitas and comparing the state of the forest to its past 30 years (in terms of visibility of archaeological resources), it was quickly clear that the fire had done a great job of thinning undergrowth on a massive scale . . . but those manzanita were already sprouting and prospering and eager to replace the lost ones, in amongst the remaining big trees.

    I've seen all kinds of efforts at stopping that cycle all over the western sierra, especially the early macerators which were just big lawnmower blades on the fronts of log skidders, and nothing I've seen has survived more than a few years before returning to the original state.

    It seems to be like the cycle of fire brought on by the cheatgrass epidemic in Nevada and Colorado, where the fire that clears the fuel also reseeds it and makes it come back stronger before setting off another self-perpetuating fire.

    Which is a long way to say experts who know more than most of us will continue to argue ideal scenarios far into the future as the forests continue to become what they will despite best and worst efforts on either side . . .

  5. #1030
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Posts
    13,726
    altasnob is either so seriously challenged/ignorant about forest conditions and management that he should be ignored, or he’s trolling and should be ignored.

    Thanks for that article link bodywhomper. Good stuff.

  6. #1031
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    18,794
    Quote Originally Posted by spanghew View Post
    It kind of depends on your forest, your elevation, the slope and aspect, and whether you're on the east side or the west side. And of course the history of fire and fire suppression for whatever forest you're in. It's as risky for you to judge California forests based on your back yard as it is for German woman to judge from Bavaria.

    Someone posted above a photo of the post-fire ecosystem around Whiskeytown, showing all the burned-over Manzanitas. Having spent a month hiking all over that forest, bushwhacking through the dead manzanitas and comparing the state of the forest to its past 30 years (in terms of visibility of archaeological resources), it was quickly clear that the fire had done a great job of thinning undergrowth on a massive scale . . . but those manzanita were already sprouting and prospering and eager to replace the lost ones, in amongst the remaining big trees.

    I've seen all kinds of efforts at stopping that cycle all over the western sierra, especially the early macerators which were just big lawnmower blades on the fronts of log skidders, and nothing I've seen has survived more than a few years before returning to the original state.

    It seems to be like the cycle of fire brought on by the cheatgrass epidemic in Nevada and Colorado, where the fire that clears the fuel also reseeds it and makes it come back stronger before setting off another self-perpetuating fire.

    Which is a long way to say experts who know more than most of us will continue to argue ideal scenarios far into the future as the forests continue to become what they will despite best and worst efforts on either side . . .
    It's pretty obvious that forest management for wildfire mitigation is not and never will be one and done. It will require repeated cycles of thinning and natural and prescribed burning, especially until the remaining trees have gotten big enough to withstand moderate intensity fire.
    Given the long term effects of climate change I think it is quite likely that much of the forests destroyed by our recent high intensity fires will never be forest again.

  7. #1032
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    50 miles E of Paradise
    Posts
    12,056
    Quote Originally Posted by bodywhomper View Post
    On another note:
    “I and my colleagues are getting really tired of the type of activism that pretends to be science and in fact is just self-serving garbage,” said Crystal Kolden, a professor of wildfire science at UC Merced and co-author of a journal article that rebutted Hanson’s arguments.

    Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/californ...#storylink=cpy
    Thanks for posting that piece. And I agree that NEPA has been weaponized. No matter what is proposed for public lands, there’s always a group of PAVErs (People Against Virtually Everything) ready to block it. Lawsuits are cheap to file, suck up already-skinny BLM/USFS budgets and bring everything to a halt for years

    The thing that struck me in that article was the enviro focus on spotted owl habitat. Northern spotted owl populations are declining as much due to barred owl predation and climate change as due to human influence. But the PAVErs are happy to trot out the threatened spotted owl when it suits their purpose.

    And then while gumming the works, the land being fought over gets burned hard and habitat is gone anyway. Brilliant!

    Quote Originally Posted by old_newguy View Post
    People would be wise to look at The Nature Conservancy’s stance IMO. They actually manage land for ecological benefit. They are pro restoration of forests to a natural fire regime and step one in that process is often some sort of mechanical fuels reduction so you can manage fire effects when you burn it.


    Edit- what is Hanson even talking about?

    “ Hanson argues that thinning removes a lot of thick, old-growth trees that are fairly resilient to fire. What’s left is small trees, saplings and seedlings that ignite like kindling.”

    This is exactly opposite of what anyone involved in fire management thinks of when they use the word “thinning”. I’m

    TBS - in that photo you posted of the stand that needs fire, I bet they would struggle to burn that without really high mortality in the ponderosa they want to retain. They will probably mechanically treat it before burning.
    I know right? We always referred to it as “pre-commercial thinning” because the idea was to take the runts that were taking light from the bigger stems, and wouldn’t likely be worth it to take out of the woods when the stand was mature.

    And agreed on the likely need for mechanical work before burning that stand.
    Which as an aside there are places in the B&B Fire scar where the lodgepole is so thick you can’t walk thru it.

    Quote Originally Posted by bodywhomper View Post
    Tbs. will those recent burn sites get a big flower bloom in the next couple of springs?
    Not much that I’ve seen. Not sure why, I know squat about wildflowers
    It’s good mushroom hunting though. And fiddleheads for salads…

  8. #1033
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Keep Tacoma Feared
    Posts
    2,715
    So I am reading through that SacBee article and the linked studies, and UW ecologist Susan Prichard likens Hanson to a climate change denier. But then when you click on Prichard's own published study, she cites two Hanson studies in her paper.

    One thing that article is correct on, everyone has an agenda. Oh, and besides Prichard, most of the other people who collaborated with her on the study are Forest Service employees, so it's not too surprising they don't have kind things to say about Hanson (who is suing them). The other UW scientist mentioned in that paper, Keala Hagmann, also works with Prichard (and the Forest Service).

    If you are curious, the two Hanson studies Prichard cites are:

    Baker, W. L., and C. T. Hanson. 2017. Improving the use of early timber inventories in reconstructing historical dry forests and fire in the western United States. Ecosphere 8:e01935

    Hanson, C. T., and D. C. Odion. 2014. Is fire severity increasing in the Sierra Nevada, California, USA? International Journal of Wildland Fire 23:1–8.
    Last edited by altasnob; 10-17-2021 at 12:41 AM.

  9. #1034
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Keep Tacoma Feared
    Posts
    2,715
    Good photo of Slate peak from 1934 and 2013. Slate peak is right on the crest in Northern Washington, outside of the Methow Valley. Highest road in the state. Photo shows what the forests looked like before fire suppression, and after fire suppression.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	slate peak.jpg 
Views:	64 
Size:	1.01 MB 
ID:	389272

  10. #1035
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    9,294

    Wildfire 2021

    I think it is safe to say the fire season in Northern California is over / about to be. We really dodged a bullet this year getting early rains and no really bad wind events.

    Liquid precipitation estimates at this time for the period
    12z Sat through 00z Tue equate to about 1 to 4 inches in the
    Central Valley with 3 to 7 inches in the foothills and mountains.
    Snow levels remain above pass levels over the weekend, lowering
    to around 5000 to 6000 feet Mon/Tue. There is the potential for
    several feet of snow over higher mountain terrain by early next
    week. This has the potential for significant travel problems,
    especially at Sierra pass levels.”


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  11. #1036
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    600

  12. #1037
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Keep Tacoma Feared
    Posts
    2,715
    See How the Dixie Fire Created Its Own Weather
    This year’s largest blaze generated powerful storm clouds. We show you in 3-D.

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...s-weather.html

  13. #1038
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Posts
    13,726
    Fuck yeah!

    But I’ll be pretty surprised, make that stunned, if it happens.

  14. #1039
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    18,794
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    I think it is safe to say the fire season in Northern California is over / about to be. We really dodged a bullet this year getting early rains and no really bad wind events.

    Liquid precipitation estimates at this time for the period
    12z Sat through 00z Tue equate to about 1 to 4 inches in the
    Central Valley with 3 to 7 inches in the foothills and mountains.
    Snow levels remain above pass levels over the weekend, lowering
    to around 5000 to 6000 feet Mon/Tue. There is the potential for
    several feet of snow over higher mountain terrain by early next
    week. This has the potential for significant travel problems,
    especially at Sierra pass levels.”


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I don't think it's safe to say that at all, especially at lower elevations.

  15. #1040
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Sikskiyou's
    Posts
    1,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper View Post
    altasnob is either so seriously challenged/ignorant about forest conditions and management that he should be ignored, or he’s trolling and should be ignored.

    Thanks for that article link bodywhomper. Good stuff.
    Potentially both... it is painfully obvious - even when based solely upon the "experts" being used to support the narrative.

  16. #1041
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    18,794
    Hansen bashing has been heavy in the mainstream press lately. I just wish they wouldn't label him and his pals as "environmentalists".

  17. #1042
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    6,901
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    Hansen bashing has been heavy in the mainstream press lately. I just wish they wouldn't label him and his pals as "environmentalists".
    I think they picked up on the bashing here . Seriously needs the mic taken away. I hope it works out that way.

  18. #1043
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Posts
    13,726
    A really good, if long, article on some of the people on a federal hotshot crew. Glad I’m retired.
    https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...ting-hotshots/

    Let me know if it’s paywalled.

  19. #1044
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Tahoe-ish
    Posts
    1,770
    That was a great article; thanks for posting it.
    ride bikes, climb, ski, travel, cook, work to fund former, repeat.

  20. #1045
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,653
    Yeah, thanks MS. I didn't quite realize what I was sitting down for when I glanced at my phone and started to read the first few paragraphs. It was well worth it.

  21. #1046
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Posts
    13,726
    A great line from that article:
    Arguably the worst part of the job for a firefighter is working in thick smoke for long stretches. "It's hard to see the long-term hazards," says Kathleen Navarro, a former hotshot and a research industrial hygienist for the CDC who has studied the effects of smoke inhalation on wildland firefighters, "when you're faced with things that are going to kill you immediately out on the fire line."

  22. #1047
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    600
    https://wildfiretoday.com/2021/11/06...wildland-fire/

    Interested to see how this is implemented. It appears that the pay raise is only applicable to duty stations that are deemed difficult to recruit/retain.

  23. #1048
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,202
    Game changing pay raise, wildland firefighter job classification and what looks like over $2 billion in fuels management and WUI money.

    “ Now federal wildland firefighters will receive pay increases of $20,000 a year, or an amount equal to 50 percent of the base salary — the lesser of the two. For example, a GS-3 rookie firefighter that would make $28,078 if they were to work all year, will earn an additional $14,039 for a total of $42,117. A GS-9 making $54,433 will get an increase of $20,000 bringing the base salary to $74,433.”

    https://wildfiretoday.com/2021/11/06...wildland-fire/

    “$20M, Satellite fire detection
    $10M, Radio interoperability
    $30M, Reverse 911 systems
    $50M, Slip-on firefighting modules for pickup trucks
    $100M, Pre-fire planning, and training personnel for wildland firefighting and vegetation treatments
    $20M, Data management for fuels projects and large fires
    $20M, Joint Fire Science Program (research)
    $100M, Planning & implementing projects under the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program
    $500M, Mechanical thinning, timber harvesting, pre-commercial thinning
    $500M, Wildfire defense grants for at risk communities
    $500M, Prescribed fires
    $500M, Constructing fuelbreaks
    $200M, Remove fuels, produce biochar and other innovative wood products
    $200M, Post-fire restoration
    $8M, Firewood banks
    $10M, Wildfire detection and real-time monitoring equipment“

  24. #1049
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Salida, CO
    Posts
    1,493
    recently renewed my friendship with one my old paramedic buddies. he's now retired firemedic but does crew boss on the wildfire line. has some interesting action adventure tales. here he is getting in a bucket list hike after the bomb cyclone closed down the fire line. he also administers the ALS/paramedic program at A-Basin and is great guy.
    Name:  IMG_2162.JPG
Views: 102
Size:  173.3 KB

  25. #1050
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    18,794
    An op-ed piece from a firefighter in norcal who is not pleased with the USFS.
    I am posting without an opinion yea or nay.
    https://www.moonshineink.com/opinion...ce-ineptitude/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •