Shasta is burning

For a first hand account of the development of forest science vs established forest policy read Finding the Mother Tree by S. Simard, a respected researcher for USFS and University of British Columbia 

M Rwrote:

Did you or did you not call for EPA deregulation and logging on all forested areas? You now say you never said that--WAIT--did you just admit your original, long-winded-spray-of-a-post was in part: fake news? Let's stick to the facts, or do you only do that when it's convenient for you?

Why are prisoners paid $2 a day to risk their life just to be subsequently barred from ever working as a forest firefighter when they get out of prison? Sounds like a privilege to me.

Let's cut to the chase SS, how many #TimberUnity protests have you been to lately?

Nobody makes them go fight fires mister, they desire it. They fight over who gets to go outside and pick up garbage. 

Salamanizer Skiwrote:

You misinterpreted the meaning of my original post and  substituted it with what you preferred it to mean. Never said we should eliminate all regulation or log every last bit of our forests. Some deregulation is necessary to allow for forest restoration projects which includes utilization of logging as a resource. Didn’t think it was necessary to have to dumb it down that far. My bad!

Assembly Bill 2147. Look it up! Again, you have no idea what you’re talking about and it’s apparent. It’s like a sports fan trying to tell Nolan Ryan how to throw a fast ball. You just roll your eyes and smirk. Prisoners are paying back a debt to society. They volunteer for the position and have to work hard to get it. The selection process is rigorous. Their compensation is the valuable experience they gain. They are treated well and earn their respect. They should not be compensated monetarily for it as that creates a whole different set of problems. However, I do believe Wildland firefighters should be paid more. A lot more. 

Nolan Ryan?
Did you watch him play at the same game you caught the foul ball hit by Willy Mays?

M Rwrote:

You're so off the deep end with your logic, it doesn't even deserve a point by point response--it's best to just call it what it is and move on. 

I don't have a dog in this fight, but Salamanizer's arguments seem pretty cogent to me.  I'd like to read a point-by-point rebuttal.

Let's pause and simplify things a bit:

The SS said this: "We need localized environmental and EPA deregulation. Permittance of sustainable logging practices in all forested areas."

I said this: Eliminating the EPA then logging all forests will never be the answer.

Two points regarding these statements. Deregulation is a myth. It's doublespeak. There is no such thing as deregulation. Everything in the public sphere is regulated--we only get to chose if it's regulated by the government or by corporations. Despite what SS wants you to believe this is a fact. 'Deregulating' the EPA would in essence hamstring the EPA--an agency that exerts it influence through regulation.

If sustainable logging occurs on all forested lands, by definition all forested lands will have been logged, at least in part. Therefore my phrase 'logging all forests' remains accurate. The word 'sustainable', however, is doublespeak: it implies that an activity is green and beneficial to the environment, while in the end it often just represents the maximum consumption of a resource without completely destroying said resource. 

Regarding incarcerated firefighters: The new law that CA adopted last fall, after numerous years of incarcerated firefighters being completely barred from working in the field after release, was noted and dismissed at the time as complete weak sauce by those in the know. The SS using it as proof that this problem has been fixed is disingenuous. To humor him, however, I read the law he linked--it doesn't state that incarcerated firefighters will have the right to work as firefighters when they are released--how come it doesn't just state that? Fishy, huh? The truth is that, in effect, it doesn't help much at all, and worse yet, folks like SS can latch onto the law and state: "look problem solved!"--making a real solution to the issue less likely to occur in the coming years. For now, if you're a minority, or have a previous conviction, and want to fight forest fires: you'll need to do it from prison for $2/day. Just remember, chronic lung disease from smoke inhalation is an honor and a privilege.

PS - The agenda and curriculum of forest management schools are significantly influenced by the timber, and other, industries. Hence, we get terms like ‘sustainable logging.’ It is analogous to how the agenda and curriculum of nutrition and sports science schools are significantly influenced by the likes of General Mills and Gatorade, hence the classic food pyramid and people strapping small jugs of corn syrup to their chest to 'stay hydrated' and 'fuel' during their 3 mile jog.

RE: sustainable logging

See "sustainable" fisheries

Apparently it's not that easy to sustain natural resources in the face of capitalism.

Julian H wrote:

Nothing new just climate change. Everything will burn and get replaced by something else. Here in Colorado forests that burned more then 20 years ago are not coming back, they get replaced by different trees and grasses. 

Worst thing about California, is the wine issue. I can deal with the fires but no wine, that is a tragedy. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/18/climate/napa-wine-heat-hot-weather.html

Actually the horrific problem in California wine industry is the destruction of oak savanna and woodland for grape growing which is one of the most ecologically destructive practices ever.  Heavy pesticides, excessive water use, watershed pollution, erosion and soil contamination coupled with excessive financial and tax subsidies resulting in overproduction and dumped grapes.

Maureen you make a valid point regarding the impact of corporate grape farming. Outsiders don't typically see the full scope of the grape industry as Napa is only a part of the total. I'd like to add two points:

1. There are too many wine grape vineyards in California. 

California is oversupplied by at least 30,000 acres of winegrapes, Bitter said. The state’s bearing acreage needs to be 560,000 acres or less, Bitter said during his presentation at Cal Expo in Sacramento, Calif.

About 30,000 acres of winegrapes need to be pulled statewide in order to have a balanced winegrape market, Bitter said. That’s on top of the planted acreage that needs to be ripped out annually due to attrition. 

Reference: Too many grape

2. Water is the key to everything. In terms of Napa valley, the current population and ag land requirements far outstrip all local or semi-local water supplies. If we want to curtail further degradation of the oak savanna, the best form of attack is via water supply. I encourage all citizens to fight tooth and nail against more big water projects, like the Twin Tunnel water robbery project designed to kill the Delta and send all the Sacramento River water to down-canal users in southern California. Napa takes its share from that spigot, and that needs to be curtailed, not expanded. I can go on and on but this 5-year old article well describes the two-faced nature of holier-than-thou water thieves

We need to fight against new water permits tooth and nail

Water wars bring out the Big $$$$$$$ Guns, totally get that. 

July 20th, from the,NW. Still some smoking and burning.

We need to end all laws that stop urban and suburban infill projects. NIMBYs must be de-toothed.

July 21 and the flames are about to run out of fuel.
http://www.alertwildfire.org/shastamodoc/index.html?camera=Axis-Weed2&v=fd40729

M Rwrote:

Again, you obviously prefer only to believe what you prefer to be true.  Simplifying things by removing all context isn’t a valid rebuttal. Deregulation in this case does not mean abolishing all regulations.  You can deregulate by rolling back specific regulations pursuant to localized needs on a case by case basis.  It’s done all the time, and that is a fact.  That is not “doublespeak” or a “myth”.  Rolling back unnecessary regulatory measures or ones which have been proven to do more harm than good in the long run is just common sense and does not mean scrapping the whole enchilada.  Your whole argument is complete rubbish. 

As for the sustainability of logging.  Yes, your point is correct so long as you remove all context.  In fact, it makes perfect sense if you don’t think about it.  Logging in fact can be sustainable.  It does not mean that it necessarily falls under your definition of “green”, but it is fairly sustainable.  Logging has been going on for 150 years with far less regulations than today and there’s still plenty of trees out there.  It’s not perfect by a long shot, let alone the irreversible damage that has been done in the past, so don’t go blowing that statement out of context either.  Logging is necessary, a highly sought after commodity and far greener than any alternatives we’ve come up with in mass quantity.  Perhaps strip mining for metals and hydrocarbons are your thing?  It’s not going anywhere, but that’s not the point. Utilizing logging to thin degraded and choked out forests is an essential tool in reducing the fuels in sensitive and at risk areas.  Again, Yosemite Valley, perfect example as it has recently been sustainably logged.  We’re not talking about selling contracts for the wholesale exploitation of our forests here.  So what it really means is the “minimum consumption of a resource to maximize beneficial long term impacts to said resource”.  Again, not by any means perfect or without Caveat, and it’s not the only or fix all solution, but it’s a start and far better than the “do nothing and leave nature alone” approach the “do what feels good while opposing that which does good” crowd thinks.

 This is the kind of ignorance we’re up against as scientists, forest and land managers, foresters, silviculturists and firefighters.  Blatant ignorance, uneducated opinions, baseless accusations (like being bought and controlled by the logging industry lol) and opposition to any and all efforts to correct the problems.  So drop the picket signs, leave the stupid protests, come on out and don a hard hat, pick up a shovel and get to work with the rest of us who study this shit and actually know WTF were talking.  We have a vested interest in preserving what’s left of our forests and are the ones actually doing the work toward that end, not just bitching about it from behind a computer or picket sign.  I can show you examples of forest I have personally been involved with clearing and how vibrant and healthy they are.  I can also show you many examples of what your ideology creates and how catastrophically destructive it is. 

About the Incarcerated Firefighters, again wrong!  The law reads like it does because it’s a law drafted by Lawyers.  If it simply stated Ex Felons could get a job as a State Wildland Firefighter, then that would carry over to all state jobs.  Implying that for example an Ex Felon could then get a job as a Peace Officer with the State.  Law interpretations are annoying, trust me I know.  But the point being that Ex Felons can and do get employed as firefighters in the state of California.  It was only considered weak sauce because some felt it didn’t go far enough and allow Ex Felons to get any jobs, like Peace Officers.  And that’s never going to happen, so…  Governor Newsom signed the bill, but it wasn’t his idea.  It was the Correctional Officers who oversee the Inmates and the Firefighters who work along side them believe it or not.  And what does being a minority have to do with anything?  Sneaky throwing that trigger word in there despite having zero relevance to the conversation.  You’re an obstructionist, your ideology is counter productive and ideas (or lack there of) are toxic.  You construct opinions which negate any science or facts and substitute those for that of feelings and political agenda.  You’d rather see our forests turned to ashes than admit you’re wrong, or bend on any issues.  Please, for the future of our forests, put down the sign, pick up a shovel or rake and at very least, don’t vote.

"About the Incarcerated Firefighters, again wrong!  The law reads like it does because it’s a law drafted by Lawyers.  If it simply stated Ex Felons could get a job as a State Wildland Firefighter, then that would carry over to all state jobs.  Implying that for example an Ex Felon could then get a job as a Peace Officer with the State.  Law interpretations are annoying, trust me I know.  But the point being that Ex Felons can and do get employed as firefighters in the state of California.  It was only considered weak sauce because some felt it didn’t go far enough and allow Ex Felons to get any jobs, like Peace Officers.  And that’s never going to happen, so…  Governor Newsom signed the bill, but it wasn’t his idea.  It was the Correctional Officers who oversee the Inmates and the Firefighters who work along side them believe it or not.  And what does being a minority have to do with anything?  Sneaky throwing that trigger word in there despite having zero relevance to the conversation."

Can someone translate this into english for me?

M Rwrote:Can someone translate this into english for me?

Probably not your level of English ;-)

Look, you’re entitled to your opinion. I’ll stick with educated opinions and and facts myself. But just sit back with your opinions and continue to do nothing about them. Probably the best thing you could do for the environment at this point. 

Salamanizer Skiwrote: I have degrees in fire science 

Aww, don’t get all butt hurt now lol..! 

Salamanizer Skiwrote:

Aww, don’t get all butt hurt now lol..!

M Rwrote:

Ok now, that’s funny!