Did environmentalists cause the Rim Fire near Yosemite?

[Travis]

Since this fire is currently only a few miles away from my house I have much interest in it. And I ran into the following comments from this MSNBC article.

First off it seems that it is the namby pamby hippies fault San Francisco gets its water and electricity from the Sierra Nevada.

I do not understand. All the tech firms and they depend on somebody else. To receive water and electricity from somebody. Looks like they can make pretty toys and gadgets. But not much else.

Well, now the progressive-liberal, greenie, tree hugging, filthy wannabe hippies can walk their talk! Those whack jobs think we should go back to living like that of the 1850's - so here you go. It's not like you people shower. No power, no water - start pedaling!

If San Francisco loses power, this is the perfect opportunity to show libs what life would be like without carbon emitting power. This is a possible teachable moment

Note that the fire is threatening a hydroelectric source of power.

But then we get to this comment which is similar to many others I have been seeing on articles about the giant New York City sized wildfire raging in my backyard.

Get the welfare bums, the prisoners, off of their collective butts and have them help to clean these forests. If we would allow the Forests to be cleaned, IE: logging, (clean up to be included in contract), you wouldn't see this happening.

Except that most of the area that is now burning is, in fact, logged on a regular basis. I see them go into these areas all the time to cut down the bigger trees leaving the smaller ones to grow into future lumber sources.

The militant environmentalists caused this. Decades and decades of natural fire suppression is the reason wildfires get so out of hand so easily. Take a look at pictures of Yosemite a 100 years ago. There were wide open spaces and meadows. The forest was naturally maintained by wildfires, which in turn created natural fire breaks. Look at it now, dense forest, even on the valley floor.

Except most of the area now burning burned in 1987. There are some isolated areas now burning that haven't burned in a long time but they are not representative of most of the devastated region. Furthermore I'm not aware of too many environmentalists being in favor of total fire suppression. I took ecology classes in college and everyone there seemed to understand the benefits of periodic wildfires.

As for the tree-huggers and hippies, yes, they're a part of the reason we can't have responsible forestry management out west. Old growth is pretty and all but if it is not periodically cleared this is the disaster you invite.

But old growth is not the problem with these wildfires. New growth is the problem. If there were periodic wildfires the new growth would be kept down and large tress would be mostly unaffected. And, again, I'm not aware of anyone arguing against fires for environmental reasons. I live in these forests and the only people I've seen fight against things like prescribed burns are the logging companies. They don't like them because they eliminate the young trees they want to harvest in a few years.

If you're talking about the federal congress, they should not be funding firefighting. It's not a federal authority. That is a local/state issue. Nowhere does el Constitution provide for firefighting, or as AG added, education. If you're talking about California not funding firefighters, that's for the people of Cali to deal with.
Hope all the firefighters remain safe. Hope all the SF greens get to live their utopia for a month. No power.

Darn that federal government for funding firefighting efforts in federal forests. And since when does anyone in SF want to live without electricity?

just let it burn. the problem is they keep puting out small fires and than there is more fuel for the next fire. this is the natural way to keep large fires from burnning is that the small fires burn the small amount of fuel and go out but when you keep putting them out large amounts of fuel pile up and when you have a fire it is a disaster.

Interesting. So the solution to not having periodic small fires that don't burn hot is to not fight a giant fire that burns everything with so much heat it sterilizes the landscape?

What happened to the HotShot firefighters (they sure have a great pension plan)? All the resources that go into the fire departments and Parks and Recreation. And the costly restrictive building codes and fire sprinkler systems etc. rules we must follow, yet the city of San Francisco is being threatened by fire. I'm afraid many residents will die if they have power and water services cut. Many of those city folk can't survive without comfortable amenities not to mention, basic resources. I'd hate to see an upset in a vital technology center not to mention the mecca of far left liberal superstructure. I guess, on the bright side, even natural disasters can provide an economic stimulus that has yet to occur. And fire is one thing Mother Nature uses to cleanse herself...

Erm....right. Firefighters are just lazy union softbodies. And a major city potentially losing power is something only liberals would find to be a hardship. I'm so sure that Montgomery, Alabama wouldn't even notice a sudden absence of electricity and water.

Let nature take it's course. Concentrate by using the available man-power on protecting buildings and homes where possible. Nature will always rejuvenate itself.

This fire was caused by either and arsonist or a neglected campfire. Is that nature taking its course?

So where are all of the SF solar power cells. There shouldn't be an issue in SF or with the environmentalists. Forest fires are healthy for the forests, but no so much for humans.

Yes, because we all know that what environmentalists really want is for each person to have their own solar generating plant.

And very large wildfires like this one are not particularly healthy. They burn far hotter than anything that would naturally occur.

Why should San Francisco worry? They always wanted to go back to the stone age or they thought the rest of us should when it comes to power.

I really must keep an eye out for these pro stone age people down in San Francisco next time I am there.

Finally a good news! Those liberals, progressives, eco-Nazis, socialists, communists, "social sciences" professors, Democrats, and other creeps, bottom-feeders, slime, and scum of our once free and prosperous country in San Francisco can soon enjoy their "green energy" heaven right there!

Um....what?

Best natural way to rid the country of the worst liberals....it's a free Obama fire!

Well I'm sure the fire will make sure to ask us who we voted for if it overtakes my town. I'm sure regretting for rejecting Romney now!

Could not happen to a better place full of greedy, perverted sick progressives.

Interesting.

So San Francisco relies on powerlines that travel all the way across the San Joaquin valley from the opposite side of the state? This is ridiculous

Yeah, I mean who does that? Everyone knows that other cities get all their electricity from within.

Better not tell the global warming alarmists that an ecosystem is creating its own weather patterns.

Yeah, we know how much climatologists hate that! Just piles and piles of papers from them on how ecosystems don't create their own weather.

it's these western states own fault. they will not allow the dead scrub brush to be removed as it will impact the enviroment. without a fire break these fires could rage for weeks. unless you allow the removal of dead scrubs these things will happen yearly. what's funny is when they do, the ones fighting the fires remove the brush themselves to try to stop the spread. to a liberal tree hugger hindsight never matters!

And here I'm gonna stop because this is all just too frustrating. The reality is that people with the environment in mind have been trying to get prescribed burns in more areas for years. It is the logging companies that stop it. Not hippies from San Francisco.

Now this wouldn't be that big of a problem if they logged properly but the logging method of choice these days are large clear cuts. And that is the absolute wrong thing if you want to prevent these huge wildfires. Clear cuts leave vast swathes of the forest with trees of the same age that will all go up at once if they are ever in a fire.

But all this is somewhat beside the point here because most of the territory now burning burned in 1987. However that fire burned so hot it left the entire area deforested which meant a massive tree planting campaign had to be done in the aftermath. Those tress are now 25 years old and ripe for burning very hot in the ongoing drought.

 

[DavidJames]

I wonder what they would say about all those fires in Montana and Idaho? States well known for their very conservative populations and politics.

Basically, just another example of idiot talking heads, twisting reality to support their unsupportable ideology.

 

[Travis]

The ironic thing is that Tuolumne County is as conservative as they come. Basically we have conservatives cheering on the burning of a Republican bastion because they somehow think it will punish liberals.

 

[crescent]

That's a helluva OP there, Travis. I agree with pretty well everything you've said.

I used to work for Yosemite NP, had a bit of interaction with some of the Fire bosses there.

Those guys love prescribed fire, and love to be allowed to let natural fires burn. If we let them have their way, there might have been more prescribed fires in the portion of Yosemite that is burning, and that might have caused this fire to have reduced intensity.

The big limit to prescribed fires or allowing fires to burn* was always Air Quality - not environmentalists, not lumber companies, but plain old human health and safety concerns. I felt that was a bit short-sighted, as limiting prescribed and natural fires ensures that when the big out of control fires really get going, they damage air quality on a much larger scale.

I would love to see some sort of exemption for Air Quality standards relating for forest management, with the idea of proactively burning (mimicking natural processes as closely as possible) to reduce the chances of the really big fires. An exemption would allow them to moderately exceed air quality for managed fires, understanding that this moderate hit would reduce the chances of the severe air quality issues that Sacramento, Reno and Carson City have been getting hit with for the past week.

At any rate, I have all sorts of environmentalist hippie type friends. A good many have some pretty unrealistic ideas regarding alternative power sources or implementation of conservation measures that would reduce the need for carbon fuels or electricity. But the thing is, most of them also love, love, love a big natural wildfire; they are big proponents of "let it burn" policies, even if places their own homes at risk.

When I worked there, Yosemite also limited some managed fires during weekends - wouldn't want to ruin the view, you know. That too seemed short sighted but was a political necessity. If someone takes a week off for their once-in-a-lifetime trip to Yosemite, and can't see a thing or breath well due to the smoke, there is a good chance they'll send letters to their representative.



* within the National Park, I don't know about the National Forest.

 

[crescent]

Now this wouldn't be that big of a problem if they logged properly but the logging method of choice these days are large clear cuts. And that is the absolute wrong thing if you want to prevent these huge wildfires. Clear cuts leave vast swathes of the forest with trees of the same age that will all go up at once if they are ever in a fire..

Back in the previous administration there were proposals to work with the timber companies to reduce fuels while harvesting a few trees to cover costs. The dastardly, evil enviros opposed that.

Of course, that generally had to do with the fact that the plan pretty much allowed removal off most all of the larger trees (which generally survive most fires), along with the smaller stuff. In other words, traditional logging, albeit under a different name. It would have not mimicked natural processes in any way, nor would it have done much to reduce fire risk over anything beyond a half decade or so.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Those are in the comments, not the article, right?

Are you surprised? The Republic Party blames Obama for Katrina.

It's a fire management issue, Yellowstone went through the same thing as did Oregon with the Biscuit fire. When you put out all the small fires, conditions build for one great conflagration.

I do hope it doesn't reach your house Travis.

 

[Dymanic]

The Republic Party blames Obama for Katrina.

It's a fire management issue

I'd say it's more of an idiot management issue.

I do hope it doesn't reach your house Travis.

Things are looking pretty good on that side of the fire. They've just lifted the evacuation advisory for Tuolumne City.

 

[NoahFence]

Wow. People can be real idiots, huh?

 

[Checkmite]

As Travis pointed out, the location where the fire is burning is already a managed and logged younger-growth forest; and nobody has complained about prescribed burns there except logging companies.

 

[Travis]

I should also note that there are huge tracts of private land enclaves within the national forest owned by the logging companies. And they are the bits that are just absolutely overloaded with fuel.

People point out that Yellowstone recovered rather well after its fire and think this fire must be the same. Completely ignoring that this fire is very different because it is burning different types of trees with different fuel loads at a different time of year at lower altitude.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I should also note that there are huge tracts of private land enclaves within the national forest owned by the logging companies. And they are the bits that are just absolutely overloaded with fuel.

People point out that Yellowstone recovered rather well after its fire and think this fire must be the same. Completely ignoring that this fire is very different because it is burning different types of trees with different fuel loads at a different time of year at lower altitude.

I'm not sure the Yellowstone and Biscuit fires were that different. They still had the main problem of burning the larger older trees. Forests still recover, but if the old growth Redwoods or the Sequoias were ever lost, they'd be gone forever.

 

[Travis]

Well from what I understand lodgepole pines, such as they have in Yellowstone, don't burn with the intensity that a ponderosa pine does.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well from what I understand lodgepole pines, such as they have in Yellowstone, don't burn with the intensity that a ponderosa pine does.

I can believe that, ponderosas IIRC have a lot more pitch.

I didn't mean the fires were exactly the same, but the same issue, if you don't suppress small natural fires that don't burn the larger trees the forest recovers more quickly. If you let that underbrush fuel get too thick, the fire burns the crowns, killing the entire forest.

California wildfire containment efforts complicated by 'crown fire'.

Yellowstone: Crown fires accounted for about 41 percent of all the area that burned. (Fascinating article, BTW, saying huge conflagrations about every century or two are part of the natural cycle of Yellowstone.)

Exploring Patterns of Burn Severity in the Biscuit Fire in Southwestern Oregon

Vegetation structure and weather explained most of the variability in crown damage from the Biscuit Fire

Really a lot of good fire science in that last link as well, more than I knew about the causes of larger conflagrations.

 

[angrysoba]

Happy Birthday Travis!

 

[Travis]

Happy Birthday Travis!

Oh, thanks.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Geez, I thought ours was big. Stuart Creek 2, 85,000 Acres. We had to evacuate. It was pitch black at noontime, driving with headlights on to get out. Twigs and red hot cinders raining down. It was pretty spooky. I have pictures of it breaching the last set of hills before our valley. We could see the flames and as it got darker we told the fire command we thought it looked pretty bad, and they were saying no problem, got it under control... it stormed through 34,000 acres in a matter of hours, really incredible. We were right here watching it get blacker and blacker, then the cinders coming down.

We had our own personal fire truck. On our property. They had 800 people from all over the country fighting it, but the men really made no difference. It was the rain that stopped it, just as it was leaping over the river. Had that not happened it would have grown as big as yours in just a matter of days. This was the day before they evacuated us, breaching the last hills.

What we did then was run away...run away...bravely run away like monty python's movie.

I can't believe how much land is involved in yours. 300 square miles.

 

[LSSBB]

I should also note that there are huge tracts of private land enclaves within the national forest owned by the logging companies. And they are the bits that are just absolutely overloaded with fuel.

People point out that Yellowstone recovered rather well after its fire and think this fire must be the same. Completely ignoring that this fire is very different because it is burning different types of trees with different fuel loads at a different time of year at lower altitude.

"She has huge... tracts of land"

But seriously, folks. I was expecting some kind of rant about the Hatch Hetchy reservoir.

 

[Fishstick]

A good advice: http://neverreadthecomments.tumblr.com/

 

[CORed]

The evolution of conservative scapegoating for wildfires is interesting. At the time of the Yellowsone fires in 1988, they mostly were scapegoating the environmentalists because some of the Yellowstone fires were allowed to burn. At that time, they were mostly advocating returning to fire suppression. Now it seems that they are acknowledging that fire suppression is not the best idea, and claiming it's the environmentalists' fault.

Fire suppression was actually institued by old school forestry management and conservation types. They're goal was to manage the forests for sustained timber production, and the belief was that by suppressing fire, they could save the trees for the loggers.

The reasons for the spate of massive, devastating wildfires in the western USA over the last few decades are complex, and past fire suppression is certainly a big factor, but the biggest factor is probably drought. If the forests get dry enough, they are going to burn, no matter how they are managed.

It seems likely that the chronic drought over the West is at least partly due to CO2-driven climate change, something the right-wingers, of course, like to deny is even happening. I suspect that the large fires and massive insect-kills being seen all over the West may be the first stages of a permanent, climate-driven deforestation. I suspect that a significant portion of the forests that are being lost will never grow back, especially in the drier area. I think it's likely that a lot of the western US is simply becoming too dry to support the kind of forest cover that it used to.

As far as management goes, assuming that at least some forest is sutainable, it would seem that we need a natural burn policy in backcountry areas, and a lot more prescribed burns in populated areas. A lot of forested areas in the western US have homes scattered all through them. A natural fire regime is probably not going to work in these. There have been some token efforts at prescribed burns in these areas, but nowhere close to what is needed. Property owners also need to do a better job of keeping their property defensible, i.e. clearing treas and brush from around their houses and outbuildings. There is understandably a lot of resistance to this; most of these folks moved into the forest to enjoy nature, and now the authority's are trying to convince them to cut down all of their trees.

A lot more fires are being allowed to burn in wilderness and other unpopulated areas, but it is going to take a long time for this to make much of a difference. A combination of lack of funding, liability concerns and air quality conerns is keeping prescribed burns from happening in the "urban wildland interface" as some like to call it than needs to be done. One of the unpleasant truths is that sometimes prescribed burns get out of control and end up causing the kind of damage they were meant to prevent. It's necessary to wait for the right conditions to do a prescribed burn. Too wet, and nothing will burn. Too dry and too windy, and you may end up starting the next big wildfire.

 

[CORed]

Back in the previous administration there were proposals to work with the timber companies to reduce fuels while harvesting a few trees to cover costs. The dastardly, evil enviros opposed that.

Of course, that generally had to do with the fact that the plan pretty much allowed removal off most all of the larger trees (which generally survive most fires), along with the smaller stuff. In other words, traditional logging, albeit under a different name. It would have not mimicked natural processes in any way, nor would it have done much to reduce fire risk over anything beyond a half decade or so.

Bush's proposals were pretty much a scam to bypass environmental safeguards to allow more logging, under the guise of reducing fire danger. The truth is that fire suppression always was to a large degree about trying to save the trees for the loggers. Also. Logging operations often leave a lot of debris around that increases fire danger.