[Goose]

The tree population has expanded in the same way. According to the linked report, a healthy forest should have between 40 t0 60 trees per acre. California forests have between 100 to 200 AND massive amounts of small shrubbery, dried leaves and branches, and, of course, a lot of dead trees from the drought and losing the battle for survival. They are tinderboxes just waiting for the right match. Despite the 10 fold increase in population since the 30's, California forests have 30% more trees now than they did 90 years ago. They are, plainly and simply, too damn dense.

Managing this situation is necessary, clearly, given what we have seen. Unfortunately there are lots of different points of view on how this should be accomplished, and getting agreement on what to actually do will not be easy. It will also cost some money. One interesting problem I am aware of is that there is opposition to dead tree removal because of fear of damage to the healthy forest while doing so. It should be possible to balance these concerns, but so far it hasn't be accomplished.

This has nothing to do with which party controls the legislature or who's President. It has taken nearly a century of pretending this wasn't a problem to get here, and it's going to take a long time to undo it.

Was it pretending it wasn't a problem or just disagreement about the seriousness of the problem and inability to agree on what needed to be done?

The legislative report that I have linked is dispassionate - but it does indicate that expenditures of immense proportions are going to have to be made to give the people of California any safety from this.



One thing I am for is creating fire breaks - big ones, so that fires can not spread as quickly and easily as they do. That probably is environmentally unfriendly, but it cannot be worse for the forests than these fires.  And while we don't want forests logged out of existence, it is obvious that MORE logging would actually be good for the environment. It's a happy medium, Aristotle's golden mean. While we were worried about doing too much, we haven't done enough.



2. Climate Change. I'm not going to discuss the science and the endless (needless) controversy. But I will go anecdotal. On the night of the major lightning strike, Nina and I were awakened at about 2:00 by thunder as loud as the crack of doom. This was followed by a lightning show that went on for about an hour, and reoccurred well into the morning. In 67 years living in this county, I have never seen or heard anything like it, not even in rainy season. I have been through thunderstorms in New York and I remember one of great intensity when I was very small, in Park Forest - Midwestern, Great Lakes weather.  But events like that simply have not happened in my lifetime in California.



Climate change or unusual, aberrant weather? I don't know. All I can tell you is that you needed both elements to cause this mess - forests that have become firebombs due to neglect, and a weather event that sets them off.



These are just my thoughts after reading this very interesting (though rather dry) analysis. But I have linked it, so you can read it for yourself.

Thanks for the link, and for the points you have made. I fear that forest management just isn't "sexy" enough to get the attention it deserves. I hope I am wrong.

[Goose]

The tree population has expanded in the same way. According to the linked report, a healthy forest should have between 40 t0 60 trees per acre. California forests have between 100 to 200 AND massive amounts of small shrubbery, dried leaves and branches, and, of course, a lot of dead trees from the drought and losing the battle for survival. They are tinderboxes just waiting for the right match. Despite the 10 fold increase in population since the 30's, California forests have 30% more trees now than they did 90 years ago. They are, plainly and simply, too damn dense.

Managing this situation is necessary, clearly, given what we have seen. Unfortunately there are lots of different points of view on how this should be accomplished, and getting agreement on what to actually do will not be easy. It will also cost some money. One interesting problem I am aware of is that there is opposition to dead tree removal because of fear of damage to the healthy forest while doing so. It should be possible to balance these concerns, but so far it hasn't be accomplished.

This has nothing to do with which party controls the legislature or who's President. It has taken nearly a century of pretending this wasn't a problem to get here, and it's going to take a long time to undo it.

Was it pretending it wasn't a problem or just disagreement about the seriousness of the problem and inability to agree on what needed to be done?

The legislative report that I have linked is dispassionate - but it does indicate that expenditures of immense proportions are going to have to be made to give the people of California any safety from this.



One thing I am for is creating fire breaks - big ones, so that fires can not spread as quickly and easily as they do. That probably is environmentally unfriendly, but it cannot be worse for the forests than these fires.  And while we don't want forests logged out of existence, it is obvious that MORE logging would actually be good for the environment. It's a happy medium, Aristotle's golden mean. While we were worried about doing too much, we haven't done enough.



2. Climate Change. I'm not going to discuss the science and the endless (needless) controversy. But I will go anecdotal. On the night of the major lightning strike, Nina and I were awakened at about 2:00 by thunder as loud as the crack of doom. This was followed by a lightning show that went on for about an hour, and reoccurred well into the morning. In 67 years living in this county, I have never seen or heard anything like it, not even in rainy season. I have been through thunderstorms in New York and I remember one of great intensity when I was very small, in Park Forest - Midwestern, Great Lakes weather.  But events like that simply have not happened in my lifetime in California.



Climate change or unusual, aberrant weather? I don't know. All I can tell you is that you needed both elements to cause this mess - forests that have become firebombs due to neglect, and a weather event that sets them off.



These are just my thoughts after reading this very interesting (though rather dry) analysis. But I have linked it, so you can read it for yourself.

Thanks for the link, and for the points you have made. I fear that forest management just isn't "sexy" enough to get the attention it deserves. I hope I am wrong.