Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth United States

All California National Forests To Temporarily Close Due To 'Wildfire Crisis' (cbsnews.com) 94

Posted by BeauHD from the new-normal dept.
All of California's national forests will be closed starting late Tuesday until mid-September to help "better provide public and firefighter safety due to the ongoing California wildfire crisis," said the U.S. Forest Service in an order (PDF). CBS News reports: The closures will be in effect from August 31 at 11:59 p.m. local time until the same time on September 17, according to the USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region. The order doesn't affect the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, the Forest Service said, because it's not in the Pacific Southwest Region. The Forest Service listed in its notice a variety of factors that went into making its decision, including public safety during emergency circumstances, along with decreasing "the potential for new fire starts at a time of extremely limited firefighting resources." Officials also listed criteria for those individuals who are exempt from the order, including those with a specific permit and those who are a federal, state or local officer carrying out an official duty.

Officials said that "more than 6,800 wildfires have burned 1.7 million acres across all jurisdictions in California, and the National Wildfire Preparedness Level ... has been at PL5 since July 14, 2021, only the third time in the past 20 years that the nation has reached PL5 by mid-July -- indicating the highest level of wildland fire activity." The Forest Service said in its order that "forecasts show that conditions this season are trending the same or worse as we move into late summer and fall."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

All California National Forests To Temporarily Close Due To 'Wildfire Crisis' More

All California National Forests To Temporarily Close Due To 'Wildfire Crisis'

Comments Filter:

  • Maintenance (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I was wondering when they would be closed for raking. Can’t believe those idiots didn’t do this sooner and stop the fires.
  • To seriously examine your carbon footprint. He knows you won't though, so carry on I guess.

  • Recall Newsome (Score:1, Interesting)

    by guruevi ( 827432 )

    Newsome has really bungled forestry management. Now he wants you to stay home to prevent wildfires?

    The primary cause of massive wildfires in California is the prevention of small wildfires. This governor is an absolute idiot and his only solutions are to lock you down and keep you home. Elect that black guy, or anyone else, to do better.

    • Re:Recall Newsome (Score:5, Insightful)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Tuesday August 31, 2021 @07:37AM (#61748107)
      Maybe you could blame him for continuing a policy that doesn't work, but he's not the one that signed this into effect or anything like that. I also really question to what extent he could do anything about it and I'd be far more concerned if he could given the implications of how much authority would have to be placed in his position for him to do that.

      Instead he becomes a useful effigy to burn and recalling him would do little to fix many of California's problems. Those go well beyond the ability of any one man. Even if someone like Elder, who's about the polar opposite of why you'd expect from a California politician, were to be installed as a replacement, do you expect he'd be able to make any difference?

      • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by Known Nutter ( 988758 )
        Are you really trying to engage in a discussion about California's governor with some rando who can't even spell the man's name?
      • Are you asking if we can see Larry Elder burning shit to the ground? Sure I can see that.
    • Sure, every other state governor has a policy of starting forest fires, what 's the problem with this Newsom fella anyway? Hang on, what's this? They don't? None of them you say? Well I suppose I owe someone an apology.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      How would that work, given that the state only owns about 3% of the forests in its borders? Are you suggesting that the state impose more regulations on private landowners? What about the 57% of California forests that are federally owned?

    • The primary cause of massive wildfires in California is the prevention of small wildfires.

      The primary cause of massive wildfires in California is the prevention of natives setting yearly fires. They were doing this for thousands of years before whitey showed up here and stopped them from doing it. The natives didn't think that natural fires were sufficient, and they were successfully managing these forests when the cultures we have today were developed.

      This governor is an absolute idiot

      As are most of them, so what?

    • Newsome has really bungled forestry management. Now he wants you to stay home to prevent wildfires?

      I really question your reading comprehension. The title and first line of the article says: "California NATIONAL forest". NATIONAL as in under the U.S. Forest Service meaning the Governor of California has little to do with the management of them. Or was your first instinct to blame him without even thinking?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by guruevi ( 827432 )

        State and county law enforcement personnel have full authority to enforce state law on national forests, there is another layer of federal laws that apply as well, but the state is responsible for most of the management and care (basically it is a huge work program paid for by the Federal tax dollar).

        The California state laws preventing actions that prevent dry growth and wildfires such as clearing brush, logging and controlled burning are entirely on the California state legislature.

        You probably heard abou

        • State and county law enforcement personnel have full authority to enforce state law on national forests,

          First of all, you were blaming the Governor of California for management of a national forest. I repeat: "management of a national forest". Please show me how law enforcement has anything to do with foresty management. I'll wait. Second while law enforcement can enforce state laws, they cannot enforce federal laws [usda.gov]; guess what management falls under?

          Although state and county law enforcement personnel have full authority to enforce state law on national forests, only forest officers can enforce the federal laws, rules and regulations that apply to the protection of the national forests.

          there is another layer of federal laws that apply as well, but the state is responsible for most of the management and care (basically it is a huge work program paid for by the Federal tax dollar).

          No the state is not [bbc.com]. This is just a bold faced lie.

          Federal agencies like the US Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the National Parks Service are responsible for the upkeep of federally-owned land, and as far as private forest land is concerned, it's up to the owners to manage these areas.

          The California state laws preventing actions that prevent dry growth and wildfires such as clearing brush, logging and controlled burning are entirely on the California state legislature.

          In state owned land. This is something you seem to miss. California manages forests owned by California.

          You probably heard about that guy that was sued by the state and ordered to pay thousands in fines for clearing out about an acre of trees in and around his property. His was the only house standing after a wildfire in the area, but the state continued to pursue the case in court.

          And h

    • California only has a little over 50,000 acres in State Forest that they manage. The rest of the public forests are National Forests managed by the Feds.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by eepok ( 545733 )

      Literally every sentence here is bullshit and as despite Brandolini's Law ("The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it."), I'm going to try to show why it's bullshit in just as many sentences.

      1. "Newsome has really bungled forestry management." - Please state how he has done so (policies, actions, etc.).

      2. "Now he wants you to stay home to prevent wildfires?" - No. He wants you to avoid going to California's National Forests-- you can go anywhere else.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        Now he wants you to stay home to prevent wildfires?

        What Newsome wants has little to do with the US Forest Service order. He could be closing state lands as well. But no news on that yet.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by cotu ( 412872 )

      the Caldor fire started as a 40 acre fire. the federal government is in charge of the vast majority of forests in California. where is your rake?
      and please learn to spell his name right: it's Newsom

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gawbl ( 941021 )
      Um, did you read the linked article? Summary? The order itself?
      The order is from the U.S. Forest Service. The governor of CA had nothing to do with this.

  • Sorry, Folks! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Forrest is closed. Moose out side should have told ya'.

  • This is what happens when you govern with the "Ay Bendito, Que Diran?"

    Translated: You CANNOT run a civilization, a country or a state with "Oh my GOD, what will they SAY!"

    You have to use cold, hard facts, not squishy feelings. Govern with Facts, not Feels. I can't stand the wishy-washy limp-dicked direction this country's taking.

    Harden the fuck up, do the proper forest management, and forget what the tree huggers say. Get rid of decades of dead underbrush and you may just improve everyone's day. But no

    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

      Harden the fuck up, do the proper forest management, and forget what the tree huggers say.

      The proper forest management hasn't been done because of conservative landowners who didn't want the burns the natives used to do every year to happen because it threatened their homes in the woods. Blaming liberals is stupid AF, par I guess.

      Get rid of decades of dead underbrush and you may just improve everyone's day.

      How? With rakes?

      • We are talking CA here. How many 'conservatives' are we talking here? Six? Most of the high dollar home owners are also liberal elites. No JR Ewings that I am aware of.

        • California has a massive economy. Plenty of big business conservatives live there.

        • We are talking CA here. How many 'conservatives' are we talking here?

          I know it seems like there's a whole bunch of liberals with a lot of money because of moviestars on the teevee, but those people are sharply in the minority of the wealthy here in California. Most of them are into big business just like everywhere else, and many of the moviestars aren't actually all that liberal anyway. The ones who aren't are just smart enough to keep quiet for the most part.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Uberbah ( 647458 )

          Most of the high dollar home owners are also liberal elites.

          ...who are also right wing assholes, just ones with delusions of moral superiority...

          • Im confused in your scale of left wing vs right wing. Is this merely a monitory scale? I was under the impression it stemmed from positions on various issues. Everything from deficit spending to abortion rights. So one could be living in a 10 million dollar home and still find themselves standing in front of an angry mob with a bullhorn on the eve of a judicial ruling.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Uberbah ( 647458 )

              Im confused in your scale of left wing vs right wing. Is this merely a monitory scale? I was under the impression it stemmed from positions on various issues.

              Policy is the only thing that matters in politics, which is why both parties and their media pals focus on personality. And on policy, your average Democrat is well to the right of Republican voters - who have long wanted to GTFO of Afghanistan, raise the minimum wage, legalize pot, and even "evolved" on ending DADT before Obama did, etc.

              But even suppo

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DarkOx ( 621550 )

        Its not a liberal / conservative thing - find my anyone who would say - "please start a large fire near my residence that you are not entirely sure you can control"

        The reality is a its a rent seeking thing. People own and build those homes in part because they know there is a federal forest service that will try to put out fires, there is state and federal disaster relief if their home/town is destroyed. If there was not these things people would build remain in these high risk areas or they would remove th

        • In Socal I'm getting kind of tired of having national parks "closed" every other god damn week because of some new bullshit emergency. Most of the National Forests down south aren't on fire and the idea that I can't use a park 10 miles away from me while a fire is burning 1000 miles away is insane. California wants to act like a country but then pulls dumb shit like this all the time. In no country in the world would they close all national forests just because of a seasonably normal event that happens lite

          • The state doesn't control the national parks. But keep misdirecting your anger.

          • You might be the most responsible park visitor in the world, but statistically some idiots will go in the parks and start fires. Resources are stretched thin, and places 1000 miles away from the main fires are the ones that need to consider that the most.

            I live in an area that burns and I've seen that play out. When you're close to a big active fire, they can quickly pull resources (especially air tankers) away from the big fire to get a fast grip on small starts.

            When you're 200 miles away from a big fire

      • “We should be basing these [burn ban] decisions on local factors and not socio-political factors,” says Bill Tripp, a deputy director in the Karuk Tribe’s Department of Natural Resources, implying that burn bans may be intended to limit liability for utilities like PG&E, or to avoid the negative optics of a planned burn while wildfires wreak havoc elsewhere. “The Forest Service and the local [Cal Fire] unit were with us in saying ‘we know this timing is right,’ but the decision is being made in Sacramento,” where Cal Fire is headquartered.

        https://www.motherjones.com/en... [motherjones.com]

        • Not sure what you were trying to prove with that, but the natives are the ones who know how to do the burns correctly. They were literally doing them for thousands of years before the raising of the pyramids in Egypt, before China invented paper, etc etc.

          • Sounds like they were agreeing with you. The natives wanted a local burn. The local firefighters agreed. However, the ban was still instituted by leadership which dismissed the native and local firefighters.

            The issue has become political and as such ignores the wisdom of natives who understood the local conditions necessary for a beneficial, controlled burn.

          • The point is the burn restrictions are coming from higher-up politicians in Sacramento, not private land owners. Even Cal Fire thinks there should be more burns, but the politicians are blocking them. If you read the article, it said that everyone is involved with the private burn effort, including progressives and conservatives. It's easier for private land owners to do controlled burns, as Cal Fire has to go through a year and a half of paperwork to get one approved.

            • The point is the burn restrictions are coming from higher-up politicians in Sacramento, not private land owners.

              You don't get how any of this works, do you? The game is rigged by the people with the money, and the politicians don't give a fuck about you if you don't have any.

              • You don't get how any of this works, do you? The game is rigged by the people with the money, and the politicians don't give a fuck about you if you don't have any.

                And the people with the money don't want controlled burns on public land to prevent wildfires because?

      • Harden the fuck up, do the proper forest management

        The forests used to manage themselves quite well. Fires were part of the natural management of the land and forest. Then humans came along and tried to manage the forests so there wouldn't be fires. Now, we have these massive fires because of forest management.

        • The forests used to manage themselves quite well.

          Not really, no. The forests did not peform any management, which implies cogitation. They merely burned randomly. The natives set fires every year which burned out the understory and left the larger trees intact, which had the effect of spreading forest extent.

          Then humans came along and tried to manage the forests so there wouldn't be fires.

          Your story is stupid and wrong. The natives were deliberately setting yearly fires for literally thousands of years prior to the white man showing up and prohibiting them from doing it. In fact, some of the first laws on the books in California prohib

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by DarkOx ( 621550 )

            yes that sounds pretty much like the definition of liberal. - Outlawing and preventing individuals from engaging in an activity they had been doing for 'thousands of years' does not sound conservative at all.

            • Outlawing and preventing individuals from engaging in an activity they had been doing for 'thousands of years' does not sound conservative at all.

              That's only true if you imagine that conservatives want to conserve things for the greater good, which is false. Conservative is a label like any other, which is to say meaningless when self-applied. Conservatives want to conserve everything for themselves, and everyone else can go fuck themselves. At its heart the ban on burns was about private property ownership and having ultimate control over your own land, which is a fundamentally "conservative" position. It was about stopping people from doing things

          • The forests did not peform any management, which implies cogitation. They merely burned randomly.

            It wasn't randomly and the forest has evolved to need those fires.

            The natives set fires every year which burned out the understory

            You mean just like what happened in the forest naturally about once a year? Amazing that they lived with the forest instead of trying to manage it and had better luck than modern forest management specifically because they didn't fight the forest and it's fires and instead of preventing the fires, managed them so they wouldn't be the raging wild fires we have now.

            natives were deliberately setting yearly fires for literally thousands of years prior to the white man showing up and prohibiting them from doing it.

            And, when the white man showed up and prohibited the annual fires thinking they

  • GTA V (Score:2, Funny)

    by fox171171 ( 1425329 )
    In Grand Theft Auto 5, you sometimes hear talk on the radio, and they say the fire season starts 1 January and ends on 31 December.
  • No park mandates! We're a free country! Lock up Hillary!

  • But nobody to rake the woods? :-)

  • NPR has an on-point article this morning. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mspangler ( 770054 ) on Tuesday August 31, 2021 @11:19AM (#61748791)

    https://www.npr.org/2021/08/31... [npr.org]

    Really nothing we didn't already know, but once again the CA environmentalists are stuck in the past, but not far enough in the past.

    • I'm not a fire science expert, but comparing the effectiveness of controlled burns in a flat ass state like Florida compared to the rugged terrain of the Sierra Nevada, specifically the California western slopes doesn't seem very useful in terms of workable solutions.

    • Really nothing we didn't already know, but once again the CA rich homeowners are stuck in the past

      FTFY. It's not environmentalists or people working at Taco Bell buying McMansions in the Sierra Nevada.

  • ... the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Because the hippies have to bring in their illegal pot crops.

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close