Trump's Plan to Save the Forests

Lol he offers up an idea to help in anyway, they seeth and parrot slander against him. Its not even a discussion anymore. Thats the only reason i agree with his decision not to debate the dunces. His actions and words have been consistent to a higher degree than any other president to date. I'm positive biden will have another climate accident. Hope yall dont get displaced a reply to: TDDAgain

a reply to: nugget1

Many of these channels that were former rivers, made straight back then. Like the first picture in the article were changed back to "nature". Then they were touched a second or more times to lay stones on the side because erosion. Then finally someone got a voice and they did the right thing.

We have Borkenkäfer ("Bark beetle") infestation here, what leads to even more fire risks. The tips of the trees dry out and then the whole tree dies because the water can not flow up anymore. What leads to the resin inside the tree not being available for protection, stress and ultimately dying.

I inherited a little forest, not a big one just around football stadium size or less. It is mono-culture with spruce only, planted right during or after WW2 because of all the tree felling back then for coal or building materials, trenches, weapons etc. Not only is it very succeptible to storm damage, because spruce does not root too deep, it also needs constant tending. Unlike a real forest. Two years ago I was billed for the helicopter that went over it to release anti bug stuff. Not that I had a choice but this is how far it came.

I go to forests often, lately not so much but I learned from my mother how to "read" the forest. She was the type of woman who would have been burned as a witch in earlier times. Even in regions where we were on vacation, she would suddenly walk off road with her determined look and minutes later rejoin with berries, nuts or herbs. She just knew how to read the plants and a bit I learned too. It's not really hard but needs practice. Like being aware of the forest when walking through and picking up the signs.

When I walk through that small forest, it tells me nothing except it is almost wasteland. No light reaches the ground, the trees are all in a neat grid, there is almost nothing growing underneath except moss and sometimes mushrooms. When I go there in winter, there are almost no animal imprints or paths. Because the forest has nothing to "deliver". Deer won't go there because nothing to hide. Rabbits won't go there and build holes. Maybe also because the earth is too sour from the monoculture. It's really sad there compared to a lively mixed forest that came to be naturally.

Even in the natural forest humans took everything they could think of. There is only one boulder left and only because it was too big and inaccessible to pull it out for building material. That is my meditation spot where I also do my embracing rituals on full moons and special dates. Very often I would open my eyes after some meditation and notice a rabbit, deer or what I find best, crows around not even minding me. I am unsure if it because I do not make noise and not move or if it is because the animals got so used to humans they do not mind my presence.

My offerings are always taken though, the crows however do not trust me yet and brought no gifts yet. Not that I expect.

I live in the Big Valley (California).

Over the past few weeks or so, I have been using Google Earth to trace, and look at waterways, rivers, streams, creeks, and sloughs, mainly in the valley but also up into the mountains in California. When there is a lot of rain, I see a lot of water. The rivers, levies, and sloughs fill to the brim.

California needs to make better use of this valuable resource, either by building more dams to store it or flow some into mega thousands of acres of idle farmland, and orchards, to recharge the water table and divert some into the mountains and forests if you like. That helps recharge our seriously depleted water table and improve the forest ecosystem.

There is a creek along the street a block over. It was just a seasonal creek that started a mile northeast of here. It continues west as a creek, then becomes a slough, which eventually flows into the delta which flows out to sea via San Francisco harbor. In the 1850s they built an earthen dam at the spot that the slough connected to the Delta. This allowed the water to back up all the way up the slough and creek, as a reservoir, which they used for growing crops.

There are a lot of things that need to be done in California's forests. They have been poorly managed and haven't been thinned out as needed.

a reply to: SmilinArt

Like steers that go into a rage when seeing red, it is orange that triggers these sad people. Imagine being so obsessed that years after his term they still can not let go of him.

They want him destroyed to the ground because of their internal hate. But to the outside they act like peace loving people, "cumba ya" and all. I loled so hard at the inclusive CHAD areas (for me it was terrorism, for them it was "paradise") and the first reports about "black only gardens" and getting robbed.

These people are hypocrites to the maximum and do not even get it. It got a bit better since Trump is out of term but they still can not let go.

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: TDDAgain

.....
When Trump was POTUS he also addressed the mismanagement of our national forests going back decades. Decaying underbrush on the forest floor and refusing to allow controlled burns isn't a recent problem; it's been discussed and fought over for decades, and now that the devastation predicted is happening it's being blamed on 'climate change.
......

When Trump was POTUS he was in charge of the national forests. Why didn't he fix the problem then if he's such a genius at such things? If he didn't fix it when he was POTUS before, what makes you think he would fix it if he became POTUS again?

Part of the problem IS due to climate change. As many climate change deniers like to point out, CO2 in the atmosphere is essentially a fertilizer for many plants. Those plants that can use excess CO2 in the atmosphere grow faster and bigger (not all plants can make use of excess CO2). The temperate forests of North America are one example of where biomass has been accumulating at a higher rate than was true 100 years ago, because of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere since that time. The North American hardwood and softwood forests have been producing biomass at a rate that is much faster than we have been harvesting it, since about WWII. Another name for "biomass" in the forest is "fuel". That's one reason that forest fires burn hotter and faster now than they used to. There's a lot more fuel per square meter today than there used to be.

It's not just a neglected, aging power grid and forest mismanagement that is causing such devastating fires; it's also just as many decades of water resource mismanagement.

Mexico has bought 1.5 million acre feet of water from the Colorado river since the 40's; that wasn't a problem in the past, though there were many who objected and predicted exactly what is happening now.

The desert was opened to major farming; not only that, but high-water use crops like rice and alfalfa hay in Arizona. By the way, the alfalfa isn't for us livestock; it goes to Saudi Arabia, which is illegal for them to grow in their country because it uses too much water.

Then you have Nestle's in California, paying next to nothing to bottle water and sell for enormous profit. Add in fracking-which consumes billions and it seems trying to attack the problem at the root might actually create enough extra water to pull us out of this drought/fire cycle.

Spending billions to address just one small part of the problem isn't going to solve anything; it's caused by many different things creating the perfect storm and they all need to be addressed at the same time, with far more common sense than anyone has seen to date.

a reply to: QRST4

You say this was done in your hometown region. I'm not sure where you live, but I'm reasonably confident assuming that the entirety of the forested regions of California cover more area than your hometown region. Is that accurate?

Counter question: Have you ever heard of a town that covers more area than California? If not, your idiotic rhethorical question is answered.

But behold! You, too, can not be bothered to take the link I provided and put it into google website translator?

I do not see any duty to do that for you or the OP, since it is you and the OP claiming it can only be on a small scale. IDK about the burning, if that is a better option, so be it. I am not an expert in forests and neither are you.

At least I can provide proof and sources, you only provided your uneducated opinion.

a reply to: 1947boomer

Why didn't he fix the problem then if he's such a genius at such things? If he didn't fix it when he was POTUS before, what makes you think he would fix it if he became POTUS again?

Maybe because of all the rabid terriers on his calves?

And can Trump, for example, force California to do something about their forests? Like thinning out areas around electric lines? Wasn't it a democratic stronghold state that dismissed all this in favor of fire hazards?

Questions questions....

delete

a reply to: Annee

Where is the study backing up Crowfoot? What makes you think someone in charge of Californies Forest that does so many things wrong has any valuable input? Again, wasn't it California and their agenda to drop clearing out electrical lines that led to the devastating fires and death all around?

And isn't California THE Democrat's stronghold? Can you add 2+2 together?

Now let's talk about forest management again instead of politics, how does that sound?

delete

a reply to: 1947boomer

All the talking heads agree with you.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Couldn’t care less about your country, your town, your situation, your town, it’s irrelevant
Go do some research and stop sprouting your Trump disorder fallacies

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: TDDAgain
a reply to: TerryMcGuire
If this plan is feasable would have to be determined by a study or two. You and I are certainly not in the position to judge this. If it isn't then it isn't.

But of course the reactionary hate crowd can not think that far or knows these scientific processes.

Orange Man Bad

Orange Man simplistic? Is this water coming from rain in Northern Cali? Is there enough rain to dampen what forests are left in all the state? Entertainment is Donald's trade.

Whose trade is it to ignore the dry forests and let half of everyone's houses burn down already in California? Hint: It isn't Donald Trump's. You don't have to like him to acknowledge that BTW.

Whose order was it that said "don't let anyone escape the burn zone in Hawaii? Not Trump's.

Perhaps you should reevaluate things.

Whose trade is it to actually put forth workable plans to prevent forest fires? It would be those people who are in the trade not a wanna be president who puts out these sensationalized statements without any backup science or feasibility studies to appeal to the younger generations or the younger environmentalists who may not know the actual science involved.

Again, where is this water coming from? Donald suggests it will come from rain and that's all folks!

Whatever Trump's plan is, it will be a thousand times better than the current admin, plus current state governors ignoring these issues, even adding to the danger instead of helping stop it. letting everyone's houses burn down, (with people still in them unfortunately).

He speaks like a guy raised among concrete trees.

This is the same type in comment as the one about Europe raking their forests.

Totally correct and sensible but citified terminology.

Anyways, if he starts channeling water around all over the place he’s going to end up getting his a$$ Muammar Gaddafied.

a reply to: TDDAgain

Wow. Triggered you, I guess.

I didn’t see your link—I responded to a post above it. So cut the high and mighty routine.

My original question to you was not idiotic. You used the term “region”, which is a little squishy, imprecise. A region can be enormous, so for all I knew, the region in which your hometown is located is enormous. I was actually trying to cover my bases. I think we should chalk this one up to a simple misunderstanding.

Besides that, it’s not all that relevant to the other points I made and that you didn’t address. Despite that, I followed your link, and I have to say re-naturing admittedly looks neat. It seems like it would be a pretty big project to assess the viability of it given the terrain in certain affected areas of California (the sierras and siskyous), the gravity of the fire problem, and the ever-present issue of water. But who knows, it could be part of the solution, depending on the makeup of watersheds, etc. I’m not an expert, but I know some stuff about this because my family lost a property in northern CA to a fire and it’s been hell getting insured and rebuilding.

I still think thinning the forests is a better idea: there will less to burn if a fire does happen. In fact, the feds do too. At least one Northern California tribe is in the process of working out a deal where they get custody of the land, plus grants to pay workers for the job in the northern sierra foothills.

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: TDDAgain

.....
When Trump was POTUS he also addressed the mismanagement of our national forests going back decades. Decaying underbrush on the forest floor and refusing to allow controlled burns isn't a recent problem; it's been discussed and fought over for decades, and now that the devastation predicted is happening it's being blamed on 'climate change.
......

When Trump was POTUS he was in charge of the national forests. Why didn't he fix the problem then if he's such a genius at such things? If he didn't fix it when he was POTUS before, what makes you think he would fix it if he became POTUS again?

Part of the problem IS due to climate change. As many climate change deniers like to point out, CO2 in the atmosphere is essentially a fertilizer for many plants. Those plants that can use excess CO2 in the atmosphere grow faster and bigger (not all plants can make use of excess CO2). The temperate forests of North America are one example of where biomass has been accumulating at a higher rate than was true 100 years ago, because of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere since that time. The North American hardwood and softwood forests have been producing biomass at a rate that is much faster than we have been harvesting it, since about WWII. Another name for "biomass" in the forest is "fuel". That's one reason that forest fires burn hotter and faster now than they used to. There's a lot more fuel per square meter today than there used to be.

He didn’t do it for much the same reason that he didn’t build the wall that IS DEFINITELY NOT NEEDED RIGHT NOW.

Obstruction and media lies.

Trump Wasn’t Wrong That We Need to Take Better Care of Our Forests

www.esquire.com...

a reply to: QRST4

So cut the high and mighty routine.

Nope, I just don't like it when I have to answer the same question over and over in a different language, when it can be avoided reading what I wrote. It can be this simple.

My English is not of native tongue, so you will have to deal with some imperfections. And again, I also wrote that if thinning and burning is better, then so be it.

Maybe some points you addressed I already handled too, have you checked?

a reply to: alldaylong

Thanks all. I was twenty when this album came out and it took care of me for a while. I was just beginning to get a grasp on the perils of adulthood in a world slowly going mad around me. The hours I spent listening to it are uncountable.
It was followed by In Search of a Lost Chord and for a while that took it's place.

Oregon forestry land is poorly managed is why we have tons of raging fires. They destroyed the forest industry, wood industry, they let the train system and tracks rust and rot away. They had a train system all the way to the coast and they could of sold wood products all over to bring in revenue. Nope... what we get is stupid ass leaders and acres of wasted worthless burnt forest. Planting trees is simple, you drop seed bombs out of a plane from high altitude and you can plant entire forest in a matter of hours. That means less tree planters on the ground and more revenue for loggers to clear out swells of debris. Come up with a sound plan to chip up all that debris and use it and logout thickets of forest. There is no excuse to have homeless people out of work. We got a resource to build houses and sell the rest of the lumber around the world to pay for those houses to be built here. You have to use natural resource for a better economy that's all there is to it.