Comments by gjanee
Page 1 of 1
Posted on September 5 at 8:40 a.m.
If kids are really crossing the freeway with regularity, and what a horrifying thought that is, that's a strong argument for the pedestrian bridge that was supposed to have been built when the shopping center was put in.
The other reason kids are on the freeway is graffiti. Recall the boy who was killed a few years back near Milpas, spraycan in hand.
Tragic either way.
Posted on August 15 at 9:49 p.m.
I thought we had come a long way since the Smoky Bear "only you can prevent forest fires" days. I thought that the Forest Service now recognized that fire is a natural and necessary part of our local environment. I thought we all understood the folly of trying to suppress fires, for every given bit of brush will eventually burn, but by delaying that burn, we only get larger, hotter fires.
And yet, the decades-old (century-old?) policy of putting out every fire, no matter where it is or what it threatens, continues. We put out the Gap Fire, sure, but we also put out a lightning-caused fire in an area so remote that there aren't even roads to it. Why?
And not only do we send in hand crews, but we send in expensive air tankers that, admittedly, won't put the fire out, but will only "slow it down." The effectiveness of slowing a fire down can be seen in the case of the Zaca fire: it does nothing, zilch, nada. The Zaca fire roared on day after day despite being "cooled" and "slowed", and the one and only thing that eventually put it out were large backfires. I'm guessing that if the Forest Service had been willing to light large backfires from the start, the fire would have been out much sooner.
The Los Angeles Times recently had a series on the cost of fire suppression. They reported how air tankers are in some cases useful, but in many if not most cases are nothing more than expensive spectacle, running up tabs of millions of dollars.
Periodically I hear talk of changing our approach to fire suppression, but I see no actual evidence of any change.
On Lightning Strikes Spark Fires in the San Rafael Wilderness
Posted on September 17 at 9:47 a.m.
Man, that is one cheesy, ugly graphic. Tell me that's not going on the cover of this week's Independent.
Posted on August 17 at 11:06 a.m.
This is not the Friday morning update; it's text from a day or two ago. If you're going to copy stuff off Inciweb, you need to look at it carefully. Posting erroneous information is worse than posting none at all.
Posted on August 7 at 2:12 p.m.
Re: "...political statements disguised as art... Mr. Caron's extreme and highly debatable views on global warming." Sorry, DaleFrancisco, but the light blue line is based on scientific consensus. It's not "extreme", it's not "highly debatable", and it's not just Mr. Caron's personal opinion. And it's only a "political statement" if you make it one.
Posted on July 12 at 1:41 p.m.
Ray, thanks for the updates. Question: if the only thing that is burning is wilderness, and if wilderness will inevitably burn and indeed *must* burn periodically, both for the overall health of the environment and to reduce the intensity of those inevitable fires... what are all the millions of dollars spent on controlling this fire really buying us? It seems like the response to every fire is the same: throw every resource available at it and put it out as quickly as possible. This seems to be true whether we're talking about the Painted Cave fire, the Gaviota fire, or the Zaca fire. Thanks, and keep up the great reporting.
Page 1 of 1
Previous Month
Posted on October 1 at 2:31 p.m.
Ray, does the hydromulch have an impact on the vegetation that has already started to regrow? As you know, the manzanita re-sprouted a month after the fire and has been growing steadily ever since. Does the hydromulch knock it back to square one? Or help it along? Or have no net impact either way?
On Hydromulching Nears 50 Percent Coverage in Forest; Private Lands Next