Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
Shasta is burning
|
Not that most don't already know, but it is odd to watch it burn. (the foot hills anyway...) |
|
California is burning. And melting. And overpriced. A donut and a coffee Costs $4.50 In Fresno. Fresno. Think about that. As Shasta burns on. But where can I go? Back East? I’ll jump in the ocean When the flames close in. |
YOLOLZ Bicarbonatewrote: Things are pretty damn cheap here in the foothills |
|
The price increases are not unique to California |
|
And fire season has barely begun |
|
We live in a fire ecology and the landscapes must burn to thrive. We build our houses in those areas, by the hundreds of thousands, then we all act with dismay and shock when a bunch of them burn down in wild fires. I'm not finger pointing, I feel it too, emotionally. I think we humans have hard wired ourselves to both need and fear fire, it goes quite deep into our circuitry. |
|
Fire Report: Morning of 7/7. Fuel moisture is at 4%. - YOUCH! |
|
Salt Fire is only 12k acres and 85% contained and Lava Fire is 26k acres and 77% contained. The fire crews have done a fast job of getting containment on these fire. I grew up in Redding and during the summer we get a lot of dry lightning, these fires are kinda NBD. I can guarantee there's going to be a lot worse fires to worry about later in the summer. Unfortunately those poor bastards on the fire line are doing in in 100°+ heat this week |
 July 8th |
|
If only our firefighters weren't leaving CA for the summer :-/ |
Cory Bwrote: My Costco coffee brewed at home or in camp is still dirtbag cheap. DIY ftw |
|
Historically--pre-whitey--Cali burned 4 million to 12+ million acres every year. Great study out of UC Berkeley. |
BAdwrote: Do you have a link/source? I would love to read up on that :-) |
BAdwrote: Burn baby burn! |
Gumby Kingwrote: A quick Google search led me to this paper: Prehistoric fire area and emissions from California’s forests, woodlands,shrublands, and grasslands doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.06.005
It does agree with what was stated earlier. 1.8 - 4.4 million hectares = 4.4 - 11.9 million acres |
Drew Smithwrote: Thanks! |
Drew Smithwrote: This has been well known for a long time. The native people in many areas would purposely burn different areas every year because they understood how important fire was to a healthy ecosystem. In fact, they have “managed” the land for so long, certain species have actually evolved to become somewhat dependent of fire. It is only in the last 150 years or so that we have ceased “managing” the forests in this way. Logging became a poor alternative, but somewhat effective way of management. However, in the last 20 years with the EPA and misguided environmentalists stepping in with crippling and overbearing regulation, the forests have reached a critical and almost irreversible state. What’s worse, some light smoke in the fall and spring from controlled burns and a few bare spots from harvesting trees, or hundreds of thousands of acres of scorched earth which will likely never recover? Certainly not in your lifetime. The EPA and their tree hugging friends seem to think the latter. |
|
The EPA didn't sanction widespread development of housing to within high fire areas and up to the edges of those areas. That has greatly contributed to the increased desire of putting out fires ASAP, versus prior. People don't want to lose their homes or other investments, and demand a quick response. Expansion of the American Dream of homeownership to all areas is to blame. This includes areas that flood frequently, are along coastal blufftops, hit by hurricanes repeatedly, etc. All insurance and taxpayers payers subsidize those affected. The great migration from urban centers is more to blame than tree-huggers and EPA regs, IMO. |
|
Maybe we should start listing places not burning instead.... |
Franck Veewrote: 1) Florida 2) Antarctica 3) ?? |
|
They need to repeal the California Environmental Quality Act. Those who support it or utilize it need to be named and shamed out of public life. |
