Are environmentalists to blame for the extent of California fires?

The BBQ Pit
41

There’s another policy issue contributing to these fires as well, and it’s something that Ivorybill alluded to. When fires like the ones in southern California occur, the priorities of the firefighting effort are:

  1. Human life
  2. Property
  3. putting the rest of it out.

Human life is eminently reasonable, and I don’t think you’ll find anyone who will (reasonably) argue that that shouldn’t be a priority. Where this prioritization breaks down is when we develop into areas that are at significant risk for wildfire. In a case like this, the limited firefighting resources have to be devoted to saving existing houses. While they’re doing that, the fire might spread to other areas, and it may become far more difficult to control.

As to the OP, I don’t think you’ll find any credible environmentalists arguing against brush clearing. Rather, most of them, including the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, and even Greenpeace (not to say that Greenpeace is particularly “credible”), reconginze fire’s role in the ecosystem. The “one burned house is better than one burned tree” quote from the OP is utterly ridiculous.

Regarding vehicle bans in federally designated wilderness areas: wilderness areas are “managed” naturally, by prohibiting significant human impacts and allowing natural processes to shape the land.

These natural processes include fire - fires are not fought in wilderness areas unless they threaten to cross the designated boundary and encroach on developed land. The wilderness areas that are referred to have to be federally designated, and the total wilderness area in the US is around 104 million acres. I don’t really see a problem with this - there’s obviously no property to be threatened by fire in these areas. If it bothers you so much that you can’t take your 4-wheeler in there, there are about 2.2 billion acres of land in the US that isn’t federally designated wilderness.

I think whiterabbit’s analogy is pretty good. If you build a house on the coast, on a lake, or in a river floodplain, you will get flooded. Maybe not this year, maybe not next year, but it’ll happen, and there ain’t a thing you can do. You can build a levee, but you can only build it so high. Eventually, the water will top it. The same thing will happen to homes built in the forests of the American west. There are fires, and there will always be fires. Eventually, one will get to you. It might not burn the house to the ground, but it will certainly impact your life. I don’t think people recognize that nature can throw a godawfully big monkeywrench at just about anything we can build.

As for environmentalists being a pain in the ass… yeah, that’s what they (we, I guess) try to do. I work for a conservation district in the west, and I think developers are a pain in the ass sometimes. We have different values, and those values lead to different priorities. Overall, though, I can put up a pretty good fight when I think they go too far, and they can rein me in when I do. It’s not really peaches and cream for either side, but we try to coexist as well as we can.

42

Yumanite,

As I said, “if properly done.” I’ve seen some examples of clear cutting that looked like a wasteland for miles. That should be done in a checkerboard fashion or something.

I know you are right that lots of trees have to be clear cut to be economical, Florida pine is one. Of course, 20 years later you have another fairly big tree. They don’t get so big you can drive a car through them 2,000 years later, or whatever.

I’m very much an envirionmentalist when it comes to very sensitive habitats like fens, bogs, wetlands, ancient forests, rain forests, etc… My back yard is the most jungleish in the whole neighborhood. I mow myself to death with a reel mower so I don’t waste gas on a little residential lot. I’m also for logging because I like furniture and paper. There must be a balance somewhere in there. I know you agree. I also separate my garbage, so I’m not trying to control the paper market to my benefit.

Some habitats are really unique and should be preserved due to their sensitivity. OTOH, there are millions of acres of forested land with little variance that can be harvested benefically – if you don’t create the aforementioned wasteland.

In the case of my property there are actually a number of species of trees of varying heights. Poplar is shorthand for the plurality of them. I do not farm trees. I let the forest grow trees, then I have a professional go in and do a conservative marking of some economically beneficial trees. It actually does what I said, make it a lot less likely to go up in flames.

Dragging the trees out smashes a lot of the undergrowth, but leaves plenty. It’s the small trees, in some cases, that are going to have crown fires. They can grow like weeds between the big trees. The loggers are nice enough to smash just enough of those moving around to allow some of the trees to get really big, instead of having a whole bunch of trees of the same height.

The fire road thing is really important. If you don’t cut down at least enough trees to allow firemen to drive to their locations, you might be screwed.

43

My officemate keeps having to tell me about what he hears on the radio station am600 from San Diego who are spouting off idiocy about the fires and who is to blame (of course it is Los Angeles cause all of the firemen are here, where the money is, not there according to them now they are blaming the San Deigo Politicians for some reason or another that was total BS). I have told him repeatedly he needs to quit listening to that station, so now I offer that advice to you. If someone is spouting BS it is better to get your news from another source. (The above is said with a smile just like I say it to my officemate cause we know how much fun these guys who spout this stuff are to listen to)

From what I have heard from reputable sources (local news and more than one station) is that the reasons San Diego’s fire moved so quickly is that there is no fire break in the area. If you look at a map of San Diego you will notice that there weren’t even a freeway to delay the movement of the fire until it hit the I15 which was quite a distance away. Sound not like an environmental issue but rather bad city planning for a fire.

Plus this is not a normal fire season. There were 15 fires going at one time. There is one or more arsonist(s) out there causing these fires, except for that hunter in San Diego who goofed (I did read yesterday the guy had been lost for over 11 hours and was disoriented and dehydrated when rescued). So how can we start to lay blame on any one group for these fires. How do you legislate to prevent against someone who gets their jollies from setting fires.

44

It’s also a thread in which the posters are being civil to one another and good information is being shared. There is no cause for you to act like a jackass in it.

SO cut ya’ off or somethin’?

45

Returning to the OP, I daresay that if “the environmentalists” had their way, there would be no houses in the affected areas. Then instead of a major disaster leading the news every night, it would just be another bunch of trees burning.

46

As was pointed out ealier, we’re not really talking about forest here. There are no ‘deep woods’ in the SoCal area. It’s pretty much just brush. The name ‘Angeles National Forest’ is a misnomer. It just sounds better than the Scrubbrush National Forest and Body Dumping Ground.

The healthy forest initiative is also a misnomer for ‘lets let ‘em do some loggin’!’

47

I meant euphemeism, dammit.