Homesteading Forum banner

1 - 20 of 148 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,419 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I belong to a group representing farmers and ranchers. I posed this question -

Can you folks in CA, WA and OR give us the straight story?
Are the wildfires due to poor forest management, an unusual dry season or a real long term shift in climate?

I got over 100 response in less than 5 minutes. The responses are still pouring in.

The almost unanimous response, opposite of what Governors in those states say:
Poor Forest Management
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,890 Posts
When I was hanging with the forest service guys 20 years ago they would tell me how all the new state laws in California would eventually cause catastrophic damage in a few decades.

They passed laws disallowing control burns because of the pollution. Then they passed laws making managing it hard. They wanted it to be natural. Even though the forest service degreed scientist said not to.

Looks like they were right after all and apparently right on time too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,049 Posts
Generally? Around here the majority of fires are caused by arsonists or idiots (and sometimes power companies not maintaining lines). The way they become massive fires (in forests) is poor forest management and people not keeping up with weed abatement around structures.

(southern) California is a country that is supposed to burn. A lot of the vegetation/tree life requires fire to reproduce. It's just a matter of whether we do it in a contained way like we used to do it pre-1990 environmental lunacy, or let it get out of control and burn itself out. We have a fire season like other areas have hurricane or tornado seasons. It's just the way it is. Add more people moving into areas that used to burn regularly but now don't because we don't let it but also don't manage it...you're going to have disastrous outcomes.

I live near a huge military base that is mostly treated as native preserve meaning they try to keep the native ecology as pristine as possible. Which means they do prescribed burns often. No one every worries about fires from the base (fires do happen - shooting live ammunition into dry tinder will do that), because they can always control them due to the constant management and previous prescribed burns. The area outside the base is a different story.
 

·
Sock puppet reinstated
Joined
·
23,597 Posts
I agree, Forestry management has nothing to do with a majority of fires here in the west. Arson, pulling a hot car off the road into dry grass, camp fires at the end of summer when everything is dry and lightning. The majority of fires don't even start in the forest.

We had a fire come so close to our house that we had to evacuate and have the house sprayed down with retardant. It had nothing to do with forest management. Lightning started it on private land. It traveled by treetop and barely touched the ground.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,419 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I am up to over 400 responses now (still coming in fast as the west coast is just waking up) and it is still unanimous that poor forest management is what lets these fires get so big, and uncontrollable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,419 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I agree, Forestry management has nothing to do with a majority of fires here in the west. Arson, pulling a hot car off the road into dry grass, camp fires at the end of summer when everything is dry and lightning. The majority of fires don't even start in the forest.

We had a fire come so close to our house that we had to evacuate and have the house sprayed down with retardant. It had nothing to do with forest management. Lightning started it on private land. It traveled by treetop and barely touched the ground.
Who are you agreeing with? No one said that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
353 Posts
You have to think, a huge percentage of the Western states are public lands. It isn't like the land is private and homeowners can maintain it. Public lands management is terrible. Arson, downed power lines and the like happen everywhere.

This isn't global warming, fire is part of the cycle. Fire suppression in itself is a large part of the problem out west today
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,419 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
One of the Cali posters

90862


I posted this picture to my stories earlier and so many people commented, probably more than any other story I’ve ever posted. So maybe this deserves its own post.

I’m not claiming to be an expert, I’m not. But Farmer Brian is, as a professional in the fire service. This is a small part of California’s wildfire problem. Massive fuel overgrowth across the state. This is our property line- on the left is our property, on the right is our neighbors property. We are surrounded on 3 sides by this. This is NOTHING compared to the areas of dense underbrush.
I won’t go into the mismanagement of our forests {years of no prescribed burning, clearing, logging etc}. But people, lots of people, want to move out to the country, but some of these people don’t want to take care of their property- and it puts every single one of us out here at risk.

I am of the opinion that if you live out here, you must take care of your land. Clearing brush, limb up your trees, keep the weeds trimmed. Put some grazing animals on it {cows, goats, sheep}, mow it, pay someone else to mow it. If you do not have the financial or physical ability to maintain it, you shouldn’t live rurally. It’s a ton of work and it’s not for everyone, and that’s ok! But I shudder often driving around town and see the tinder box we are all living in, it doesn’t have to be this way.

People are constantly blaming this on climate change- that’s such a cop out. Is that part of the problem? Maybe. Is that the whole problem? Absolutely not. Less fuel to burn means less destruction. It’s our job to reduce the fuel load if we aren’t going to let nature do it. I was reading earlier this week that most of the native plants here used to have deep tap roots to find water and that California was green year round. But then invasive species were introduced and many of them have shallow roots that form a dry mat of wildfire fuel. That’s just one example.
The irony of this picture is that this neighbor on the right is an environmentalist. They have had issue in the past with how much our property has been cleared of brush and unhealthy trees. Which property do you think will be considered defendable in a wildfire? And which one do you think would be marked as not defendable? I’m not trying to attack environmentalists in anyway, and if this offends you I’m sorry, but maybe you’re the one that needs to read this if that’s the case.

Less fuel = less fire. It’s really that simple. Let’s make common sense and critical thinking a ‘thing’ again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,890 Posts
I agree, Forestry management has nothing to do with a majority of fires here in the west. Arson, pulling a hot car off the road into dry grass, camp fires at the end of summer when everything is dry and lightning. The majority of fires don't even start in the forest.

We had a fire come so close to our house that we had to evacuate and have the house sprayed down with retardant. It had nothing to do with forest management. Lightning started it on private land. It traveled by treetop and barely touched the ground.
[/QUOTE
I agree, Forestry management has nothing to do with a majority of fires here in the west. Arson, pulling a hot car off the road into dry grass, camp fires at the end of summer when everything is dry and lightning. The majority of fires don't even start in the forest.

We had a fire come so close to our house that we had to evacuate and have the house sprayed down with retardant. It had nothing to do with forest management. Lightning started it on private land. It traveled by treetop and barely touched the ground.
Where did you get the idea that forestry management is what starts fires? Fires are started like you say by many to things.

Forestry management keeps them from getting as big as they do. When it is not managed is when you have the 50,000 plus acre fires.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
353 Posts
That's par for the course out west. Sadly, even if that land was not private it would still not be maintained
On the other side of that argument, we can't just mow all the grass and trees and anything flammable down because it might catch fire.

Maybe letting it burn in the natural cycle of life out west is the answer
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,890 Posts

For example, regular prescribed fires can reduce the amount of ground fuels, thereby lowering the potential for large wildfires. If future wildfires should occur, the fires would be less intense and easier to contain. Fuel reduction can help lessen the possibility of high-intensity crown fires.
 

·
Voice of Reason
Joined
·
51,157 Posts
Maybe letting it burn in the natural cycle of life out west is the answer
It used to be, but today forests have subdivisions among the trees.

First, let's make a distinction between not raking for floor of the forest and poor forest management. raking the floor of the forest isn't part of typical forest management.

Understand that forest fires are part of how forests manage themselves, as part of what you call the natural cycle of life. That was fine before people started moving there. But today allowing forest fires to do their thing would result in enormous loss of property, burning down entire towns.

They have to find a way to manage forests while, at the same time, preserving the property of those who live there.
 

·
Hello, hello....is there anybody in there.....?
Joined
·
78,549 Posts
First, let's make a distinction between not raking for floor of the forest and poor forest management. raking the floor of the forest isn't part of typical forest management.
I see what you're trying to do there.
90863
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
353 Posts
It used to be, but today forests have subdivisions among the trees.

First, let's make a distinction between not raking for floor of the forest and poor forest management. raking the floor of the forest isn't part of typical forest management.

Understand that forest fires are part of how forests manage themselves, as part of what you call the natural cycle of life. That was fine before people started moving there. But today allowing forest fires to do their thing would result in enormous loss of property, burning down entire towns.

They have to find a way to manage forests while, at the same time, preserving the property of those who live there.
That's an interesting view. I read that as "people moved into fire zones so now we should just ban fires".

Let me know how that works out for you, please?
 

·
Voice of Reason
Joined
·
51,157 Posts
When did it stop?

What are you referring to?
Aren't they liberal elites pushing the main stream media agenda? You don't believe what scientists say about COVID-19, climate change or evolution. What's different about forest management?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,890 Posts
Aren't they liberal elites pushing the main stream media agenda? You don't believe what scientists say about COVID-19, climate change or evolution. What's different about forest management?
LMAO Nevada. You can not find one single quote that I have said any of that.

No, the Liberal Elite's are pushing lies.

Much like your last post to me.
 
1 - 20 of 148 Posts
Top