[Goose]

I think what GR meant was not so much clearcutting fire breaks or cutting through shrubs, but thinning out the number of full grown trees, which do have economic value.  I haven't fact checked this statement, but:

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. A couple of commentators have made the ironic point that the excessive amount of carbon dioxide the trees emit actually contributes to global warming. 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.

If he is correct on the facts, then I wonder whether it would be economically helpful to thin parts of the forest back down to the "healthy forest" level.

BC

Assuming he is correct on facts, the problem would be to thin the forest while not damaging the trees you intend to keep. It can be done, but it is lots harder than clear cutting and therefore less lucrative. There used to be small logging companies that specialized in this kind of thing, where they couldn't cut the whole thing down. I don't know if they still exist, because it got very hard to obtain permission to cut anything.

[Goose]

I think what GR meant was not so much clearcutting fire breaks or cutting through shrubs, but thinning out the number of full grown trees, which do have economic value.  I haven't fact checked this statement, but:

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. A couple of commentators have made the ironic point that the excessive amount of carbon dioxide the trees emit actually contributes to global warming. 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.

If he is correct on the facts, then I wonder whether it would be economically helpful to thin parts of the forest back down to the "healthy forest" level.

BC

Assuming he is correct on facts, the problem would be to thin the forest while not damaging the trees you intend to keep. It can be done, but it is lots harder than clear cutting and therefore less lucrative. There used to be small logging companies that specialized in this kind of thing, where they couldn't cut the whole thing down. I don't know if they still exist, because it got very hard to obtain permission to cut anything.