-Elmo
Monday, August 09, 2021
Sorry, Forest Service: Fire is NOT our Friend
On July 4th, lightning struck a tree in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in Alpine County, California, igniting a small fire that smoldered for days in a quarter acre of rugged terrain. According to Sheriff Rick Stephens, California’s fire-fighting agency, CalFire, dispatched a crew to put it out. But they were told to “stand down” by the U.S. Forest Service, which proceeded to “monitor” the fire instead. That is to say, they did precisely nothing. Twelve days later, the “Tamarack Fire” exploded out of control, consuming nearly 70,000 acres as of this writing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So that's the smoke that has been suffocating people in Colorado over the weekend?
ReplyDeleteNot a first and likely won't be the last. Did the same thing for the 2017 Alice Creek fire in Montana that grew to burn up 17,912 acres of USFS land, 314 acres of BLM land, 620 acres of DNRC land and 10,407 acres of private land. Fuckwits!
ReplyDeleteIt just adds to their climate change false flag!
ReplyDeleteKeep letting these over fueled fires burn and the problem will solve itself. As hot as they're getting my understanding is the recovery time of the land is being doubled and trebled.
ReplyDeleteDid you mean tribbled?
DeleteMadMarlin
That's the trouble with tribbles...
DeleteFind the name of the individuals in the Forest Service who gave that order and begin a class-action lawsuit. They will soon enough give up the names of those who "influenced" them from above.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that Tom McClintock is the one in need of education. Failure to control the accumulation of burnable material is at the heart of the problem, and California has been leading the pack in terms of massively failing to control burn the land.
ReplyDeleteCalifornia's forests are chock full of tinder, dead and rotting wood and they have allowed people to build in there without considering the rise posed by the presence of combustible materials.
A fire can consume four or more football fields of material per second. What then is the minimum safe area that should exist around each home?
The forests need periodic cleaning to remain healthy. Fire accomplishes that.
Back when I went to Penn State in '70 it was called silvaculture. Problem was that if your controlled burn got out of hand there'd be hell to pay from the outraged citizens.
DeleteFrom the link:
ReplyDelete“Environmental laws adopted in the 1970’s now require years of environmental studies at a cost of millions of dollars before forest thinning can be undertaken.”
-and-
“sensible policy would give top priority to extinguishing small fires before they can explode out of control”
No fuckwit.
Let the forests be logged and thinned out! Remove the EXCESS FUEL!!!
Urban encroachment + no active management = out of control fires. Every. Damn. Time.
You could put out small fires until the cows come home and sooner rather than later, because of poor or lack of, forest management, it will blow up and destroy everything in its path.
Get rid of the excess fuel and tell the greenies to fuck off.
"Let the forests be logged and thinned out!"
DeleteSing it, Brother!
Exactly. Almost 100 years of fire suppression and ill-advised (Read: EnviroNazi-led) forest mismanagement has led to these (non)historic* fires out West. Thinning (Read: Logging) and burning are what are needed, not windmills and unicorn farts.
ReplyDelete*There were MUCH larger fires in the distant past, but they weren't the stand-replacement type of fires that we're seeing, precisely because there wasn't a 75+ year fuel build-up feeding them.
Poster is just shaking his head.
ReplyDeleteThey truely are Insane.
As defined by Webster AND the street.
OR .....
A whole lot worse.
We called it the fire rectangle, Heat, Fuel, Oxygen or the U.S.Forest Service. Take any away and the fire will go out. Of course I was a C.D.F.er.
ReplyDelete