West coast fires

[RAE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koolau Even if we all agree that climate change is a factor, there isn't agreement about how to address it - most especially in any time frame which would stop wild fires, say next year or next decade. I disagree that "...any attempts to reduce the fire hazard throughout the west are doomed." We've known for 100 years not to let dead trees and brush build up - especially around inhabited areas. We simply quit doing what we know works several years ago. I'm sure not everyone agrees with this, but the fire triangle doesn't lie even if YMMV.

We have delayed for so long now in addressing climate change that any steps we take now will not really help very much in the next 10 years, that is true. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take those steps, for the sake of future generations.

With regard to clearing trees/brush from around inhabited areas to help protect residences from fire - yes, that is definitely a good idea. But someone who builds their home out on the edge of the National Forest (for example), or any large forested area is not going to be able to protect their home by clearing a few hundred feet around their home. And there are many, many homes now built in areas like this. That's because some of these fires are so intense that they are sending burning embers hundreds of feet into the air, that can be transported some distance ahead of a fast-moving fire. So, your house may have no trees or brush for 300 feet around it in all directions, but a burning ember could still land on your roof and start a fire. It actually happens all the time. Also, the heat from some of these fires is so intense that they can ignite anything flammable quite some distance from the actual flames.

To really reduce fire danger in some of these areas, you would have to clear (or at least thin) the vegetation over many thousands (actually millions) of acres of land. The amount of effort and $$ it would take to do that across the Western US is pretty mind-boggling. Or, as an alternative to veg. clearing, you could let fires burn when they start in many of these areas, which would do the clearing for you, but would likely result in quite a few homes being burned up in the process. Take your pick.........that is why it's such a difficult problem to deal with.

[homestead]

Here is a drone video of one of the fires after the wind had subsided.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA9QUDBVXlo

[calmloki]

AQ dropped to under 300 here this morning - and cool and moist with no wind! That gives the firefighters a chance. Here is an incident commander speaking today with a little fire history:

https://www.azcentral.com/videos/new...es/5786644002/

I'd mentioned that the little town of Gates got pretty much wiped out - about a third of the way through the above talk the commander says they had set up the command center in Gates, then had the wind drop a tree and power line on their woven wire perimeter fence - which started fires all around the command center! Exciting times for the pencil pushers within who got to exercise dormant fire fighting chops! Looking for damp weather tomorrow. Fingers crossed.

[travelover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAE .............With regard to clearing trees/brush from around inhabited areas to help protect residences from fire - yes, that is definitely a good idea. But someone who builds their home out on the edge of the National Forest (for example), or any large forested area is not going to be able to protect their home by clearing a few hundred feet around their home. And there are many, many homes now built in areas like this. That's because some of these fires are so intense that they are sending burning embers hundreds of feet into the air, that can be transported some distance ahead of a fast-moving fire. So, your house may have no trees or brush for 300 feet around it in all directions, but a burning ember could still land on your roof and start a fire. It actually happens all the time. Also, the heat from some of these fires is so intense that they can ignite anything flammable quite some distance from the actual flames...........

To your point, a while back we had a fire jump the Columbia River. LINK

[Koolau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAE To really reduce fire danger in some of these areas, you would have to clear (or at least thin) the vegetation over many thousands (actually millions) of acres of land. The amount of effort and $$ it would take to do that across the Western US is pretty mind-boggling. Or, as an alternative to veg. clearing, you could let fires burn when they start in many of these areas, which would do the clearing for you, but would likely result in quite a few homes being burned up in the process. Take your pick.........that is why it's such a difficult problem to deal with.

I submit that the cost to prevent the fires would ultimately be much lower than the cost of dealing with the fires once they start. (As you mention, we could also let some fires burn. I'm much less knowledgeable about how such decisions are made, so I would personally stick with fuel removal, but that's just me.) Keep in mind that this build up of fuel didn't happen in a year. Had it been addressed a bit at a time, perhaps the problem would have been much more manageable at a reasonable price.

In any case, I'm betting folks would rather put their taxes toward removing fuel rather than fighting massive out-of-control fires. Since there is a fair amount of opinion involved in all of this, I would agree its a YMMV. My heart is with the folks who find themselves in this situation. God bless and protect them all.

[MuirWannabe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koolau I submit that the cost to prevent the fires would ultimately be much lower than the cost of dealing with the fires once they start. (As you mention, we could also let some fires burn. I'm much less knowledgeable about how such decisions are made, so I would personally stick with fuel removal, but that's just me.) Keep in mind that this build up of fuel didn't happen in a year. Had it been addressed a bit at a time, perhaps the problem would have been much more manageable at a reasonable price. In any case, I'm betting folks would rather put their taxes toward removing fuel rather than fighting massive out-of-control fires. Since there is a fair amount of opinion involved in all of this, I would agree its a YMMV. My heart is with the folks who find themselves in this situation. God bless and protect them all.

I share your opinion for the most part. Not all of these fires are close to towns. Some are on remote ridges where firefighters must hike a couple miles from forest service roads with their equipment. Yet, they are doing this. I wonder why those type fires they don’t just let burn. I’m sure there is a reason. But I don’t know what it is. Although I’ll admit, letting a fire burn free while it destroys forest temples and wildlife kills me to think about.

[RAE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koolau I submit that the cost to prevent the fires would ultimately be much lower than the cost of dealing with the fires once they start. (As you mention, we could also let some fires burn. I'm much less knowledgeable about how such decisions are made, so I would personally stick with fuel removal, but that's just me.) Keep in mind that this build up of fuel didn't happen in a year. Had it been addressed a bit at a time, perhaps the problem would have been much more manageable at a reasonable price. In any case, I'm betting folks would rather put their taxes toward removing fuel rather than fighting massive out-of-control fires. Since there is a fair amount of opinion involved in all of this, I would agree its a YMMV. My heart is with the folks who find themselves in this situation. God bless and protect them all.

You are correct - this problem did not happen in a year. 70+ years of fire suppression, plus climate change, has gotten us to the point we are at now. As I mentioned in a previous comment, all that fire suppression was done not because the science supports doing that (it doesn't, in most cases), but for social/political reasons, mainly. When a forest fire starts anywhere near where people live, people usually expect the authorities to come and extinguish it. If the fire is not extinguished, and instead allowed to burn, and it ultimately burns down several nice homes, you can imagine the outcry (and it has happened). After such an outcry, and the resulting political fallout, the agencies realize there is really no alternative to extinguishing most wildfires, so the policy continues. And on and on it has gone, for all these years, resulting in a huge, unnatural buildup of fuels on many public forest lands. All of this fuel is eventually going to ignite and burn. Then along comes climate change, which dries out the fuels, resulting in catastrophic wildfires whenever there is an ignition source present.

By the way, there is a lot more detail I could fill in on the above (like how insects have killed trees on millions of acres of public land, also a result of climate change), but we don't have the space to do that here.

So that is where we are at today. To try to correct it by somehow now going back and removing those fuels from most public lands in the West would be: 1) prohibitively expensive, to say the least; and 2) probably would not have the support of a majority of the public, because you are talking about basically clearing (or at least heavily thinning) millions of acres of vegetation on public forest land that people love to recreate in and enjoy, for their other benefits.

These are some reasons why this problem is not easy to address.

[RobbieB]

Yup, we've lost that pioneer spirit for sure.

Used to be you built your log cabin in the woods and if it burned down it was "bad luck"

Now your house in the woods burns down and it's "who's going to compensate me"

[samm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuirWannabe The fires are so very bad. Seems like saying this every year now. But recent events have taken this to an unbelievable level. ....Supposed to be heading out for a PCT section hike this Thursday. Probably not now. I just feel sad for what is being destroyed. Attachment 36106

You are a Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) Hiker? (very cool!)

How are the current PCT'ers doing?

[audreyh1]

I remember flying into Seattle on what turned out to be the worst smoke day in 2018. The entire state was covered in a brown wavy cloud. Mount Rainier and a few other notable peaks poked out of the thick brown haze.

[stepford]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samm You are a Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) Hiker? (very cool!) How are the current PCT'ers doing?

Not to speak for MuirWannabe, but there's lots of hikes on the PCT much shorter than the big thru-hike. DW and I have done lots of little 10-15 mile day hikes on several sections in both the northern and southern Sierra. I don't know about the PCT as a whole, but I do know that at least some sections have been evacuated (and given current conditions I'm guessing it's a lot more than some).

[MuirWannabe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samm You are a Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) Hiker? (very cool!) How are the current PCT'ers doing?

Yes, I’ve been section hiking the PCT the last 3 years. I’ve backpacked from Campo at the Mexico border to Dunsmuir in Northern California. Was planning to start there and go through Oregon this year, but the fires happened. So no dice. Now, when I hike again on the PCT, the trail will not be the same.

As for thru hikers this year, it’s not going well. Covid was the first blow. The PCTA discouraged people from thru hiking, due to impact to local trail towns. So, the numbers of thru hikers attempting the PCT this year were way down. However, most thru hikers by September were in northern Oregon or more likely Washington. The fires have completely shut down the PCT in California and pretty much Oregon. There are many fires in Washington, but it’s the most open as far as the trail is concerned. Although, no doubt smoke is causing problems there.

So, the fire impact is effecting more the section/day hikers than the thru hikers at this point. It was prime season for JMT hikers, and they have been evacuated and removed from the Sierra.

In my travels on the PCT so far, I’ve walked through many past burn areas. The scars are ugly and awful. Recovery is slow. I know recovery eventually happens. But it won’t be in my lifetime. But that’s the way of nature. Ralph Waldo Emerson had a famous quote: “Adopt the pace of nature, her secret is patience.”. That’s about right.

[skipro33]

I've lived in California most of my life and for the last 35 years in the mountains where these fires are at their worst. My home was destroyed in a wild land fire July 16th, 2006. Nothing left, scorched earth. It was an act of arson. They caught the person. She was convicted of arson of an occupied dwelling (we were home at the time) as well as manslaughter (a man on a motorcycle was killed) as well as a dozen lesser charges. She was sentenced to 11 years and since none of these crimes were considered violent offenses, was released in 5.5 years (50% off for good behavior)

I've worked 40 years for the power company in the Sierras on their hydro electric project. I was in hydrography; measuring snow pack, stream gauging, reservoir elevations, rainfall, etc. During the first half of that time much of the forest was managed and harvested by Sierra Pacific Lumber and a few other, smaller timber companies. The forests were thinned and managed, the fire roads the loggers used were maintained and provided fire breaks and access. Then environmentalists got involved. They discovered that if they sued the USFS, then it would tie up all their financial resources and the forest wasn't going to be managed. The USFS realized this and instead of wasting their financial resources on litigation, they would capitulate and give in to the environmentalists which resulted in no more timber harvests. At first the fires would leave standing dead wood that could be harvested and the mills, some any way, could stay in business. Then lawsuits were filed claiming that the burned forest was habitat and harvesting those was harmful to the environment. So no burned forest timber was harvested. The roads were used by recreationalists with off road vehicles and, while not as in good of shape as when the timber companies ran their trucks on them, at least they were not over grown so fire fighting could access. Then the environmentalists filed lawsuits against the USFS for the RV's claiming that they eroded the soils and silt was damaging the stream beds. So off roading was banned on most of these roads. What money the USFS had was used to maintain a skeleton trail system.

Which brings us to today; no more lumber companies, mills, harvest to manage the forests. No road system to get fire fighting equipment into these remote areas. What private lands there are and developed didn't have any road other than just the one in and out since USFS roads were now gated, blocked or overgrown with brush and eventually trees.

Like I said, I've witnessed this with my own eyes. I've seen the forests change from managed growth and access to no-touch Federal land, gated and left untouched. If that's the way the forest will continue to be managed, then either these fires are going to continue or private property in those forests will need to be condemned and bought back through eminent domain.

Not all these fires are alpine forests though. Some, wild land, especially along the central coast, is grassland and temperate woodland. These lands are nearer to population centers and these are the ones that suffer the most private property damage.

I can't offer a solution other than to revisit how forest and wild lands were managed in the past. Probably bring back timber harvest, open access roads to recreationalists who will use them enough to keep the undergrowth back and provide both fire breaks and emergency access for fighting fires.

This isn't a political ideal causing this, this is a difference on how we, as a nation, decide to approach the natural world around us. One hand wants to manage the forests and the other wants to maintain it's pristine condition, untouched by human intervention. I have no opinion on which is best for the people or for the environment other than what is taking place now is not working.


****EDIT****
I forgot and wanted to add;
A lot of the forest was grazed by cattle. Ranchers drove their cattle to the high country and they would graze on grass and brush, keeping a break in the fire ladder of fuel out of the tree canopy. But USFS was sued over that as well, so now, at least on the El Dorado National forest as well as those immediately adjacent have banned cattle grazing.
And somewhere in all this are the illegal pot farms and more recently, the legal ones too. I don't know how big a role they play in fire of these public lands, but I know I've read reports where some are started this way.

[Koolau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAE So that is where we are at today. To try to correct it by somehow now going back and removing those fuels from most public lands in the West would be: 1) prohibitively expensive, to say the least; and 2) probably would not have the support of a majority of the public, because you are talking about basically clearing (or at least heavily thinning) millions of acres of vegetation on public forest land that people love to recreate in and enjoy, for their other benefits. These are some reasons why this problem is not easy to address.

For 1) I repeat: NOT addressing the fuel is likely way more expensive - especially in the long run. I agree that 2) is the real issue. That's how we got here. Everyone has an opinion about how things should be done. We tried "leaving it alone" and now we know how well that works. I agree completely that's it complicated and will be expensive. I'm SWAGing that folks would be more amenable to spending the money to remove the fuel now that they've seen what NOT removing the fuel looks and smells like. I don't claim to have THE answer so YMMV.

[EastWest Gal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skipro33 I've lived in California most of my life and for the last 35 years in the mountains where these fires are at their worst. My home was destroyed in a wild land fire July 16th, 2006. Nothing left, scorched earth. It was an act of arson. They caught the person. She was convicted of arson of an occupied dwelling (we were home at the time) as well as manslaughter (a man on a motorcycle was killed) as well as a dozen lesser charges. She was sentenced to 11 years and since none of these crimes were considered violent offenses, was released in 5.5 years (50% off for good behavior) I've worked 40 years for the power company in the Sierras on their hydro electric project. I was in hydrography; measuring snow pack, stream gauging, reservoir elevations, rainfall, etc. During the first half of that time much of the forest was managed and harvested by Sierra Pacific Lumber and a few other, smaller timber companies. The forests were thinned and managed, the fire roads the loggers used were maintained and provided fire breaks and access. Then environmentalists got involved. They discovered that if they sued the USFS, then it would tie up all their financial resources and the forest wasn't going to be managed. The USFS realized this and instead of wasting their financial resources on litigation, they would capitulate and give in to the environmentalists which resulted in no more timber harvests. At first the fires would leave standing dead wood that could be harvested and the mills, some any way, could stay in business. Then lawsuits were filed claiming that the burned forest was habitat and harvesting those was harmful to the environment. So no burned forest timber was harvested. The roads were used by recreationalists with off road vehicles and, while not as in good of shape as when the timber companies ran their trucks on them, at least they were not over grown so fire fighting could access. Then the environmentalists filed lawsuits against the USFS for the RV's claiming that they eroded the soils and silt was damaging the stream beds. So off roading was banned on most of these roads. What money the USFS had was used to maintain a skeleton trail system. Which brings us to today; no more lumber companies, mills, harvest to manage the forests. No road system to get fire fighting equipment into these remote areas. What private lands there are and developed didn't have any road other than just the one in and out since USFS roads were now gated, blocked or overgrown with brush and eventually trees. Like I said, I've witnessed this with my own eyes. I've seen the forests change from managed growth and access to no-touch Federal land, gated and left untouched. If that's the way the forest will continue to be managed, then either these fires are going to continue or private property in those forests will need to be condemned and bought back through eminent domain. Not all these fires are alpine forests though. Some, wild land, especially along the central coast, is grassland and temperate woodland. These lands are nearer to population centers and these are the ones that suffer the most private property damage. I can't offer a solution other than to revisit how forest and wild lands were managed in the past. Probably bring back timber harvest, open access roads to recreationalists who will use them enough to keep the undergrowth back and provide both fire breaks and emergency access for fighting fires. This isn't a political ideal causing this, this is a difference on how we, as a nation, decide to approach the natural world around us. One hand wants to manage the forests and the other wants to maintain it's pristine condition, untouched by human intervention. I have no opinion on which is best for the people or for the environment other than what is taking place now is not working. ****EDIT**** I forgot and wanted to add; A lot of the forest was grazed by cattle. Ranchers drove their cattle to the high country and they would graze on grass and brush, keeping a break in the fire ladder of fuel out of the tree canopy. But USFS was sued over that as well, so now, at least on the El Dorado National forest as well as those immediately adjacent have banned cattle grazing. And somewhere in all this are the illegal pot farms and more recently, the legal ones too. I don't know how big a role they play in fire of these public lands, but I know I've read reports where some are started this way.

Wonderful, well educated post. “Leaving it alone” failed to acknowledge that fire has been a regular part of the life cycle of the land of the west. But we stopped that, allowing the fuel to accumulate which has led to these conflagrations. And stopping cattle grazing in many of these areas added to the problem.

Last, we all learned about “controlled” burns, but obviously that never happened on the scale it need to.

I’m all for preserving the environment and battling climate change, but it’s clear from your post that the approach we have taken has been wrong in so many ways. Thank you for your insights.

[Oilcan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skipro33 I've lived in California most of my life and for the last 35 years in the mountains where these fires are at their worst. My home was destroyed in a wild land fire July 16th, 2006. Nothing left, scorched earth. It was an act of arson. They caught the person. She was convicted of arson of an occupied dwelling (we were home at the time) as well as manslaughter (a man on a motorcycle was killed) as well as a dozen lesser charges. She was sentenced to 11 years and since none of these crimes were considered violent offenses, was released in 5.5 years (50% off for good behavior) I've worked 40 years for the power company in the Sierras on their hydro electric project. I was in hydrography; measuring snow pack, stream gauging, reservoir elevations, rainfall, etc. During the first half of that time much of the forest was managed and harvested by Sierra Pacific Lumber and a few other, smaller timber companies. The forests were thinned and managed, the fire roads the loggers used were maintained and provided fire breaks and access. Then environmentalists got involved. They discovered that if they sued the USFS, then it would tie up all their financial resources and the forest wasn't going to be managed. The USFS realized this and instead of wasting their financial resources on litigation, they would capitulate and give in to the environmentalists which resulted in no more timber harvests. At first the fires would leave standing dead wood that could be harvested and the mills, some any way, could stay in business. Then lawsuits were filed claiming that the burned forest was habitat and harvesting those was harmful to the environment. So no burned forest timber was harvested. The roads were used by recreationalists with off road vehicles and, while not as in good of shape as when the timber companies ran their trucks on them, at least they were not over grown so fire fighting could access. Then the environmentalists filed lawsuits against the USFS for the RV's claiming that they eroded the soils and silt was damaging the stream beds. So off roading was banned on most of these roads. What money the USFS had was used to maintain a skeleton trail system. Which brings us to today; no more lumber companies, mills, harvest to manage the forests. No road system to get fire fighting equipment into these remote areas. What private lands there are and developed didn't have any road other than just the one in and out since USFS roads were now gated, blocked or overgrown with brush and eventually trees. Like I said, I've witnessed this with my own eyes. I've seen the forests change from managed growth and access to no-touch Federal land, gated and left untouched. If that's the way the forest will continue to be managed, then either these fires are going to continue or private property in those forests will need to be condemned and bought back through eminent domain. Not all these fires are alpine forests though. Some, wild land, especially along the central coast, is grassland and temperate woodland. These lands are nearer to population centers and these are the ones that suffer the most private property damage. I can't offer a solution other than to revisit how forest and wild lands were managed in the past. Probably bring back timber harvest, open access roads to recreationalists who will use them enough to keep the undergrowth back and provide both fire breaks and emergency access for fighting fires. This isn't a political ideal causing this, this is a difference on how we, as a nation, decide to approach the natural world around us. One hand wants to manage the forests and the other wants to maintain it's pristine condition, untouched by human intervention. I have no opinion on which is best for the people or for the environment other than what is taking place now is not working. ****EDIT**** I forgot and wanted to add; A lot of the forest was grazed by cattle. Ranchers drove their cattle to the high country and they would graze on grass and brush, keeping a break in the fire ladder of fuel out of the tree canopy. But USFS was sued over that as well, so now, at least on the El Dorado National forest as well as those immediately adjacent have banned cattle grazing. And somewhere in all this are the illegal pot farms and more recently, the legal ones too. I don't know how big a role they play in fire of these public lands, but I know I've read reports where some are started this way.

Skipro: Excellent and I wish everyone in America could read this.

[Chuckanut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ocean view What does surprise me are the fires in OR & WA where they do get rain regularly all year long. That should mitigate the fire risk in those states.

Ummm... No. Summers are usually very dry especially east of the Cascade Range. We can have damps summers, but they are rare and well cursed by the locals.

The year's summer was actually quite nice, most highs in the area of the low 80's, very little rain and lots of sunshine. Only the past week with the fires has been bad. The smoke is keeping the sunshine out so highs are now in the mid 60's rather than the mid 70's.

By October, everything will be constantly wet for the next 8 months.

[skipro33]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastWest Gal Wonderful, well educated post. “Leaving it alone” failed to acknowledge that fire has been a regular part of the life cycle of the land of the west. But we stopped that, allowing the fuel to accumulate which has led to these conflagrations. And stopping cattle grazing in many of these areas added to the problem. Last, we all learned about “controlled” burns, but obviously that never happened on the scale it need to. I’m all for preserving the environment and battling climate change, but it’s clear from your post that the approach we have taken has been wrong in so many ways. Thank you for your insights.

Thank you.
One of the things the USFS on the El Dorado did in order to stretch their dollars was to do land trades with the timber companies. Timber company land is private land. About 20% of the El Dorado national forest is this private timber land. The USFS would manage their side of the fence and the timber companies would harvest theirs. Once harvested and cleaned up, the USFS would swap the acreage the timber company had for fresh, mature, ready-to-harvest forest. I'm sure a fee was also collected by the USFS, but I'm also sure it was weighed against the improvements the timber companies had done on their land being swapped. And so it went, each year, some private land swapped for USFS land. The USFS knew which areas needed most tending and so offered up those acres. Thus the forest was kept tidy with little cost to the forest service, the tax payers and the timber companies could stay operational with the Chinese competition for wood products. But that was becoming tougher. The Chinese brought in huge timber processing ships off shore. Soon it became more profitable for the timber companies to load their logs onto ships, send them to the processors off shore and finished product brought back in than it was to operate their own mills. Jobs were lost. Historical mills, some 100 years old, were shuttered. Towns pretty much wiped out. Some survived, turning into tourist towns that played on the history of California gold rush and the old west. But not like the well paid positions at a mill offered. Instead of thriving communities, they were, and still are today, older retired residents who may have some dabbling in agriculture; apples, pears, Christmas tree farms and such. These sleepy towns are what we read about and see go up in flames. These are families of very modest incomes, fixed retirements mostly with few youth that will choose to stay due to a lack of job opportunity.

California is a very diverse state. It is huge in regards to it's land mass. It covers several zones of climate but with a fault; the whole state electorate decides by vote how it will manage the state. Those who live in the rural areas, like I do, have little voice since the larger population areas carry the weight of the vote. The San Francisco bay area and the Los Angeles area are the two that most control the vote. Which brings me to my thought on fixing the problem;
I think it's time that California be broken up into smaller states that would better manage it's natural resources. I do not think those who live and work in the metropolitan bay area and LA are educated or experienced enough to make thoughtful decisions through voting on how these lands they live hundreds of miles from need to be managed. The problem becomes more complex when the demographic income levels come into play though. Would a rural area, populated with fixed income retired people with little job prospects for their youth be able to financially manage themselves as an independent state? I do not know. I don't even know if they could be trusted to make a decision on that intelligently. I don't know if the federal government is allowed to examine the situation and support a newly formed state until it can.

[Montecfo]

The big problem is for the last 3-4 decades proactive forest management had ended, leaving lots of fuel and no firebreaks.

That any of this is due to climate change is conjecture, but it also is irrelevant, since there is no serious plan to limit carbon output sufficient to stop the earth from warming, much less to reduce temps assuming that is even possible.

If they want to get on top of these forest fires, the western states need to get cracking on forest management.

[MuirWannabe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skipro33 Which brings me to my thought on fixing the problem; I think it's time that California be broken up into smaller states that would better manage it's natural resources. I do not think those who live and work in the metropolitan bay area and LA are educated or experienced enough to make thoughtful decisions through voting on how these lands they live hundreds of miles from need to be managed. The problem becomes more complex when the demographic income levels come into play though. Would a rural area, populated with fixed income retired people with little job prospects for their youth be able to financially manage themselves as an independent state? I do not know. I don't even know if they could be trusted to make a decision on that intelligently. I don't know if the federal government is allowed to examine the situation and support a newly formed state until it can.

The free state of Jefferson. [emoji4]

Thanks much for your perspective. It’s very interesting.