• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The West is on fire [W:86]

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
52,009
Reaction score
33,943
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
DI-16hVV4AAoOU8.jpg



Colombia River Gorge, just one of 137 large wildfires currently raging across the West.

You’ve seen the apocalyptic images from the Columbia River Gorge, Glacier National Park, and the Los Angeles Suburbs, but those fires are only a small part of the overall picture. Currently there are 13 active wildfires in Washington, 26 in Oregon, 23 in Idaho, 46 in Montana, and 38 in California. I could go on, but you get the idea. (You can find all the data on current fire conditions here.) Smoke from these fires currently envelopes an area stretching north to the Queen Maude Gulf, in the Canadian Arctic, west to Seattle, south to Waco, Texas, and east to Columbus, Ohio.

and it's burning up the Forest Service's budget as well:

usfs-budget.jpg


“Congress needs to step up and treat these infernos like the natural disasters they are,” says Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), who introduced the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act to congress in 2013. The bill, which has since languished in committee, creates a federal fund dedicated to fire suppression, supplanting budgets drawn from states and the Forest Service’s general budget.


Fires and fire prevention must become more of a priority.

Do you agree? Why or why not?

read more here
 
DI-16hVV4AAoOU8.jpg



Colombia River Gorge, just one of 137 large wildfires currently raging across the West.



and it's burning up the Forest Service's budget as well:

usfs-budget.jpg





Fires and fire prevention must become more of a priority.

Do you agree? Why or why not?

read more here

Disagree

Fighting fires should in general be limited to protecting towns and larger communities

Fires are a natural and required way of renewal for the landscape. It will help prevent the spread of the pine beetle as well. Now in general during wet and normal years fires should be allowed to burn themselves out. That way the undergrowth is managed. That way during dry years (like this one) the fires will not be as strong or huge. Allowing for easier fighting during these types of years
 
Disagree

Fighting fires should in general be limited to protecting towns and larger communities

Fires are a natural and required way of renewal for the landscape. It will help prevent the spread of the pine beetle as well. Now in general during wet and normal years fires should be allowed to burn themselves out. That way the undergrowth is managed. That way during dry years (like this one) the fires will not be as strong or huge. Allowing for easier fighting during these types of years

There is something to be said for just letting wildfires burn, particularly in the chaparral where periodic fires have been a part of the ecosystem for thousands of years. There is a problem with that idea, though:

According to an analysis by the insurance industry, 60 percent of new homes constructed since 1990 are located in what’s known as the Wildland-Urban Interface Area. In short, we’re building our homes in areas that naturally burn. More than $500 billion of homes exist across the 13 western states in areas categorized as at extreme or high risk of wildfires. And that construction is making it more difficult to proactively head off massive fires in those areas with controlled burns.

500 billion is a lot of homes in the way of wildfires.
 
There is something to be said for just letting wildfires burn, particularly in the chaparral where periodic fires have been a part of the ecosystem for thousands of years. There is a problem with that idea, though:



500 billion is a lot of homes in the way of wildfires.


Which I would say let them burn, and no government money for rebuilding as I would also say to building in places like Key West which gets hit by hurricanes frequently


Overall if the fires over the last decade is due to a changing climate, no amount of money is going to prevent the fires and landscapes from changing. The forests will burn either now, or next year or over the next 10 years. If it is a short term climate cycle, then the forest will be renewed, with new trees with a forest floor full of nutrients from the decaying wood
 
Which I would say let them burn, and no government money for rebuilding as I would also say to building in places like Key West which gets hit by hurricanes frequently


Overall if the fires over the last decade is due to a changing climate, no amount of money is going to prevent the fires and landscapes from changing. The forests will burn either now, or next year or over the next 10 years. If it is a short term climate cycle, then the forest will be renewed, with new trees with a forest floor full of nutrients from the decaying wood

Clearing of brush, cutting of trees, building fire breaks, insisting home owners clear a defensive space around their houses or lose fire insurance, all of that could ensure that fires will be smaller, better contained, and less destructive.

But you're right: fires are inevitable and getting to be a bigger problem.
 
Which I would say let them burn, and no government money for rebuilding as I would also say to building in places like Key West which gets hit by hurricanes frequently


Overall if the fires over the last decade is due to a changing climate, no amount of money is going to prevent the fires and landscapes from changing. The forests will burn either now, or next year or over the next 10 years. If it is a short term climate cycle, then the forest will be renewed, with new trees with a forest floor full of nutrients from the decaying wood

Wild fire fighting provides jobs too, take from the rich and make people work for it.

I like your Idea for not building on places, head for the high ground!
 
Disagree

Fighting fires should in general be limited to protecting towns and larger communities

Fires are a natural and required way of renewal for the landscape. It will help prevent the spread of the pine beetle as well. Now in general during wet and normal years fires should be allowed to burn themselves out. That way the undergrowth is managed. That way during dry years (like this one) the fires will not be as strong or huge. Allowing for easier fighting during these types of years

I agree. Build firebreaks and let the fires burn.

I recall that after the Yellowstone fire in the 90's that it was discovered that the seed pod of a certain type of tree only opened up under high heat.
 
I have been doing a lot of camping in Oregon this past month. I had this one really good spot near a river right underneath a giant Red Wood tree. I woke up one morning to the smell of smoke. It actually looked a little hazy inside the tent. I got out of the tent and it was smoke everywhere. I got in my car to do some reconning to learn it was smoke from he forest fires a little ways away. Not close enough that I would have to evacuate yet but just the smoke that had drifted my way was scary. I left the next day because it was getting hard to breath. I feel for the people who have to live around that.
 
Isn't Columbia River Gorge just a part of the millions upon millions of acres of federal lands that have been part of the the federal government land grab out West over the last century? It would be interesting to learn out of all the fires occurring, how many started on federal lands and spread to homeowners whose properties butt up to them.

I recall a beetle infestation in Montana which involved forests of trees dying. Did the feds go in and clean up all the dead so as not to leave them for tinder? How about removing excessive vegetation around the trees in the forests that can easily turn into tinder during dry spells? Can't the Federal government afford bush hogs? They scarfed all the lands from states and now they can't take care of them?
 
I guess I'll look on the bright side by saying my sunsets have been awesome!
 
Once upon a time, logging prevented a lot of the spread of fires...
 
Disagree

Fighting fires should in general be limited to protecting towns and larger communities

Fires are a natural and required way of renewal for the landscape. It will help prevent the spread of the pine beetle as well. Now in general during wet and normal years fires should be allowed to burn themselves out. That way the undergrowth is managed. That way during dry years (like this one) the fires will not be as strong or huge. Allowing for easier fighting during these types of years

What you say is partly correct in regards to fire as a natural process. It depends on the type of forest or ecosystem. For example, fire was/is critical for fire dependent ecosystems like Ponderosa Pine Forest or Lodepole Pine. We also have exotic species like cheatgrass (bromus tectorum) that have invaded many desert ecosystem that are fire independent. The cheatgrass is the main fire carrier resulting is fire killing the native plants.

We also have a problem in fire dependent forest where the natural fuel load is not "natural". We now have 1000's of small trees per acre where it should be less than 100. Much work needs to be done to reduce the fuel load to allow fire to play its more natural role.

Many of the federal and state agencies are using fire as a tool when conditions permit the wildfire to "let burn". Hopefully someday our national forest and rangelands will be restored to a more healthy status.
 
There is something to be said for just letting wildfires burn, particularly in the chaparral where periodic fires have been a part of the ecosystem for thousands of years. There is a problem with that idea, though:



500 billion is a lot of homes in the way of wildfires.

It would take some effort but if homeowners would adapt Firewise principles the homes in the chaparral would not be at that great of risk. Local governments need to adapt Firewise and build requirement into the building code for new developments.

If homeowners and politicians don't start reducing the risk, the insurance companies will force the issue. They will either make rates so high for home owner insurance or refuse to issue a policy.
 
I agree. Build firebreaks and let the fires burn.

I recall that after the Yellowstone fire in the 90's that it was discovered that the seed pod of a certain type of tree only opened up under high heat.

That be Lodepole pine. It needs fire to open up the cones to release the seeds. The Yellowstone fire(s) in the 90's was also the result of beetle kill on thousands of acres years before the fire occurred.

I remember visiting the park before the fires and seeing the bug kill lodepole pine. Told the NPS person I will be back someday when it burns. Guess what, I got to go back and work the fires.
 
DI-16hVV4AAoOU8.jpg



Colombia River Gorge, just one of 137 large wildfires currently raging across the West.



and it's burning up the Forest Service's budget as well:

usfs-budget.jpg





Fires and fire prevention must become more of a priority.

Do you agree? Why or why not?

read more here

A lot of these fires are let burn and then get out of control by the Forest Service. It used to be we would keep aircraft on standby and quick attack a starting fire and try and snuff it early or at least retard it a bit.
 
Clearing of brush, cutting of trees, building fire breaks, insisting home owners clear a defensive space around their houses or lose fire insurance, all of that could ensure that fires will be smaller, better contained, and less destructive.

But you're right: fires are inevitable and getting to be a bigger problem.

Allowing strategic logging would help. Clear cut firebreaks and the brush between on occasion. Logging restrictions are now part of the problem, once there is a fire. Much harder to contain now.
 
Isn't Columbia River Gorge just a part of the millions upon millions of acres of federal lands that have been part of the the federal government land grab out West over the last century? It would be interesting to learn out of all the fires occurring, how many started on federal lands and spread to homeowners whose properties butt up to them.

I recall a beetle infestation in Montana which involved forests of trees dying. Did the feds go in and clean up all the dead so as not to leave them for tinder? How about removing excessive vegetation around the trees in the forests that can easily turn into tinder during dry spells? Can't the Federal government afford bush hogs? They scarfed all the lands from states and now they can't take care of them?

It is federal land that used to be logged until environmentalists go their way.

Remember "save the spotted owl?"

Now that past planted trees are grown, there are no firebreaks. This was inevitable.
 
Isn't Columbia River Gorge just a part of the millions upon millions of acres of federal lands that have been part of the the federal government land grab out West over the last century? It would be interesting to learn out of all the fires occurring, how many started on federal lands and spread to homeowners whose properties butt up to them.

I recall a beetle infestation in Montana which involved forests of trees dying. Did the feds go in and clean up all the dead so as not to leave them for tinder? How about removing excessive vegetation around the trees in the forests that can easily turn into tinder during dry spells? Can't the Federal government afford bush hogs? They scarfed all the lands from states and now they can't take care of them?

Actually, a lot of the lumber companies have harvested the beetle-kill pine. My entire house has beetle-kill for the tongue-and-groove ceiling, and the trim. It costs less than traditional lumber, and it has some beautiful grey tones.

Hallway_Lights.jpg
 
It would take some effort but if homeowners would adapt Firewise principles the homes in the chaparral would not be at that great of risk. Local governments need to adapt Firewise and build requirement into the building code for new developments.

If homeowners and politicians don't start reducing the risk, the insurance companies will force the issue. They will either make rates so high for home owner insurance or refuse to issue a policy.

You're probably right about the insurance companies.
The problem with letting wildfires burn and just protecting the houses is that the chaparral has been allowed to grow due to fire suppression, and is now so high and thick that there is no controlling wild fires. First, the brush would have to be cleared and controlled burns set during the damper months.
 
A lot of these fires are let burn and then get out of control by the Forest Service. It used to be we would keep aircraft on standby and quick attack a starting fire and try and snuff it early or at least retard it a bit.

Those controlled burns don't happen in the middle of summer, only when the woods are a little bit damp.
We still do keep aircraft on standby, but most of them are busy fighting fires during the season.
 
You're probably right about the insurance companies.
The problem with letting wildfires burn and just protecting the houses is that the chaparral has been allowed to grow due to fire suppression, and is now so high and thick that there is no controlling wild fires. First, the brush would have to be cleared and controlled burns set during the damper months.

I live in the West, and here in Colorado, it is not a practice to just let wildfires burn. The problem is that the winds are often too strong to combat the fires. It's simply too dangerous. Usually, they try to pick roadways, and contain the fires within these boundaries. However, often, the winds are so strong, that the fires will jump the roadway, and it becomes time to reassess. And the entire time, everybody prays for moisture.
 
Allowing strategic logging would help. Clear cut firebreaks and the brush between on occasion. Logging restrictions are now part of the problem, once there is a fire. Much harder to contain now.

Exactly right. Too many arm chair environmentalists who never get out into the forests try to "protect" the trees. Years ago, logging was a problem as they would take the big trees and leave behind all of the slash, brush, and small trees. Now, they've learned to clearout everything except a few large trees, that then regenerate the forest. There was a very destructive fire near here about 40 years ago caused by destructive logging. The conifers still have not regenerated, leaving large areas of a nasty plant called "white thorn buck brush." Forests need to be managed based on science, not on politics.
 
I live in the West, and here in Colorado, it is not a practice to just let wildfires burn. The problem is that the winds are often too strong to combat the fires. It's simply too dangerous. Usually, they try to pick roadways, and contain the fires within these boundaries. However, often, the winds are so strong, that the fires will jump the roadway, and it becomes time to reassess. And the entire time, everybody prays for moisture.

Very rarely is it safe to just let them burn. There is so much fuel, that they can get out of control very quickly.
 
DI-16hVV4AAoOU8.jpg



Colombia River Gorge, just one of 137 large wildfires currently raging across the West.



and it's burning up the Forest Service's budget as well:

usfs-budget.jpg





Fires and fire prevention must become more of a priority.

Do you agree? Why or why not?

read more here

Maybe it's time to end the idiotic policies which don't allow the removal of dead wood from national forests.
 
Isn't Columbia River Gorge just a part of the millions upon millions of acres of federal lands that have been part of the the federal government land grab out West over the last century? It would be interesting to learn out of all the fires occurring, how many started on federal lands and spread to homeowners whose properties butt up to them.

I recall a beetle infestation in Montana which involved forests of trees dying. Did the feds go in and clean up all the dead so as not to leave them for tinder? How about removing excessive vegetation around the trees in the forests that can easily turn into tinder during dry spells? Can't the Federal government afford bush hogs? They scarfed all the lands from states and now they can't take care of them?

In most areas federal laws are so ****ed that they prevent removing even felled timber. They create an environment that is a perfect storm for fires.

That being said, forest fires are kind of a historical reality. Build in the middle of a forest and you can't be stunned when something bad happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom