(11-19-2018 09:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  


That's what I, someone with firefighting experience, think of when someone says "rake to prevent forest fires"
Maybe not to the extreme they did in the video because it appeared to me they were clearing pasture land, but a dozer blade or two wide fire break would make a world of difference if combined with a regular prescribed burn rotation reducing fuel levels.

I'm going to make a wild (not) guess that you know a helluva lot more about this subject than do those who are making fun of the raking comment.

That means you, for one, cb.

(11-19-2018 09:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  



That's what I, someone with firefighting experience, think of when someone says "rake to prevent forest fires"

Maybe not to the extreme they did in the video because it appeared to me they were clearing pasture land, but a dozer blade or two wide fire break would make a world of difference if combined with a regular prescribed burn rotation reducing fuel levels.

That video appears to be shot in South Texas (at least at the end, the company that made it implies they're based down there). I'll assume the terrain down there is vastly different from California (and you admit that as much).

So my question is it possible to rake land like this in a national forest? How long would it take? Now I can't tell if Paradise is in a national forest or not, but it is fairly close to the Plumas National Forest in California - that national forest doesn't look like Redwood to me, but it does appear to have a lot of terrain that seems like it would be hard to rake.

Here's one picture I got of Plumas off the internet.



ETA - and I will add that this picture reminds me a bit of the Oakland Hills which aren't too far from where my brother lives. They had a pretty deadly fire of their own 25 years ago.

(11-19-2018 10:13 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 09:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  


That's what I, someone with firefighting experience, think of when someone says "rake to prevent forest fires"
Maybe not to the extreme they did in the video because it appeared to me they were clearing pasture land, but a dozer blade or two wide fire break would make a world of difference if combined with a regular prescribed burn rotation reducing fuel levels.

That video appears to be shot in South Texas (at least at the end, the company that made it implies they're based down there). I'll assume the terrain down there is vastly different from California (and you admit that as much).
So my question is it possible to rake land like this in a national forest? How long would it take? Now I can't tell if Paradise is in a national forest or not, but it is fairly close to the Plumas National Forest in California - that national forest doesn't look like Redwood to me, but it does appear to have a lot of terrain that seems like it would be hard to rake.
Here's one picture I got of Plumas off the internet.

ETA - and I will add that this picture reminds me a bit of the Oakland Hills which aren't too far from where my brother lives. They had a pretty deadly fire of their own 25 years ago.

I think "rake" is being taken way out of context, when what is meant is sensible forest management procedures, including cleaning up dead matter which his a fire hazard. Prudent management has been prevented by lawsuits leading to judgements prohibiting such practices. Thee are places where the approach shown in Kap's video would work, and other places where they would have to do something else.

I guess the question now is how many people have to die before it becomes okay to manage forests properly again?

(11-19-2018 10:13 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 09:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  



That's what I, someone with firefighting experience, think of when someone says "rake to prevent forest fires"

Maybe not to the extreme they did in the video because it appeared to me they were clearing pasture land, but a dozer blade or two wide fire break would make a world of difference if combined with a regular prescribed burn rotation reducing fuel levels.

That video appears to be shot in South Texas (at least at the end, the company that made it implies they're based down there). I'll assume the terrain down there is vastly different from California (and you admit that as much).

So my question is it possible to rake land like this in a national forest? How long would it take? Now I can't tell if Paradise is in a national forest or not, but it is fairly close to the Plumas National Forest in California - that national forest doesn't look like Redwood to me, but it does appear to have a lot of terrain that seems like it would be hard to rake.

Here's one picture I got of Plumas off the internet.

Yes and no. It would be possible to cut fire breaks on much of the land with heavy equipment, especially in the lowlands between mountains where much of the structural development is naturally built. The areas where you couldn't utilize equipment you utilize your fulltime wildland firefighting crews to cut the breaks by hand. Some areas you wouldn't have to cut breaks because of rock formations if you can properly tie in your lines. Work smarter, not harder and use what the good Lord gave you.

Established and maintained firebreaks combined with fuel load reducing prescribed burning on a regular rotation isn't going to stop wildfires but it makes the ones that do start less intense and with the established breaks it gives you far better access with both heavy equipment and handcrews than having to cut your own trail in. The authority having jurisdiction needs to be doing pre-incident planning and determining what kind of resources they are going to need for a fire in their area. It does not good to send engine companies into areas where hand crews, hotshots and smoke jumpers are the only way you can access the fire. Sending engine crews into those types of fires just makes the engines overpriced squad wagons.

Some of the responsibility falls on the property owners as well. They are the ones responsible for maintaining defensible space between their buildings and the wildlands in a wildland/urban interface fire by removing combustible landscaping from areas adjacent to the structure. They are the ones responsible for determining if the type of roof they have on their structure is fire resistant. They are the ones responsible for taking prevention measures like clearing leaves from gutters and sealing vents before a wildfire arrives. While I live in town and am backed up to the typical Southeastern floodplain hardwood bottom thus the fire danger is low I still follow "firewise" recommendations for my home.

Even with all of this there's going to be losses. Any kind of fire is fought by first determining what you are going to write off and where you are going to make your stand. With wildland fires you put in the work beforehand to limit the areas you have to write off.

Just blame white males so much easier.

I do think California is going to do something on managing its forested land. They realize they have to for self-preservation at this point.

The LA Times had an interesting quote on the Paradise fire today - don't know if this is new to everyone or not.

Experts agree that overgrown forests in California pose a heightened wildfire threat in some parts of the Sierra Nevada. But although Paradise is near forestland, the wind-whipped Camp fire tore across areas that burned in lightning fires in 2008 and were later logged. It was not fueled by heavy timber.

“It started out as a vegetation fire. When it reached the incorporated area, which is definitely a lot more urban and developed of an area,” Jonathan Pangburn, a fire behavior analyst for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, said in an interview last week, “it turned into a building-to-building fire ... no longer carrying through most of the vegetation, especially in the upper canopies in the trees. It was not a crown fire through the Paradise area.”

(11-19-2018 11:06 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I do think California is going to do something on managing its forested land. They realize they have to for self-preservation at this point.

The LA Times had an interesting quote on the Paradise fire today - don't know if this is new to everyone or not.

Experts agree that overgrown forests in California pose a heightened wildfire threat in some parts of the Sierra Nevada. But although Paradise is near forestland, the wind-whipped Camp fire tore across areas that burned in lightning fires in 2008 and were later logged. It was not fueled by heavy timber.

“It started out as a vegetation fire. When it reached the incorporated area, which is definitely a lot more urban and developed of an area,” Jonathan Pangburn, a fire behavior analyst for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, said in an interview last week, “it turned into a building-to-building fire ... no longer carrying through most of the vegetation, especially in the upper canopies in the trees. It was not a crown fire through the Paradise area.”

That tells me that Paradise could have been most likely protected by a proper fire break and management practices.

While vegetation fires typically move faster than a forest fire they don't normally pack anywhere near as much punch, and don't create the massive flying ember storms that a crown fire will. It was probably still fueled somewhat by the logging debris and leftover fuel from the 2008 fires, but if it were primarily a vegetation fire IMO what was described above would have made the difference.

People responsible for the mis-management of these forests should be charged with the deaths and lose of property.

How do the "environmental" groups not feel shame for all their stupidity.

(11-20-2018 08:13 AM)Paul M Wrote:  How do the "environmental" groups not feel shame for all their stupidity.

The secret behind a lot of Prog/Socialist groups is that they hate the "source" of the problem as they see it.

In other words, they hate Humanity itself.

They are perfectly fine with people dying. In their view, it's Humanity paying for its sins.

(11-20-2018 08:13 AM)Paul M Wrote:  How do the "environmental" groups not feel shame for all their stupidity.

Because their heart was in the right place.

Putting a few more facts into the discussion...
- Forest management practices are absolutely a problem, but it's not fair to say CA (and the US on fed-controlled land) isn't doing anything about it. Prescribed burns are common but suppressing ALL fires was the practice for 100 years so there's a ridiculous amount of backlog that needs to be addressed. I was just in Yosemite this weekend and saw prescribed burns but also the valley filling up with smoke from the Camp Fire.
- Forest management does run into conflict with air quality and/or greenhouse gas objectives and agencies are having trouble sorting their way out of the mess. That has to get straightened out.
- Drought is a huge problem. There are over 100 million dead trees in CA because of the bark beetle. Trees can't fight it off when they're dry and now we've got a massive amount of fuel (this just builds on the first bullet above - there is simply too much forest to manage in a short time).
- Malibu and Thousand Oaks fires have nothing to do with forest management. Many (most?) SoCal wildfires start in dry grass. Undeveloped hills down here have scattered oak trees at most, and lots of dry grass and other brush. In my community, which is surrounded by open space, we have a combination of fire breaks and irrigated green belts and though we've had a few fires in the surrounding hills not a single home in the community has been affected in 18 years.

Wildfires Conspiracy Theories


There are a lot of crazy people out there. I saw someone on Youtube said it was set by the Gov for the high rail trains that mapped through the area of Paradise. Someone else said it was started by UFOs in the area.

California Fire Survivors Brace for Debris-Filled Mudslides