Pope Flick Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 just so I'm clear...."much of this could be avoided if they weren't such tree-huggers" is whining, and "I'm breathing smoke" is not? Sure, why not? He's complaining about things, while I read them in the smoke. Am I complaining about the smoke or simply making a statement? I think you know it's the latter. Actually, YOU'RE the one who started the whining, 3 states over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Maybe if Azz sent John Elway over there to try to put them out and then Terrell Davis came along and actually did put the fires out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 If there was some deforestation there wouldn't be that brush. I'm well aware of the wildfires we've had here in Texas. I'm also well aware most are put out easily and don't make the national news year after year after year. Could that be because we don't have 60 years of unburnt brush because we log our forests? Or, it could be that there is nothing noteworthy to be burnt down in Texas. How about hippies then? Tell them it's pot burning. From what I understand, one (if not more) of the fires was started by illegal pot growers of the Mexican cartels while they were tending to the crop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 I have yet to complain. I've asked a simple question and you got all defensive. BTW, California has only 60% of the area that Texas does, so it stands to reason that Texas would have more acres burnt. Also like previously noted, we don't risk life and limb to put out a pasture fire, as in many cases it is actually beneficial. So it would make sense that Texas has more acreage burnt than California, yet if you look back on average California has a higher percentage of acreage lost than Texas. Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Bottom line is the hippies in Cali don't want to do any kind of fire control which involves cutting or burning a tree. False. When I was a fire fighter we did some controlled burns. I've seen some controlled burns recently around here, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 I build my house on a flood plain and it got flooded; I blame liberals tree huggers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 False. When I was a fire fighter we did some controlled burns. I've seen some controlled burns recently around here, too. That's always a fun stress free exercise for the regional fire management control officer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 I have yet to complain. I've asked a simple question and you got all defensive. BTW, California has only 60% of the area that Texas does, so it stands to reason that Texas would have more acres burnt. Also like previously noted, we don't risk life and limb to put out a pasture fire, as in many cases it is actually beneficial. So it would make sense that Texas has more acreage burnt than California, yet if you look back on average California has a higher percentage of acreage lost than Texas. Why? Well, even running with simple math, if CA is 60% of Texas' size, yet Texas has over twice as many fires, it appears you have asked yet another question that has no basis in reality: Texas has more fires per acre than California. That's your answer right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 (edited) Pope, I went out and looked it up. From 2002 to 2008 (the data only went back to 2002) according to the National Interagency Fire Center, California has averaged 692978.85 acres wildland fires. Over the same period Texas averaged 490824.85 acres of wildland fires. The land area (total area less lakes) of California is 155,959 square miles. The land area of Texas is 261,797 square miles. So on average each year California will have 4.4 acres per square mile burn. Texas will only have 1.8 acres per square mile burn. So as you can see California is 2.44 times more likely to burn than is Texas. Again you also have to keep in mind that a lot more effort is exerted to put out fires in California than in Texas as in many cases Texas will let pastures burn as previously noted. Edited September 1, 2009 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Sure, why not? He's complaining about things, while I read them in the smoke. Am I complaining about the smoke or simply making a statement? I think you know it's the latter. Actually, YOU'RE the one who started the whining, 3 states over. Well, even running with simple math, if CA is 60% of Texas' size, yet Texas has over twice as many fires, it appears you have asked yet another question that has no basis in reality: Texas has more fires per acre than California. That's your answer right there. See my post just above this. This year is just an anomaly. If you average that data, what I've been saying is true and makes complete sense. Even if you include this year using the year to date numbers and average it with all the data available (back to 2002), California is still significantly higher at 628449.75 acres burned versus 513020.25 acres burned for Texas. So my argument is valid, and you are left pissing in the wind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 1, 2009 Author Share Posted September 1, 2009 popeflick is to as cre8tiff is to and irash is to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 I build my house on a flood plain and it got flooded; I blame liberals tree huggers. Hey, I'm right there with you. Only an idiot would build their house in a flood plain or below sea level right next to the sea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 popeflick is to as cre8tiff is to and irash is to You are about the last person here who should bag on someone for using smilies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 See my post just above this. This year is just an anomaly. If you average that data, what I've been saying is true and makes complete sense. Even if you include this year using the year to date numbers and average it with all the data available (back to 2002), California is still significantly higher at 628449.75 acres burned versus 513020.25 acres burned for Texas. So my argument is valid, and you are left pissing in the wind. Jebus, you are just a wealth of knowledge. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/resea...dm-20090630.gif This is why this year is an anomaly; it usually isn't like this. You live in wildfire country you are going to get burned. Drought conditions, degree of topographical relief, dead fuel dryness, availability of flashy quick burning fuels leading to thicker pockets of fuel, winds, low relative humidities, and remoteness of hard to get to country, all have a lot more to do with extreme fire behavior than how many Grateful Dead and Phish fans in the near vicnity. Southern California has all the necessary ingredients and these are the main reasons its typically the wildland tinder box of the country. The stockpiles of fuel do attribute ; but a lot of that is 80+ years in the making. Before whatever PC pressure there were to put fires out; it's something that was always done because we didn't know any better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Pope, I went out and looked it up. From 2002 to 2008 (the data only went back to 2002) according to the National Interagency Fire Center, California has averaged 692978.85 acres wildland fires. Over the same period Texas averaged 490824.85 acres of wildland fires. The land area (total area less lakes) of California is 155,959 square miles. The land area of Texas is 261,797 square miles. So on average each year California will have 4.4 acres per square mile burn. Texas will only have 1.8 acres per square mile burn. So as you can see California is 2.44 times more likely to burn than is Texas. Again you also have to keep in mind that a lot more effort is exerted to put out fires in California than in Texas as in many cases Texas will let pastures burn as previously noted. Post #38 and you finally went and looked something up? Good for you! Here's the problems with your stats, and I cannot find the info on the site: they list WILDLAND fires, while you break down CA and TX as total acreage. So my question is this, sherlock: what is the total number of WILDLAND acreas/per state (as definied by the NIFC) and THEN you can compares apples to apples? You've selectively applied facts to bolster your argument but in fact you could still be very wrong. When you have the land area of wildland acreas for each state then you might have something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Post #38 and you finally went and looked something up? Good for you! Here's the problems with your stats, and I cannot find the info on the site: they list WILDLAND fires, while you break down CA and TX as total acreage. So my question is this, sherlock: what is the total number of WILDLAND acreas/per state (as definied by the NIFC) and THEN you can compares apples to apples? You've selectively applied facts to bolster your argument but in fact you could still be very wrong. When you have the land area of wildland acreas for each state then you might have something. Anyone with half a brain could see that the conclusions I was coming to were logical. Do you honestly think California has more wildland than Texas? If you do, then you need your head examined. You might need that anyway though. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to continue to prove the obvious if you are too dense to take it in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 1, 2009 Author Share Posted September 1, 2009 You are about the last person here who should bag on someone for using smilies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 FWIW I am willing to compare my forestry credentials with anyone here. Just give us a heads up before you or Perch head the USDA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 (edited) Anyone with half a brain could see that the conclusions I was coming to were logical. Do you honestly think California has more wildland than Texas? If you do, then you need your head examined. You might need that anyway though. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to continue to prove the obvious if you are too dense to take it in. FAIL. Yes, I DO think it's possible that California has a larger chunk of its state (as a %) set aside as "wildland" than Texas does. Having lived there, I'm well aware of the HUGH number of ranches that sprawl for hundreds or thousands of acres and contain mothing more than ranch land. I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that land is NOT considered wildland by your chart. CA has Santa Barbara to San Diego, SF, and the central valley that is one large farm. Everything else here is probably close to being considered wildland. How much "wildland" lies between Dallas and Lubbock for instance? Not much, I'd be willing to bet. So you talk out of your ass, finally produce some numbers and get called out on you mis application of said numbers. So...you walk away. Who's pissing in the wind? ETA - even a cursory search for National Parks acreage (which would probably fall under the "wildland" table from your site) shows that California has 8x the acreage that Texas does, acre for acre. And since Cali is only 60% of the total siize of Texas that is a steep percent right there. There's nothing obvious in what you say, no matter how much conviction you put behind it. Edited September 1, 2009 by Pope Flick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Or, it could be that there is nothing noteworthy to be burnt down in Texas. wurd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 1, 2009 Author Share Posted September 1, 2009 (edited) so pope, your argument now rests on the hope that california somehow has more wildland than texas? wildland is just any land that is not cultivated, correct? when they talk about wildfires, they are essentially taking about anything not involving manmade structures or cultivated land (and I've never heard of farmland fires being much of a problem). I think you are grasping at straws here with this implication that maybe texas somehow has more non-wild-fires. california has a larger population (more city acreage) and, as the leading agricultural state in the country, I would imagine it also has more non-city cultivated land. edit to add: from the glossary at the national wildfire coordinating group, which is linked directly from the national interagency fire center which was the source of perch's numbers: Wildland An area in which development is essentially non-existent, except for roads, railroads, powerlines, and similar transportation facilities. Structures, if any, are widely scattered. clearly, the numbers aren't just including national parks and such. it's ANY undeveloped land, and texas surely has a LOT more than california, both in terms of total acreage and probably also as a percent of total acreage. Edited September 1, 2009 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 That's always a fun stress free exercise for the regional fire management control officer. They were usually pretty small, and were often used simultaneously as a training exercise. I grew up in rural California, so brush fires were a legit concern. Typically we'd have some farmer or private land owner who was worried about a fire hazard on their property and would invite the fire department to do a controlled burn. I thought it was pretty fun, but I was like 18 at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 (edited) http://silvis.forest.wisc.edu/Library/Maps...iblk_00_hnd.gif http://silvis.forest.wisc.edu/Library/Maps...iblk_00_hnd.gif I really have no hope involved here. Perch simply keeps shooting from the hip. If he lived in Rhode Island and railed on how many gallons of polluted water Minnesota has, but RI has a greater percentage of polluted water in its one lake, what kind of footing is he on? About the same here. it's ANY undeveloped land, and texas surely has a LOT more than california, both in terms of total acreage and probably also as a percent of total acreage. Why? Because you say so? He's pointing to that one chart (which is fine) but then taking the numbers and mis-applying them (which is not fine). The maps I linked above, actually seem to show that Cali has a larger percentage of wildland (as shown by green) than Texas does. Those vast white areas are BOTH undeveloped but NOT wildland due to lack of vegetation. So yes, much more than National Parks goes into it, but if you've ever been around both California and Texas like I have you'd realize that much more of Texas is in private hands than California is, which also makes a difference. Basically, the entire eastern half of California, and the top quarter of the state is one big national forest tucked into the Sierra Nevadas. Texas doesn't have anything similar. The "developed" areas of california are mainly on the coast, with the exception of Sacramento and Tahoe both of which are surrounded by the forests. So my thesis is this: California has a much larger percent of it set aside as wildland than Texas does. It's total acreage of said classification is probably closer to Texas' than you or perch is willing to admit. Said land is fire prone, and because it isn't located on flat ground is much more problematic to contain and makes for great pictures on the evening news. ETA: http://silvis.forest.wisc.edu/Library/WUIDefinitions.asp is where I got the maps from, and reading the print seems to indicate these run along the same definitions that perch's site used. I think they're cross agency info... Edited September 1, 2009 by Pope Flick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 1, 2009 Author Share Posted September 1, 2009 The maps I linked above, actually seem to show that Cali has a larger percentage of wildland (as shown by green) than Texas does. Those vast white areas are BOTH undeveloped but NOT wildland due to lack of vegetation. the green denotes vegetation, it doesn't denote wildland. the white is either agriculture OR, I guess, desert (which of course WOULD be wildland, though not much of a fire risk). in any case, you can't really compare one state to another, because the landscape, climate, vegetation are so different. but it certainly does seem to be the case that southern california has less of a handle on the wildfire problem than just about any other part of the country. perch and polk are the first people I've heard say that a big factor in that is the reluctance to implement large-scale controlled burns or clearing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhippens Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Just to throw something out there..... The Capitol has a lot larger influence on timber and fuels management than states do by controlling the dollars associated to those programs. So, while the State's may have a bit of control, specifically on State Forests, the money split up and allocated to the USFS and BLM is from DC with slight regional level tweaking. With that said, it's pretty obvious that depending on what political party is in control, these dollars go up and down based on how much they support or don't support forest management (logging, controlled burns, fire staffing, etc.). But to be honest guys, this "problem" has been going on a heck of a lot longer than "4 years" or the previous "4 years" could even attempt to fix or control based on their personal feelings. Clinton did his part, Bush did his part, and Obama will do their part all because they put someone in office that has a certain belief as to what forest management is. No more, no less. The whole Southwest, much of the Northwest, and Alaska have serious wildfire issues and I wouldn't exactly say Arizona, Montana, or New Mexico are filled with hippies. California might have slightly more liberal regulation of their dollars but the packed landscape and terrain along with wind patterns account for a lot of complications. At the same, it's fair to say politics plays it's part. My opinion is the matter is clearly not as black and white as many would like to make it. (This message is approved by this moderate conservative). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.