[pct-l] Fires.

[Tortoise]

In my local newspaper Friday, there is an article from the Associate 
Press about the Tahoe fire and who is responsible. Reportedly many 
homeowners in the burned area are blaming the Tahoe Regional Planning 
Agency for its restrictions on cutting trees and restricting brush 
clearing. Such regulations are to prevent erosion of silt into Lake 
Tahoe from land disturbed by tree cutting and brush clearing. Since 2004 
the agency has reportedly made fire safety a priority.
How much is the agency really to blame and how much is others' blame 
remains to be seen. However a local politician, Republican State Senator 
Dave Cox appears to be taking advantage of the situation to promote his 
agenda.

Tortoise

<> He who finishes last, wins! <>

I switched to Mac OSX rather than fight Windows
Using Mozilla Thunderbird  http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/



cmkudija at ca.rr.com wrote:
> Tortoise is correct (imho, naturally).  I recall even in '94 the PCT in this
> area traversed forest full of downed and dead trees.  In an environment with
> year-round precipitation, deadwood decomposes much more quickly and is
> likely less of a component of catastrophic fires.  But in California's
> summer-dry climate, downed trees don't decay rapidly and forest fire
> suppression has led to huge amounts of accumulation as well as dense growth
> of spindly trees that would have benefited from low-intensity, forest-floor
> level fires over time.   Even prescribed burns are difficult to do because
> of conflicting agency requirements - air quality standards are just one
> example.   Then we get a catastrophic fire like this one and we are forced
> to suppress it because we're trying to prevent property damage.  Sigh.  The
> only thing that gives me hope is the evidence from the Yellowstone forest
> fires - lots of trees are growing now (and not knowing the details of
> species diversity, I'm just benignly happy that stuff is growing there now,
> and letting the forest managers worry that species diversity is likely
> different from the pre-fire conditions).
>
> Also, we haven't experienced a major drought in California for some years
> now.    I recall hiking up Bubbs Creek on Memorial Day weekend in '77 to
> Junction Meadow, then climbing Mt. Rixford (near the PCT in the vicinity of
> Kearsarge Pass).  Hardly ANY snow at elevation - we'd had a substantial
> two-year drought where in the SF Bay Area many of us were "reclaiming"
> dishwater and shower overspray to flush toilets & water plants.     Frankly,
> we will not know this drought's duration until it's over, whether it's the
> upcoming winter, or the next one, or the next one...
>
> Warning - major off-topic drought-rain cycle digression!  Late in the 19th
> century to the early 20th (approximately 1889 through 1914) a prolonged
> drought, combined with a surge in population in Los Angeles County,
> contributed to major groundwater overdrafting and drying of perennial
> streams.  Development proceeded in floodplains, along the (dry) river
> channels - and people probably hummed an early version of "It Never Rains in
> California."  Then in February of 1914, it started to rain.  And rain.
> Approximately 19 inches of rain fell in 4 days, as measured at Mt. Wilson,
> north of Pasadena.  This deluge caused flooding along the San Gabriel & Los
> Angeles rivers & tributaries, $10 million in property damage, and much loss
> of life.  Naturally - the powers-that-were floated a bond issue to
> channelize every conceivable river/stream channel, instead of trying to
> understand the region's hydrology.... [for more, you might be able to find
> my source document somewhere: Richard Bigger, "Flood Control in Metropolitan
> Los Angeles," University of California Publications in Political Science,
> Volume VI, 1959, University of California Press, Berkeley, California,
> 1959].
>
> I guess my point is that whether the current drought is related to what we
> now recognize as global warming or whether it's a "normal" precipitation
> cycle fluctuation - some of our agencies will over-react to such things as
> catastrophic fires, others will continue to permit dense development in
> fire- or flood-prone areas, and plenty of property owners will happily
> trudge along in denial about history, Nature and her power.
>
> I obviously am procrastinating working today!
>
> Christine "Ceanothus" Kudija
> PCT partially '94
>
> www.pcta.org
> Join Now!
>
> Ceanothus (see-ah-no-thus) or California lilac:  Shrubs or small trees,
> often with divaricate, sometimes spiny, twigs...[flowers] small but showy,
> white to blue or purplish, sometimes lavender or pinkish, borne in terminal
> or lateral panicles or umbellike cymes.
>                                                                Philip A.
> Munz
>                                                                A California
> Flora, U.C. Press, 1973
>
>
>
>
>