Moderator: HAZ - Moderators
and ... to many others as well, myself included.lindaagm wrote:The argument of not enough funding or manpower for that kind of project is nonsense to me
So why don't we take a look at why there isn't money for proactive management...lindaagm wrote:Can any government agency manage anything without screwing it up? Nope.
The Portal Peak Fire (the burn area of which I can see out my window) was in close proximity to multiple structures and was in the same stretch that Horseshoe II blasted through in its first 24 hours all the way from its ignition point in Horseshoe Canyon to the southeastern edge of Portal, so presumably there was concern about it spreading to the more densely populated areas less than two miles north. It started at 11 PM and was effectively out by the time I woke up, with the Forest Service crews just mopping up for the next day or so.RedRoxx44 wrote:Better explanation--- for example recently three fires in the poor Chiricahuas. Portal Peak was in the Horseshoe 2 burn. All fires were "full suppression" per Inciweb and they were stopped I believe two in sub 100 acres. Why? No planning for them or it was going to screw up the Baer from Horseshoe 2 ???
hikeaz wrote:"Six years into a 20-year plan to thin overgrown ponderosa pines from northern and eastern Arizona, the Four Forest Restoration Initiative has treated just over 80,000 of the 1 million acres targeted for work."
Goal 50,000 acres a year; actual 13,500 +/- - um... in school that is about 39% - a VERY low 'F'.
"And four years into the largest contractor's 10-year, 300,000-acre deal, Good Earth Power has logged just about 7,500 acres." Goal 30,000 acres a year; actual 1800 - They don't even have a grade for scores that low.
"The federal government has spent more than $84 million supporting the program since 2011, not counting 2010 funds that were not specifically listed as forest restoration during the project's first year."
With this flood of citizen-funding why WOULD they live up to their end of the deal. 21,000 acres $84 million - 400,000 an acre?! We could have the Kardashian's cut them down with sissors for HALF that.
For full context of the editorial, the original Memo from Secretary Zinke is linked here:By The Editorial Board
Sept. 18, 2017 7:06 p.m. ET
The current hurricane season is capturing most media attention, but Westerners have been living through another nasty season of wildfires. So full marks for Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who is reversing years of federal neglect to prevent more fires.
Last week Mr. Zinke issued a memo instructing his land managers and park superintendents to use the “full authority” of their bureaus to begin clearing the dead and dying trees and brush that clog federal lands and are a tinderbox for Western wildfires. This is the first time in more than 20 years that Interior will, as the memo notes, “proactively work to prevent forest fires through aggressive and scientific fuels reduction managements to save lives, homes, and wildlife habitat.”
Forest Service policies have contributed to a fuels buildup for more than a century. But Bill Clinton turbocharged the mismanagement in the 1990s when he sharply reduced logging and road-building in federal forests. This has let disease and insect infestations run rampant, and fire proliferation is one result.
The number and intensity of Western megafires is growing, and this year some 47,000 wildfires torched eight million acres—an area the size of Maryland. Bigger and more intense fire seasons now also routinely destroy thousands of homes, and more than 450 firefighters have been killed on duty since 1990.
Before the Clinton era, the Forest Service spent about 16% of its annual budget fighting fires once underway. In 2015 it had to spend more than half for the first time in its 110-year history. The rising costs mean the Forest Service must poach money from programs aimed at preventing fires through better forest restoration and management.
Forest cleanup has become a local, bipartisan cause in the West, as state officials, land owners and others coalesce for more active debris removal and forest thinning. The opposition comes from environmental groups, often out of state, that dislike forest management and swoop in to stop the deals.
In Montana, where 200,000 acres are burning, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Friends of the Wild Swan recently sued to stop a proposal for tree-thinning and limited burning in the Flathead National Forest. They are fighting a mere 1,800-acre commercial timber harvest. The same groups that fret about climate change and pollution don’t mind policies that result in the burning of entire carbon sinks that spew smoke and noxious chemicals.
Beyond Mr. Zinke’s memo, Congress can help with legislation to reduce frivolous litigation and streamline permitting for active forest management. Reform should include changes to the National Environmental Policy Act’s environmental review process and the infamous Equal Access to Justice Act, which green groups have exploited to sue and then force taxpayers to cover their litigation costs.
The federal government owns upward of 50% of the land in many Western states. The GOP Congress has a chance to build bipartisan coalitions to better manage federal lands and reduce the fire damage that scars the West each year.
If you don't take half a sentence out of context, it might make more sense.rcorfman wrote: t_d_singletree wrote:
I can only hope that once we, as a species, are out of the way...
Why would you hope that?
I would say this journalist doesn't understand. The goal of fuel reduction isn't to prevent wildfires, it is to restore the balance caused by absence of wildfire. Back in the times when forests were managed by mother nature, fires were a regular occurrence every 5 or so years, and the regular burning prevented overgrowth.as the memo notes, “proactively work to prevent forest fires through aggressive and scientific fuels reduction managements to save lives, homes, and wildlife habitat.”
@nonotnonot wrote: Increasing the emphasis on fighting fires is the wrong message compared to the emphasis which should be to obtain healthy forests.
Healthy forests are reached via 1) the controlled, regular burning of healthy fires in healthy forests, and 2) the fuel reduction in unhealthy forests to restore them to healthy fuel levels, so that those reduced areas can be habitually burned via controlled fires.