Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On Jul 31, 2026 at 3:30:12 PM EDT, "dart200"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On 7/31/26 12:21 PM, Tara wrote:
>> On Jul 31, 2026 at 3:13:55 PM EDT, "dart200"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 7/31/26 12:10 PM, Tara wrote:
>>>> On Jul 31, 2026 at 2:25:03 PM EDT, "Julian" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 31/07/2026 19:06, Tara wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2026 at 12:40:32 PM EDT, "Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 7/30/2026 3:50 PM, Tara wrote:
>>>>>>>> Julian <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 30/07/2026 19:56, Tara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2026 at 2:53:09 PM EDT, "Julian" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/07/2026 19:29, Tara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2026 at 2:04:17 PM EDT, "Julian" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sadly he was proved right. So was I. After I warned in these very pages
>>>>>>>>>>>>> last year that government policy was worsening the fire risk on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> moorland, it gives me no pleasure to say: ‘I told you so.’
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Ridley
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Indigenous peoples in North America have been conrolling the threat of wild
>>>>>>>>>>>> fires with prescribed/controlled burns for centuries. Canada is looking to do
>>>>>>>>>>>> the same in co-operation with our native people. We have a problem doing this
>>>>>>>>>>>> however because of the acessibility and vastness of our forests. But in a
>>>>>>>>>>>> country the size of Britain (and other European countries), it seems to me
>>>>>>>>>>>> that controlled fires are a no brainer.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Are inaccessible fires in vast forests really a problem?
>>>>>>>>>>> I think they're as likely good for the land's long term health.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> There is that, but an uncontrolled fire can massively grow and send a lot of
>>>>>>>>>> smoke to people populated areas.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> A bit like a volcano.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yeah like that.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The northeast US is hundreds of miles from the wildfires yet we've had
>>>>>>> serious air quality warnings this year and last. A few weeks ago it
>>>>>>> literally dimmed the sun for several days, making what was otherwise a
>>>>>>> clear day look cloudy.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wildfires-smoke-millions-exposed-midwest-northeast-us/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Those pictures are not an exaggeration. That's what it really looked like.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Meanwhile the idiot treehuggers think they know what's best.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am an admitted tree hugger but I am also a realist and think that one answer
>>>>>> here is controlled burning. Another is education and strictly enforced laws
>>>>>> against those who are careless and start fires through laziness and ignorance,
>>>>>> clearing vegetation around and near dwellings and building fire resistent
>>>>>> homes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That would probably be more effective than increasing the price
>>>>> of petrol, gas and electricity for already stretched workers.
>>>> 
>>>> yah. And somebody should point out to the 'tree huggers' that controlled
>>>> burning actually saves more trees than not doing it because left to itself
>>>> wildfires will continue to happen. And trees will burn even more so because of
>>>> the weather changes and encroachment.
>>> 
>>> given that u actually live in canada maybe u should spend half a second
>>> researching what it takes to do effective fuel management for the
>>> forests ur actually talking about
>>> 
>>> god boomers are so stupid
>> 
>> https://treeplantation.com/controlled-burning
> 
> yes tara, controlled burns are an effective fuel management strategy,
> but not _all_ kinds of forest
> 
> i said research the techniques used in the forest you're actually
> concerned about: canadian boreal forests are not the same as for example
> californian sierra nevada forests

Duh. If you care to look back a bit, the problem with fires in boreal forests
(in
Canada) has already been addressed in a post on this n.g.