The Shitgibbon Hates California (again)

[bilby]

I do recall seeing an article decades ago in Scientific American about fires in Yellowstone which they hypothesized were due to excessive fuel loads being allowed to build up because of a (then) policy of fighting all accessible fires, no matter how little threat they posed to life or property, and showing that allowing small fires to burn themselves out if they could do so harmlessly would reduce the potential for harm from future fires. I also seem to recall that as a result of that research the Yellowstone Park management strategy was changed, and that the new approach was found to be effective in reducing the incidence of large, dangerous fires.

But that wasn't in California - where conditions are totally different. And it was at least thirty years ago - I doubt that there are many forestry management organizations in the world who are unaware of that particular success. It seems very unlikely that the same fire protection strategy that works in forested mountains with low population density, would be applicable to a more densely populated coastal plain, with chaparral shrub lands subject to adiabatic winds descending from the mountains.

And all of the parklands that burned were properly maintained with firebreaks and fire roads for firefighting access. Everyone knows it can burn. The problem is you can't contain it in 50 mph winds when it is spreading a football field every 2 seconds.

aa

Yeah, just about the only effective defense against such conditions is to make sure you have two escape routes, and use them, ideally as soon as conditions are hazardous, but before actual fire or smoke are visible. Our fire protection services recommend evacuation today if conditions are forecast to be "Severe", "Extreme"or "Catastrophic" in your area tomorrow. Waiting until a fire has started in such conditions is usually leaving things too late.

https://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/plan-prepare/leave-early

Around here, there are six levels of fire danger rating. The second lowest of which is "High". The highest level is "Catastrophic" (known in Victoria as "Code Red"); 80km/h winds and dry conditions with high fuel loads would certainly qualify for a forecast of "Catastrophic".

In high-risk areas, leaving early is the safest option on Code Red days. Do not wait and see. Know your trigger to leave – make a decision about when you will leave, where you will go, how you will get there, when you will return and what you will do if you cannot leave.

Most houses are not designed or constructed to withstand fires in Code Red conditions. Defending your home is very risky. You could die or be seriously injured.

Only consider staying with your property on Extreme or Severe days if you are fully prepared and can actively defend your home. Defending a house requires at least two fit and determined
adults who are physically and mentally prepared to work long and hard in arduous and difficult conditions. It also requires at least 10,000 litres of water, protective clothing, and appropriate firefighting hoses and pumps.

If you are not prepared to the highest level, leaving high-risk bushfire areas early is your safest option.

Big, fast moving fires are not something humans can stand up to. You might as well try to turn back a tsunami. The only viable option is to evacuate, and hope there's something left to rebuild when you return.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I think I heard a theory that fire problem in CA is actually too much fire protection. Trees are allowed to grow too much and too big and since forest fires are natural in dry places it get really bad when fire do start.

Tell 'whomever you heard that theory from' that they're stupid as shit. I am in the middle of the southern CA fires and we have no 'tall trees' or forests for that matter. That 'theory' is as plausible as the 'they didn't pray for enough rain the last 6 years'.

aa

You have no eucalyptus trees? I know there are a number of areas in San Diego where these oily fire bombs are prolific and residents fight not to have them removed. What's worse is the detritus does not break down.

 

[bilby]

I think I heard a theory that fire problem in CA is actually too much fire protection. Trees are allowed to grow too much and too big and since forest fires are natural in dry places it get really bad when fire do start.

Tell 'whomever you heard that theory from' that they're stupid as shit. I am in the middle of the southern CA fires and we have no 'tall trees' or forests for that matter. That 'theory' is as plausible as the 'they didn't pray for enough rain the last 6 years'.

aa

You have no eucalyptus trees? I know there are a number of areas in San Diego where these oily fire bombs are prolific and residents fight not to have them removed. What's worse is the detritus does not break down.

Well if they remove all the eucalypts, what will the koalas eat?

 

[Opoponax]

I think I heard a theory that fire problem in CA is actually too much fire protection. Trees are allowed to grow too much and too big and since forest fires are natural in dry places it get really bad when fire do start.

Tell 'whomever you heard that theory from' that they're stupid as shit. I am in the middle of the southern CA fires and we have no 'tall trees' or forests for that matter. That 'theory' is as plausible as the 'they didn't pray for enough rain the last 6 years'.

aa

You have no eucalyptus trees? I know there are a number of areas in San Diego where these oily fire bombs are prolific and residents fight not to have them removed. What's worse is the detritus does not break down.

Totally irrelevant to the topic, but I bought a house a few years back and my next door neighbor was lamenting that some kind of disease had hit the neighborhood, which wiped out all the eucalyptus. Sure enough, in my own backyard I discovered several skeletons of those cursed "trees." I was quite glad and would've bought that disease a beer.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I think I heard a theory that fire problem in CA is actually too much fire protection. Trees are allowed to grow too much and too big and since forest fires are natural in dry places it get really bad when fire do start.

Tell 'whomever you heard that theory from' that they're stupid as shit. I am in the middle of the southern CA fires and we have no 'tall trees' or forests for that matter. That 'theory' is as plausible as the 'they didn't pray for enough rain the last 6 years'.

aa

You have no eucalyptus trees? I know there are a number of areas in San Diego where these oily fire bombs are prolific and residents fight not to have them removed. What's worse is the detritus does not break down.

Uh, no. I live in Thousand Oaks. We have Oak trees and there's nowhere near 1000 of them.

Without reducing the local landscape to look like the surface of the moon, I don't see how we let our 'forests grow too large'.

aa

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, with Nazis, there are good people on both sides of the riots, but with people dying in fires, he's free to totally demonize everyone involved.

 

[Underseer]

https://mashable.com/article/donald-trump-blames-california-wildfires-on-california/#hWbwTKVghgqE

There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor. Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!

78.4K
12:08 AM - Nov 10, 2018

Now, there's a million reasons why he's wrong. I won't go into them except to say it's combination of science, the differences between state and federal management of state and federal land, naturally occurring conditions, and more.

That's not the point though. The point is that during emergencies in California, Trump has heaped nothing but scorn upon us, as has his bottom of the septic tank followers who react with glee when things like this happen here (in California).

This is why we can legitimately say that the's not our president. He despises Californians because we voted so overwhelmingly against him, and because our state government routinely tells him to go fuck himself. So he's glad when our homes burn and our people die.

The thing is, we give more in federal taxes than we get. If we don't get federal funds, then what's the point of being a state in this idiot nation? Sure, Trump has zero fucking power to say that California won't get X federal funding. It's not within the scope of his powers. But merely expressing the sentiments he does is enough for me to put my secessionist hat on and encourage the western halves of Washington and Oregon to come with us.

People are dead, and many more have lost everything they have, and Trump is kicking as much dirt on them as he can. Goddamn pussy. Same with anyone who still supports the slimy piece of shit. They're the slime under the slime holding him up.

You're a libertarian, aren't you?

You know how this works.

Most of those forests are federal lands, not state lands.

1. Republicans cut the budget for those forests.
2. Something bad happened as a result of those budget cuts.
3. Republicans point to the bad things that have happened as a result of their budget cuts, and uses them as an excuse to make even more budget cuts
4. Repeat from step 1

This is how we use "fiscal responsibility" to make sure the government doesn't do anything to help regular middle class commoners (who should choose to be wealthy if they want the government to do anything for them), and thus help pay for another round of tax cuts for the economic elites.

You've seen this same game play over and over. No doubt you yourself joined the chorus of other libertarians in saying "See? The government doesn't work! Let's just eliminate that whole government bureaucracy so we can give the elites more tax cuts!" at various times in the past, but now you seem genuinely surprised that another Republican is playing this same game yet again.

Why the confusion?

Trump does a lot of things that are horrifying and new, but this is from the standard Republican playbook. You should be used to it by now. Heck, I'm surprised you're not cheering for it. What on Earth is different this tim[ent]hellip[/ent]

Oh.

You're from California, and thus this time the Republican budget cuts are affecting you.

So that's what is different this time.

I get it.

For a moment I was worried that you suddenly developed the capacity to feel basic human empathy for others, and I was going to ask which radical communist agitator got a hold of your computer.