patrick.net

BUT HE SAID "RAKE!" REEEEEEEEEEEE!

Wow, forest management to include controlled burns and raking. I remember a certain President Trump who mentioned that.

HeadSet says

controlled burns and raking.

A controlled burn around the General Sherman Grove makes sense, and is something that can and does get performed periodically.

The questions Trump and all his fans who throw out talking points like "Rake the forest" never answer include, can this scale up by a factor of 50,000 to cover all Federal forest land in the state, or by a factor of 1,000,000-10,000,000 to cover fire prone areas not classified as "forest" such as oak-grass or chaparral? The serious answer is, it absolutely can't

What did Trump do differently than other Presidents about California's annual wildfire problems in his 4 years, given that the 60% of forest land in our state that isn't privately owned is controlled and managed by the Federal Government?

I remember the night the Station Fire started in the Angeles National Forest, which I frequented before buying some land further North. The LA radio news was covering a brush fire on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, where there were only a few thousand acres of fuel to burn surrounded by ocean and city. It's a VERY rich area, and none of it forest land. The radio was going on and on about all the air and ground support the fire was getting well into the night, then mentioning oh by the way that fire in the Angeles National Forest is still like there too. I was practically screaming at the radio, "THAT'S the SERIOUS fire!!! Put resources THERE!"

The Station Fire ended up burning for MONTHS, destroying so much beautiful forest land. Areas I used to camp in were left a moonscape, and shady canyons full of mature pine and cedar trees were left with barren burned trunks and dry dusty hot sun at ground level.

Automan Empire says

What did Trump do differently than other Presidents about California's annual wildfire problems in his 4 years

Prompted crazy Bay Area cunts to stop controlled burns in spite. As a result of no controlled burns since 2017 fucking Big Basin state park went up in flames last year.

FuckCCP89 says

As a result of no controlled burns since 2017

The OP is about an area where there was a controlled burn in 2019. It also dodges the question of what Trump did in his 4 years to actually manage the Federally controlled forests in our state.

Automan Empire says

It also dodges the question of what Trump did in his 4 years

Caused mass irrational behavior in some areas. Thank God, not everywhere.

Automan Empire says

It also dodges the question of what Trump did in his 4 years to actually manage the Federally controlled forests in our state.

Dude, Sequoia National Park is managed by fucking Feds!

FuckCCP89 says

Sequoia National Park is managed by fucking Feds!

And how does that comport with the recurring Republican trope that California's wildfires are the result of forest mismanagement due to alleged local "liberal politics and policies?"

Automan Empire says

FuckCCP89 says

Sequoia National Park is managed by fucking Feds!

And how does that comport with the recurring Republican trope that California's wildfires are the result of forest mismanagement due to alleged local "liberal politics and policies?"

Literally: Big Fucking Basin fucking burned to the fucking ground, historic buildinds and all, because they had no controlled burns since 2017. State park in Bay Area.

Are you going to address the fact that the forests are Federally owned and managed land, or you going to just keep lobbing distractions?

Automan Empire says

....forests are Federally owned and managed land...

Let me type it slowly:

Sequoia NP - fed managed land in conservative area of the state, controlled burns, no damage to important shit.
Big Basin CA SP - state managed land in libbyfuck-infested Bay Area, no controlled burns since 2017, major damage last year.

PS. Libbyfuck chorus for the last 5 years: THE FORESTS ARE BURNING BECAUSE OF GLOBULL WORMING! EAT LESS MEAT!! WALK EVERYWHERE!!! NOTHING ELSE WOULD WORK!!!

You're not showing proof that that particular state park WOULD have gotten a controlled burn between then and now, but was blocked because of "liberal policies." Even if you do, it's one cherry picked case that doesn't address ALL of the federally controlled forest land in our state. You've also dodged the question of whether controlled burns like near the priceless General Sherman Grove can realistically be scaled up by many orders of magnitude to cover a meaningful percentage of federally controlled forest land in the state.

In short, you're just throwing out random talking points, while not even superficially engaging the debate, much less doing so in good faith. Discussing policy matters with you is like trying to hold a woman accountable for literally anything in a discussion.

https://www.ktvu.com/news/palo-alto-woman-who-allegedly-started-fawn-fire-had-lighter-in-her-pocket-da

Palo Alto woman who allegedly started Fawn Fire had lighter in her pocket: DA

Patrick says

Palo Alto woman who allegedly started Fawn Fire had lighter in her pocket: DA

According to court documents, she said that she was trying to get to Canada and had stopped for a while to boil water to drink.

Apparently she did not have a cup, so she set the woods on fire to boil water in a creek.....

Automan Empire says

You're not showing proof that that particular state park WOULD have gotten a controlled burn between then and now, but was blocked because of "liberal policies."

What "proof"? It was discuseed last year on the local public radio station. There were two scientists present who said they prescribed the burns which were not executed because local authorities have blocked it since 2017. Calling me a liar? Fuck you.