OMG I couldn’t believe Trump suggesting we need to rake and clean the forests and promising we are going to make the forests safe again. Every time I thing this guy can’t possibly show us how little he knows about a subject, while at the same time suggesting he knows everything about it, well i just have to wait a while.

Finland has excellent raking and no fires. Trump is outsmarting you at every turn.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And the Mexicans are gonna pay for it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Finland is the world’s sixth most northerly country. Finland falls approximately within the same latitudes as Alaska.


I am glad someone else started this Thread!!! seeing I am obsessed with attacking him at every turn and spreading misinformation and giving him the praise he deserves when he accidently does his job



On a foreign visit today to California, the USA Leader (he wore a USA cap so the Californians would know where he’s from) declared that had the people of California done “more raking” these fires wouldn’t happen. He repeated that there is no “climate change” but added, “I want great climate.”

Michael Moore

"Its all funny HAHA Trumps an Idiot" he doesnt always say things perfect but in this case he is partly correct. When it is illegal to take dead or fallen trees on government land in CA for personal use firewood, yet is legal in many other western states. In Idaho you purchase a permit for about $50 for the year to cut up to 5 or 6 cords of dead and fallen trees for personal use. Instead of Mexico (haha) paying for it, you have locals paying to remove the dead trees. And CA also severely cut the funding of creating fire breaks and fire prevention programs over the past 10 years.

Fires happen in all forests no matter how much removal of dead growth is done, however it is MUCH easier to battle a fire that does not have decades worth of dead growth trees feeding the damn fires.

It is also a lot easier for fire crews to move around on a forest floor that isn't a pile of dead trees. My brother is a "Hot Shot" crew member in Idaho and he says most of the fires in CA, you cannot effectively use hot shot type fire crews because of the danger to them and their limited mobility due to the dead growth. The fires happen no matter what the cause, electric company issue, camp fires, or lightning, but CA makes it unnecessarily dangerous and difficult to fight these fires when they occur.

"Its all funny HAHA Trumps an Idiot" he doesnt always say things perfect but in this case he is partly correct. When it is illegal to take dead or fallen trees on government land in CA for personal use firewood, yet is legal in many other western states. In Idaho you purchase a permit for about $50 for the year to cut up to 5 or 6 cords of dead and fallen trees for personal use. Instead of Mexico (haha) paying for it, you have locals paying to remove the dead trees. And CA also severely cut the funding of creating fire breaks and fire prevention programs over the past 10 years.

Fires happen in all forests no matter how much removal of dead growth is done, however it is MUCH easier to battle a fire that does not have decades worth of dead growth trees feeding the damn fires.

It is also a lot easier for fire crews to move around on a forest floor that isn't a pile of dead trees. My brother is a "Hot Shot" crew member in Idaho and he says most of the fires in CA, you cannot effectively use hot shot type fire crews because of the danger to them and their limited mobility due to the dead growth. The fires happen no matter what the cause, electric company issue, camp fires, or lightning, but CA makes it unnecessarily dangerous and difficult to fight these fires when they occur.
A lot of these fires aren’t even starting in the forest though and the feds control a majority of the forest land in CA anyway. From what I’ve read the private land management in California is actually quite good.

Bigger issue seems to be more people living in fire prone areas and climate change which is cooking an already dry climate.

Regardless, with 1200+ still missing, nearly a hundred already dead and thousands of first responders and firefighters risking life and limb this is shaping up to be an epic American tragedy...

That Trump’s first instinct is to blame others is pretty pathetic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump’s tactics are plainly obvious. There is a repetitive cycle of him blasting something rediculous to get people arguing about it. The real problem is climate change.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump still doesn’t buy into climate change, when asked why he didn’t believe the scientific community on climate change, he suggested they have a political agenda so it’s not believable. To suggest raking and cleaning the forest is laughable, the west cooks to a point anything will set it off and then add those winds and no fire round or preburn in the world is stopping it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this has nothing to do with his belief on climate change. California votes democratic and he hates Democrats for not voting for him and so he thinks of some way to criticize them even if it's making it up. He does this repeatedly. He is incapable of expressing empathy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am glad we live on the other side of the country where Trump likes us and has already fixed the global warming(climate change to snowflakes).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump doesn't come up with these ideas on his own. And his less than eloquent and imprecise way of communicating them doesn't help his image when they're added to by those who wish to call him stupid without researching if he has a point.

Forest mismanagement, especially regarding major forest fires, has been a political issue for at least the past few years.

Various solutions have been offered, such as the one Cool Beans offered here. there are also complaints about not reducing overgrowth by preset, controlled fires.

Trump brings up these problems and solutions in his inimitable way of sounding foolish, which is immediately jumped on by his naysayers, and another clown meme is created.

http://thelens.news/2016/03/03/sometimes-to-prevent-fires-you-have-to-set-fires-lawmakers-mull-dnr-reforms/

http://thelens.news/2017/01/24/planned-fires-to-prevent-mega-fires-in-washington/

Trump doesn't come up with these ideas on his own. And his less than eloquent and imprecise way of communicating them doesn't help his image when they're added to by those who wish to call him stupid without researching if he has a point.

Forest mismanagement, especially regarding major forest fires, has been a political issue for at least the past few years.

Various solutions have been offered, such as the one Cool Beans offered here. there are also complaints about not reducing overgrowth by preset, controlled fires.

Trump brings up these problems and solutions in his inimitable way of sounding foolish, which is immediately jumped on by his naysayers, and another clown meme is created.

http://thelens.news/2016/03/03/sometimes-to-prevent-fires-you-have-to-set-fires-lawmakers-mull-dnr-reforms/

http://thelens.news/2017/01/24/planned-fires-to-prevent-mega-fires-in-washington/

And why do you think this is suddenly required, do you think climate change might be contributing? Why do you think building codes on our own seaport are changing and disaster planning is having to address flooding in areas they didn’t in years past. Trump thinks the change is only temporary and the scientific community warning us of things to come, just has a hidden political agenda.

You can rake the forest and encourage clear cutting, but those might be just bandages for a short term fix.

I also think that in light of the suffering and losses, that is not the time to be putting the blame on forestry management, but he likes to throw paper towels and hand out leaf rakes in times of dispare.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump doesn't come up with these ideas on his own. And his less than eloquent and imprecise way of communicating them doesn't help his image when they're added to by those who wish to call him stupid without researching if he has a point.

Trump brings up these problems and solutions in his inimitable way of sounding foolish, which is immediately jumped on by his naysayers, and another clown meme is created.

After a while one would think Trump would take advantage of the resources available to him to prepare public statements so he is not perceived to be a fool
It’s not the media’s job to interpret his off the cuff remarks as he sees fit
It’s a tough job and he asked for it, nobody made him run
Public perception is a big part of his job and he doesn’t understand that he has to sell to more than his base
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And why do you think this is suddenly required, do you think climate change might be contributing? Why do you think building codes on our own seaport are changing and disaster planning is having to address flooding in areas they didn’t in years past. Trump thinks the change is only temporary and the scientific community warning us of things to come, just has a hidden political agenda.

You can rake the forest and encourage clear cutting, but those might be just bandages for a short term fix.

I also think that in light of the suffering and losses, that is not the time to be putting the blame on forestry management, but he likes to throw paper towels and hand out leaf rakes in times of dispare.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

By all means, let us not pay attention to short term fix bandages.

As for the rest, I don't know, you seem to be certain, or more certain than not. I suspect if the people of California want to initiate climate change policies that prevent forest fires, they can do it. We've been told over and over that California is richer than most other countries. It is probably the most progressive State in the union. No doubt the California politicians and government planners are smarter than Trump. They can surely do the long term fix without Trump.

Governor Jerry Brown was appreciative of the work FEMA was doing and thanked Trump for calling attention to the problem. Trump said there will be federal funding for forest management. That there will be state and federal cooperation on the problem.

But, of course, Trump is a clown.

The Finnish are posting pics raking or even vacuuming the forests, to ridicule Trump’s claim that Finland’s president told him their nation rakes the forests to prevent fires. (Finland’s President said he never discussed it with Trump.)
Raking America great again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

After a while one would think Trump would take advantage of the resources available to him to prepare public statements so he is not perceived to be a fool

Enough voters did not perceive him to be a fool. And his actual record in business and politics has not been foolish. You may not like him, you may disagree with him, but he has not been foolish. And what those who voted for him wanted from him, he has to a great degree given it to them.

It’s not the media’s job to interpret his off the cuff remarks as he sees fit

It's not the media's job to misinterpret. Often the misinterpretation is so off the mark that it appears to be obvious. So obvious that the media itself looks foolish, or devious. But those who hate him, as is evidenced in spades on this forum, relish making most everything he says a lie, or racist, or homophobic, or misogynist, blah, blah . . . and the media fuels that perception.

It’s a tough job and he asked for it, nobody made him run

When he ran, he ran hard and made his opponents look like fools. Now, it may be foolish to make enemies, but a lot of that cuts both ways.

Public perception is a big part of his job and he doesn’t understand that he has to sell to more than his base
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This notion of "the media's job" is a hoot. I don't know if the media ever did the job we are told it was supposed to do when it comes to politics and Presidents. But, if the real job of corporate media is to make big and bigger profits, then what sells is what it will concoct. And what sells has evolved more and more to be contentiousness and scandal.

And it's no longer believed that those in the media are not biased. Many of them even openly show their bias. And public perception is heavily influenced by media bias. There is nothing Trump can do to persuade the media to paint a favorable picture of him. Except to just shut his mouth and be like a Democrat (again--as in when he was popular with the media).

But this is all obvious, and has been hashed over on the forum so much that it has really become boring.

From what I’ve read the private land management in California is actually quite good.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

clearly....

Context
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just imagine what the 15,000 troops could’ve done to help that forest fire instead of being sent to the Mexican border. #Sad
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just imagine what the 15,000 troops could’ve done to help that forest fire instead of being sent to the Mexican border. #Sad
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

tell us :kewl:

Just imagine what the 15,000 troops could’ve done to help that forest fire instead of being sent to the Mexican border. #Sad
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think there has to be a request for US military help to fight fires. I don't think 15,000 troops can be requested.

The governor on his own can call up the National Guard of his state. Did Jerry Brown do that?

Would it be necessary to have the 15,000 Troops instead of the more usual small number of units the military uses to assist in fighting fires when help is requested. Are you implying that the Troops sent to the border should, instead, have been used to fight fires? That no troops should have been sent to the border? That only one or the other can be done?

Are you implying that the Troops sent to the border should, instead, have been used to fight fires?

yes...where they could shoot at the fires to try to put them out :hs:

An ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure #smart
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Dotard screwed up the name of the town twice.

Dotard screwed up the name of the town twice.

see other thread...

see other thread...

I'm not going to look at another thread for your posts. If your posts are longer than a sentence I usually ignore them due to expected snarky nature of the majority of them.

This notion of "the media's job" is a hoot. I don't know if the media ever did the job we are told it was supposed to do when it comes to politics and Presidents. But, if the real job of corporate media is to make big and bigger profits, then what sells is what it will concoct. And what sells has evolved more and more to be contentiousness and scandal. Trump uses contentiousness and scandal very skillfully

And it's no longer believed By Trump's base that those in the media are not biased. Many of them even openly show their bias. And public perception is heavily influenced by media bias. There is nothing Trump can do to persuade the media, other than state news to paint a favorable picture of him. Except to just shut his mouth and be like a Democrat (again--as in when he was popular with the media).

But this is all obvious, and has been hashed over on the forum so much that it has really become boring.
He would need to act like a man, not the reality tv star he thinks he is.
Words have more consequences in his current position than just ratings, one would hope the job of President as a leader is not purely transactional. It's obvious that you would disagree with that.

I'm not going to look at another thread for your posts. If your posts are longer than a sentence I usually ignore them due to expected snarky nature of the majority of them.
You don't miss anything if you block him

You don't miss anything if you block him

he needs the attention...

He would need to act like a man, not the reality tv star he thinks he is.



wasn't he a reality tv star?

wasn't he a reality tv star?
He think's that is his job as president
I've done reality TV
It's not real

He think's that is his job as president
I've done reality TV
It's not real

He think's that is his job as president is being a reality tv star?

Simple, just look at Trump's obsession with ratings as a barometer of success (he calls polls ratings and I guarantee he knows what Fox's ratings were for his interview yesterday), his love of pageantry (we need a parade like that), and his failure to observe that there is a difference between rumor and fact.

Pete...you remind me of Tickle from Moonshiners...was that you?

He would need to act like a man,

That's a very sexist comment. Is it that good old fashioned manhood preference? Are you saying that acting like a women or a gay or a transgender would not get him positive press coverage? Are you inferring that some sort of male gender way of acting is needed to be "presidential"? Maybe it's because he often acts like a "man" that he is looked at so negatively by leftists, including most of the media.

not the reality tv star he thinks he is.

Do you really think he is acting like a reality TV star? Do you really think he doesn't know how actually real and consequential his actions as President are? I haven't watched reality TV for some time and very little when I did. So I don't know what they act like. But he doesn't appear to me to be acting. I do realize that the image of him acting like a Reality TV Star is a biased meme used to make him appear foolish. And that various media promotes and reinforces that meme.

Words have more consequences in his current position than just ratings, one would hope the job of President as a leader is not purely transactional. It's obvious that you would disagree with that.

Transactions are done with words. As well, words are the content of propaganda. Words are the most useful tool to influence voting. The words that the "normal" politicians, or whatever adjective you might use to describe them, speak with in our political arena are mostly shaded toward deceitful meaning, mostly meant to demean opposition, and are mostly empty or erroneous promises to eliminate societies problems--problems which are often manufactured with words to create perceptions of critical problems needing to be solved and solved only by them and their words.

I think the people hunger for what they think are positive transactions. Many are tired of the empty, contentious, antagonistic, accusatory, ultimately phony words. But many welcome and are energized by those words hurled against their political enemies.

Personally, I have stopped listening to the verbal political pablum. There are a few, key, fundamental things I look for or listen for. The other words, to me, are political speak.

And it appears to me, that for most voters, it's the political speak that wins their vote. It's obvious to me, that you would vote based on correct political speak.

Pete...you remind me of Tickle from Moonshiners...was that you?

A+
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete's correct in my opinion (well in this case)


Pete...you remind me of Tickle from Moonshiners...was that you?

Nahhh, nothing like Tickle

Pete's correct in my opinion (well in this case)




don't encourage him! :lossinit:

don't encourage him! :lossinit:




That is the problem, sometimes those on that side are actually correct. Just not all the time (or most of the time) [or half the time] :bl:

You can rake the forest and encourage clear cutting, but those might be just bandages for a short term fix.

But WRT fires, this has been the proper solution for some time. Why do they do controlled burns from Wareham thru the Cape? Before and independent of Global Warming?

I also think that in light of the suffering and losses, that is not the time to be putting the blame on forestry management,

Yes, but blaming Trump is OK ; )

I generally can't stand the guy and didn't vote for him. Still not convinced he is worse than she would have been.

But WRT fires, this has been the proper solution for some time. Why do they do controlled burns from Wareham thru the Cape? Before and independent of Global Warming?



Yes, but blaming Trump is OK ; )

I generally can't stand the guy and didn't vote for him. Still not convinced he is worse than she would have been.

I'm not arguing that controlled burns should be part of the solution, clearly that is sound management, but I also see the climate change in that part of the country and the terrain severely limiting the affect that will have. Consider the heat, how dry everything is and then put 70 mph winds up the face of a rugged mountainside and your controlled burns better be a mile wide.

As for beating up on Trump, IMHO the amount of empathy that guy has shown could fit in a shot glass. He's great to try to show some after the media calls him out on comments he's made; but he always seem to want to lay blame on something or somebody well ahead of any empathy shown.

My understanding is that controlled burns in CA are hard because of the climate as well as proximity to large cities that already have poor air quality much of the time. They have to evaluate all this before a burn permit is issued.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My understanding is that controlled burns in CA are hard because of the climate as well as proximity to large cities that already have poor air quality much of the time. They have to evaluate all this before a burn permit is issued.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sounds like California is an environmental mess from the git go.

Personally, I have stopped listening to the verbal political pablum. There are a few, key, fundamental things I look for or listen for. The other words, to me, are political speak.

Perhaps Trump and the Trumplicans could pass an Enabling Act and then you would get some more of the fundamental things you need without those pesky constraints or naysayers holding him back, the consequences thereof are of little importance.

My understanding is that controlled burns in CA are hard because of the climate as well as proximity to large cities that already have poor air quality much of the time. They have to evaluate all this before a burn permit is issued.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about some controlled clear cutting

Perhaps Trump and the Trumplicans could pass an Enabling Act and then you would get some more of the fundamental things you need without those pesky constraints or naysayers holding him back, the consequences thereof are of little importance.

No, an enabling act would destroy the fundamental things on which the Constitution was written. You are really stuck on the Trump equals Hitler meme.

No, an enabling act would destroy the fundamental things on which the Constitution was written. You are really stuck on the Trump equals Hitler meme.
But Do you think Trump would have an issue with that approach?
He certainly thinks Congress should fulfill his wishes and that without him all will fail.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about some controlled clear cutting


Firefighters immediately pointed out errors in Trump's assertions. The Woolsey Fire started not in a forest but on a hillside near Simi Valley before spreading to suburban communities, while the Camp Fire is burning in an area thinned by fire 10 years ago. Forest management didn't cause these blazes and California is considered a leader in Forest management on private lands.

“Prescribed burns alone will not stop that, but it is a tool that we can use to reduce the effect of those large fires, . again facts dont matter

But Do you think Trump would have an issue with that approach?
He certainly thinks Congress should fulfill his wishes and that without him all will fail.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I avoid mind reading. Don't have the psychic powers. Don't know what Trump would think about an enabling act. Nor if he knows what that is. Any halfway decent advisor would tell him not to ask for such a thing. Wouldn't be prudent (as GHWBush would say}, nor possible.

But, I suspect, most Presidents would wish that they could do whatever they wanted. Several have acted that way through various unconstitutional maneuvers that they got away with. Andrew Jackson was a bit of a tyrant. Nixon was considered an imperial President by some. FDR and his administration admired the central planning of the Soviet Union as a Progressive model for government getting things done. His whole New Deal was an effective beginning of our current administrative state, which surplants Congress's duty by enacting rules that govern us. The nearly unimpeded efficiency of our federal administrative bureaucracy is a centralized authority that would be the envy of the old U.S.S.R.

L.B. Johnson was an effective bully. And Obama was fairly effective at bypassing Congress to get what he wanted done. http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/19/10-ways-obama-violated-constitution-presidency/

If Trump can successfully write illegal executive orders (those that are outside of his enumerated executive power), he will have had some solid precedents to guide him.

How about some controlled clear cutting




A buddy of mine lives out there and it was recommended but the local gov officials down voted for environmental reasons.

Cali is also growing so much with densely packed housing and water fights from neighboring states you cannot run much water.

Firefighters immediately pointed out errors in Trump's assertions. The Woolsey Fire started not in a forest but on a hillside near Simi Valley before spreading to suburban communities, while the Camp Fire is burning in an area thinned by fire 10 years ago. Forest management didn't cause these blazes and California is considered a leader in Forest management on private lands.

“Prescribed burns alone will not stop that, but it is a tool that we can use to reduce the effect of those large fires, . again facts dont matter

So Spence mentions the issues with permitting controlled burns and I make an alternative suggestion about clear cutting and your response is "But Trump" and "Facts"

Today they started selling recreational marijuana in mass, I suggest you partake, it may loosen you up a bit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fires can start anywhere but they will flourish in an area where it is illegal to harvest dead wood.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fires can start anywhere but they will flourish in an area where it is illegal to harvest dead wood.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you have any facts to back that up? I have never seen that mentioned as any of the unique reasons Calif. has forest fires.

I suspect there isn't a big demand for cord word where those fires are popping up. Around here I love to scoop up some free firewood after our Northeasters, but in some of those million dollar homes with the panoramic views; I'm pretty sure they aren't looking for wood for heat.

I suspect there isn't a big demand for cord word where those fires are popping up. Around here I love to scoop up some free firewood after our Northeasters, but in some of those million dollar homes with the panoramic views; I'm pretty sure they aren't looking for wood for heat.
If you have seen the recent damage then you would realize these are not expensive homes for the most part.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you have any facts to back that up? I have never seen that mentioned as any of the unique reasons Calif. has forest fires.

Knowledge is power.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you have any facts to back that up? I have never seen that mentioned as any of the unique reasons Calif. has forest fires.
I think TDF said it once so now he thinks he’s all read up on the topic. Only prohibitions I’ve ever heard of are for areas under quarantine because of disease or insect infestation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about some controlled clear cutting
They’ve actually done a lot of this over the last decade.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Knowledge is power.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pls. share - that is why I asked.

I thought it had a lot to do w/the type of wood there, the hills/canyons, the wind they get, the rain in the spring which turns things green and then the veg. dies in the summer/fall due to lack of rain. The forests aren't the same as here or Norway either.

Google is your friend here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pretty comical argument
Take a ride down a road in Paradise on Google maps street view or another fire area.
Then come up with some brilliant way to fireproof suburban California
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.777657,-121.6206542,3a,75y,265.93h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGfODw1Rkpb0vs5i17ND4CA!2e0!7i1 3312!8i6656

Google is your friend here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought that was the type of answer I would get.

I suspect there isn't a big demand for cord word where those fires are popping up. Around here I love to scoop up some free firewood after our Northeasters, but in some of those million dollar homes with the panoramic views; I'm pretty sure they aren't looking for wood for heat.

When your state government makes it damn near illegal or impossible to actually cut firewood or bring it in from another state, most people tend to use "socialized heating" where they are forever dependent on city gas, oil or electricity. When you cut your own firewood you feel more independent and less reliant on others to provide heat for your family, so it is only natural for Californians to find ways to limit or prohibit this.

Pretty comical argument
Take a ride down a road in Paradise on Google maps street view or another fire area.
Then come up with some brilliant way to fireproof suburban California
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.777657,-121.6206542,3a,75y,265.93h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGfODw1Rkpb0vs5i17ND4CA!2e0!7i1 3312!8i6656

You would be surprised how well the dead dried old growth wood tends to create huge flying burning ash that just loves to float down and land on houses. The more dry dead growth there is, the more fuel these fires have, and the harder it is to fight. A forest fire of mostly live growth is much slower to spread and much easier to put out, but add 20% or more of dry dead fuel and things like this fire happen.

Load your fireplace all the way to the top with green wood and chances are you wont even be able to light the damn thing, but fill it to the brim with dry wood and you will likely burn down your damn house.

They would need a lot of people who want or use firewood
The trees are not some large New England tree, some of them can take two days for a crew to take down, but for the most part they can do 20 a day and I'm not sure that includes brush removal.
This is from 2016 and the number of dead trees had more than doubled in the previous year, do you think it went down in the following two years?
Estimates by the U.S. Forest Service put the number of dead trees in California forests at 102 million, broad swaths that officials call a wildfire and public safety risk. Declaring a state of emergency last fall when the count stood at 40 million, Gov. Jerry Brown ordered state agencies to clear the hazards.

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-sierra-tree-mortality-20161129-story.html

You would be surprised how well the dead dried old growth wood tends to create huge flying burning ash that just loves to float down and land on houses. The more dry dead growth there is, the more fuel these fires have, and the harder it is to fight. A forest fire of mostly live growth is much slower to spread and much easier to put out, but add 20% or more of dry dead fuel and things like this fire happen.

Load your fireplace all the way to the top with green wood and chances are you wont even be able to light the damn thing, but fill it to the brim with dry wood and you will likely burn down your damn house.
Two years ago they had a million dead trees in California and were trying to take care of them, more trees have died in the time since.
Just clearcutting the dead trees creates another problem, which will be the next issue in the fire areas, mudslides. Calfire is pretty proactive with the funding they have and the new Cali building codes make new houses more fireproof. However that does little for the old stock of homes.
Luckily we don't have that issue in New England, though a long drought in the northern forest would create the chance for a large forest fire.
There are lots of trees dying in Vermont and other parts because people imported firewood and brought foreign pests.
https://vtinvasives.org/gallery-of-forest-pests

I think TDF said it once so now he thinks he’s all read up on the topic. Only prohibitions I’ve ever heard of are for areas under quarantine because of disease or insect infestation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Huh???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought that was the type of answer I would get.

I learned it from Spence
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When your state government makes it damn near illegal or impossible to actually cut firewood or bring it in from another state, most people tend to use "socialized heating" where they are forever dependent on city gas, oil or electricity. When you cut your own firewood you feel more independent and less reliant on others to provide heat for your family, so it is only natural for Californians to find ways to limit or prohibit this.

:rotflmao: So it's all a liberal conspiracy to enslave the people by lashing them to public utilities :rotflmao:

Do you have any facts to back that up? I have never seen that mentioned as any of the unique reasons Calif. has forest fires.

He doesn't have any facts because it's not true...use the Google Chris! :tm:

He doesn't have any facts because it's not true...use the Google Chris! :tm:

I did.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device