[ExI] an unfortunate investment in trees

[Dan TheBookMan]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:55 PM Dave Sill via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 1:34 PM Anton Sherwood via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> The fires are worse than they might be because the woods are denser than
>> they would be if people had not worked so hard for decades to - guess
>> what - stop fires!
>>
>> Can we hope for a policy shift, to tolerate small fires to keep the tree
>> population at a more natural density?
>>
>> That would mean more rationality than is typical in public policy.
>>
>
> I'm pretty sure California's foresters know how to manage forests to
> minimize the risk of uncontrollable fires, that they've communicated that
> to their superiors, and that that communication has reached the political
> level, where those suggestions have been deemed not conducive to
> re-election.
>
> -Dave
>

I believe the long-term bias has been for zero tolerance for fires. And
this has lead to a lot of fuel around for fires when they do happen -- as
they will. And, yeah, for years I've heard forestry folks say some fire is
a healthy part of healthy forest/ecosystem, but the bias against fire is
strong here. It's kind of like trying to tell people some housefires lead
to healthier communities. So it's easy to see why most people (or most
voters or most homeowners living near all that fuel) are tough sells on
this issue.

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200911/1de023c5/attachment.htm>