News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:California will begin backing intentional burns to contro... by throwawaymaths on Friday June 23, 2023 @11:40AM (#36448398)
moreover people have been calling for controlled burns for decades (if anything, typically republicans). It's hard to believe at this point what's holding it back is racism.
Re:California will begin backing intentional burns to contro... by mrcrumb1 on Friday June 23, 2023 @12:19PM (#36448988)
The regulations ban the practices is the racism here
Re:California will begin backing intentional burns to contro... by primitivesuave on Friday June 23, 2023 @01:29PM (#36449863)
Part of what's holding it back is expensive multi-year environmental reviews for logging projects. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li_Rv4t2htc
Re:California will begin backing intentional burns to contro... by w7b7s7 on Friday June 23, 2023 @02:31PM (#36450575)
Yes, selective logging and controlled burns have to be paired if the forest has ever been clear cut.

Where I live (Santa Cruz Mountains) the vast old growth redwood trees were extensively logged (via clear cutting) into the early-to-mid 20th Century.

Then widespread logging just stopped. And for at least the past 50-60 years there has been intense hostility to logging. Everywhere, doesn't matter if public or private land.

The redwood groves that have grown back are all extremely densely packed, relatively small diameter trees mixed in with tan and coast live oaks and lots of smaller shrubbery. Lots of low branches on all trees. Lots of redwood needles and dead tan oak and coast live oak leaves laying thick on the forest floor.

Perfect tinder.

About 3 years ago a lightening storm sparked a fire that burned hundreds of thousands of acres.

Controlled burns would have helped remove the forest duff. But the trees themselves are perfectly set up to respond to fire, unlike in an old growth forest.