An honest conversation about forest policy

[maxsolomon]

9. CA already manages fire fuels - to the extent that it is possible.

Napa, CA, for instance, requires that properties are maintained; lawns cut and brush cleared. They inspect and warn and fine. Despite this, last year huge areas of the town burned to the ground.

The coastal scrub ecosystem that burned in 1000 Oaks/Malibu is not "rakeable". It consists almost entirely of dry scrub. It will burn, sooner or later, as it has for millenia. The only solution is to disallow construction in it, the way that hurricane-exposed coastal communities should not rebuild.

In the Sierra foothills (Paradise), look at the footage: the trees are often still there; it's the homes that are burned to the ground. Would non-combustible materials (metal, concrete) reduce the damage?

In the High Sierras, I've camped in Lassen NP where selective "raking" programs were being used. Hugh piles of underbrush and downed logs were pulled together in "teepees" for winter burning. Outside of the campground, there are millions of acres that are "unraked", and aren't going to be tended to anytime soon.

What starts the fires? Logging operations, electrical transmission lines, sparks from truck chains, idiots smoking or tossing firecrackers (Columbia Gorge). Humans are the spark, and they're not going to be banned from the woods.

The same problems apply throughout the dry West: the east side of the Cascades in particular. Climate change makes the woods drier. This issue is like Rampage Shootings: it's not going away.