Trump doesn't care if wildfires destroy the west – it didn't vote for him
- Thread starter Frederick Foresight
- Start date
Now do the Delta Smelt! Hahahahaha
Forest fires don't really count unless they occur in civilized parts of the world. Half of Canada could burn for months and would only singe a moose's arse. Acutually quite a bit more than half. This would come as news to the downtown Toronto squatters who think that is the center of the universe. That was the problem at Fort McMurray. There was a handful of people there in addition to the moose. Otherwise an area the size of Texas could burn and no one would notice.
Same with hurricanes. Historically and geologically, places like Galveston Texas and the Florida keys were just sandbars and swamps where turtles would copulate and terns would shiite. Then they put housing wall-to-wall and everyone wonders why the devastation seems worse. Galveston of course was flattened many times over, long before climate change became an issue, but most lefties believe that AOC's birthdate is the beginning of history so that does not count.
Is it correct to assume that Canada does a proper job of forest management?
As I mentioned before, there is forest fire management and then there is management of damage from forest fires. They sound the same but they are not. Canada has large and frequent forest fires so on a per acreage measurement I don't know that it is any better. But damage is less due to the distance from populated areas versus California and Oregon where the forest fires areas and population overlap- all too often anyway. When I lived in Maine we would have large forest fires in the north that would roll on for weeks and no one in the other half of the state would pay much attention to them. Those same fires probably would have wiped out several large Californian cities. So sometimes factors are attributed to better policies when it is just geographical luck. You know, Canada has less of problem with illegals too which they attribute to better policies, but that ice flow to the north and the U.S. to the south help a bit, eh?
I think a lot rural areas and both canada and the u.s. still do a better job in managing logging slash and in doing controlled burning. Something the californians wont do anymore. But that is not a canada versus the u.s. thing. It is a california thing.
Not to digress too much, but those western states have problems with beetle and other infestation too and some of that is directly related to the amount of slash. Deadwood massively attracts insects which eventually end out feeding off of live wood as well. Then when the trees die, they up the fire hazard and round and round we go.
Last edited:
Electoral college causing climate change.
White guy founders at it again. They are pretty much the root of all evil.
The Atlantic. we would expect no less.
The Electoral College Is Also a Climate Problem
If the West Coast fires were happening in swing states, presidential candidates wouldn't be able to ignore the issue.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/electoral-college-also-climate-problem/616347/
White guy founders at it again. They are pretty much the root of all evil.
The Atlantic. we would expect no less.
The Electoral College Is Also a Climate Problem
If the West Coast fires were happening in swing states, presidential candidates wouldn't be able to ignore the issue.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/electoral-college-also-climate-problem/616347/
Certainly Canada does a much better job of forest management than the states of California, Oregon, and Washington.
I fully documented the information about forest management in Canada and the failures in California in a lengthy previous post on this thread.
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...didnt-vote-for-him.350018/page-2#post-5202868
It includes recent documents from the state government in California stating what a terrible job they are doing in forest management --- including the fires in recent years are directly attributable to their failure and that fires in future years will continue to be widespread if no action is taken. Bottom line: Even the state government blames themselves for their wildfire problem.
The Left coast is too busy worrying about bathroom signs, gender pronouns, elevating black idiot criminals, and shutting down effective means of energy production to worry about forest management.
This is why they are burning.
Or if you are a religious person, you could say it’s just Somebody’s Will?
This is why they are burning.
Or if you are a religious person, you could say it’s just Somebody’s Will?
California has a problem with forest management for sure.
But some of their most powerful and fast moving fires are not related to forests as they are this year but to sagebrush. It's another area where they are slow to smarten up. There needs to be more controlled burning, establishment of firebreaks, removal of sagebrush up against and near houses, so on and so forth. Monitoring and evacuation plans and communication and enforcement of them for California and Oregon suck too.
Just start taking care of obvious stuff and see if that helps.
The problem with forest fire management -often- is that we measure success by the absence of fires. Yet those years when there are no fires also mean that the forest is building up explosive volumes of fuel. The emphasis needs to be on how are we reducing or planning to deal with that. Otherwise we just have good years followed by disastrous years.
In pre-Columbian times, lightening would take care of that and rotate around year after year so that some areas had spontaneous burns. Now, if lightening starts a fire, we run over and try to put it out, only to deal with an explosive fire in following years. Need to return to controlled burning, or at least to establish more firebreaks. The Sierra Club put an end to all of that, but the larger implications are upon us now.
But some of their most powerful and fast moving fires are not related to forests as they are this year but to sagebrush. It's another area where they are slow to smarten up. There needs to be more controlled burning, establishment of firebreaks, removal of sagebrush up against and near houses, so on and so forth. Monitoring and evacuation plans and communication and enforcement of them for California and Oregon suck too.
Just start taking care of obvious stuff and see if that helps.
The problem with forest fire management -often- is that we measure success by the absence of fires. Yet those years when there are no fires also mean that the forest is building up explosive volumes of fuel. The emphasis needs to be on how are we reducing or planning to deal with that. Otherwise we just have good years followed by disastrous years.
In pre-Columbian times, lightening would take care of that and rotate around year after year so that some areas had spontaneous burns. Now, if lightening starts a fire, we run over and try to put it out, only to deal with an explosive fire in following years. Need to return to controlled burning, or at least to establish more firebreaks. The Sierra Club put an end to all of that, but the larger implications are upon us now.
Last edited: