 
     |
| Global wildfires. (Page 2/8) |
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
AUG 21, 11:54 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by fredtoast:
This just is not true. Ecologist and environmentalist are calling for MUCH MORE land clearing to prevent forest fires.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07...plans-climate-change
"Controlled burns are seen by forest ecologists as perhaps the most essential tool for reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire and helping to undo a century of fire suppression policy that has worsened wildfire conditions that now annually wreak havoc across large swaths of the West.
Experts in the field say the pace and scale at which the USFS is implementing intentional fire is dangerously insufficient.
Hurteau notes that just about all of the peer reviewed research on the issue as well as the Forest Service's own plans for reducing hazardous forest fuels call for a historic scaling-up of prescribed burns."
|
|
Your response is a nonsense response... just because some people are saying something, does not mean that a great many more aren't saying something else... which is directly affecting California (for example). So your "not true" is yet again... more examples of liberals knowing so much that just isn't so.
- Environmentalists Say Prescribed Burning is Doing More Harm Than Good
https://www.nbcsandiego.com...e-prevention/177039/
- Wildfires Caused By Bad Environmental Policy Are Causing California Forests To Be Net CO2 Emitters
https://www.forbes.com/site...ers/?sh=596ae1925e30
- Amid Pine Mountain’s ancient trees, a forest ‘thinning’ project triggers protests
https://www.latimes.com/env...of-environmentalists
- How Misguided Environmentalism Is To Blame For California’s Wildfires
https://thefederalist.com/2...lifornias-wildfires/
- Environmentalists Destroyed California’s Forests
https://californiapolicycen...californias-forests/[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 08-21-2023).]
|
|
|
|
fredtoast
|
AUG 21, 12:05 PM
|
|
First of all let me say how proud I am of you for actually doing some research.
This entire article fails because it is based on a false equivalency. It claims that "timber harvesting" is the same as clearing land for fire prevention. the two policies have nothing in common.
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
AUG 21, 12:13 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by fredtoast:
This entire article fails because it is based on a false equivalency. It claims that "timber harvesting" is the same as clearing land for fire prevention. the two policies have nothing in common. |
|
This is a perfect example of why there is no point in discussing any subject with you. You know nothing about forestry, yet try to argue with adults.
|
|
|
|
fredtoast
|
AUG 21, 12:15 PM
|
|
Again, this is not opposition to clearing land to prevent fire damage. It is opposition to timber harvesting in pristine wilderness.
“The Forest Service hasn’t provided us with the documents that we would need to really understand what and why they’re doing this,” said Rebecca August, advocacy director at Los Padres ForestWatch, one of the groups opposed to the project. “There are so few of these places left in California, and it’s really important to protect it and keep it in that state.”
In the case of Pine Mountain, the Forest Service wants to bypass standard requirements for community engagement and environmental assessments. To do so, it will make use of loopholes within the National Environmental Policy Act called “categorical exclusions,” which allow the agency to streamline projects it deems to be of limited environmental impact.
Chris Field, director of Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment, said removing small ladder fuels — dead vegetation, shrubs and branches — from the forest floor can be an important tool for forest health and help prevent a fire from gaining intensity.
But, he said, if the project’s intention is to remove big trees, that’s “not helping at all.”[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 08-21-2023).]
|
|
|
|
fredtoast
|
AUG 21, 12:29 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by williegoat:
This is a perfect example of why there is no point in discussing any subject with you. You know nothing about forestry, yet try to argue with adults. |
|
I just posted a link that supports exactly what I said. And it comes from a guy who knows more about forestry than either of us.
|
|
|
|
fredtoast
|
AUG 21, 12:43 PM
|
|
Same false equivalency argument. Timber harvesting is not the same as fire prevention land management.
It is like arguing that it is okay for companies to dump chemical waste into rivers because we put chlorine in our drinking water.
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
AUG 21, 01:00 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by fredtoast:
First of all let me say how proud I am of you for actually doing some research.
This entire article fails because it is based on a false equivalency. It claims that "timber harvesting" is the same as clearing land for fire prevention. the two policies have nothing in common. |
|
Big shock, another useless response from you. I'm not going to waste my time with your really dumb responses... like this one you just made.
What I will do is, when you say something totally retarded, I'll correct you, and then let everyone else play your extremely childish political points-scoring game.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
AUG 21, 01:20 PM
|
|
"Amid Pine Mountain’s ancient trees, a forest ‘thinning’ project triggers protests"
Hayley Smith for the Los Angeles Times; August 1, 2020.
https://www.latimes.com/env...ental %20assessments.
This is an article that fredtoast has quoted. I'm not sure if he already posted this link. Perhaps he posted it in some other thread.
A sage warning in the form of a cautionary message from forum member 'toast:
| quote | Originally posted by fredtoast:
This entire article [from 82-T/A] fails because it is based on a false equivalency. It claims that "timber harvesting" is the same as clearing land for fire prevention. the two policies have nothing in common. |
|
This August 2020 report from the Los Angeles Time's Hayley Smith is evidentiary support for fredtoast's observation that timber harvesting should not be confused with the kind of proactive wildfire prevention measures that experts want to see more of; to wit:
| quote | Chris Field, director of Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment, said removing small ladder fuels—dead vegetation, shrubs and branches—from the forest floor can be an important tool for forest health and help prevent a fire from gaining intensity.
But, he said, if the [Pine Mountain] project’s intention is to remove big trees, that’s “not helping at all.”
Currently, the proposal calls for the thinning of 423 acres of conifer forest, with a primary focus on trees under 2 feet in diameter, and the clearance of 316 acres of chaparral. |
|
The lesson here is that "timber harvesting" must be exactly defined, to determine whether any specific plan or project that involves timber harvesting is actually good or bad, from a wildfires prevention and management perspective.
There's no "one size fits all" kind of timber harvesting that's desirable, from a wildfires prevention and management perspective.
Anyone who would promote the kind of "knee jerk" timber harvesting that would harvest timber blindly, without examining the details of it, in light of all of the science that should be guiding it, is a threat to the security of this nation and the entire world, and should be dealt with accordingly.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-21-2023).]
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
AUG 21, 01:48 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by fredtoast:
I just posted a link that supports exactly what I said. And it comes from a guy who knows more about forestry than either of us. |
|
Wrong, again.
|
|
|
|
fredtoast
|
AUG 21, 04:04 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by williegoat:
Wrong, again. |
|
Nope. Here is the link to back up my claim.
| quote | Originally posted by fredtoast:
Chris Field, director of Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment, said removing small ladder fuels — dead vegetation, shrubs and branches — from the forest floor can be an important tool for forest health and help prevent a fire from gaining intensity.
But, he said, if the project’s intention is to remove big trees, that’s “not helping at all.”[/b][/i]
|
|
So lets see yours to prove I am wrong.
|
|
|
|