Jump to content

Come To Kelowna Guys Here We Go Again


Recommended Posts

...

They put enough political pressure on the government that all plans were curtailed to the point where they wouldn't even allow the various firms to log-out the spruceworm-damaged 'blue timber' that was still marketable in Japan.

 

So how does all that timber stand today? Unless one is totally blind, they know very well where that area is because one can see the orange trees from tens of miles away. Those trees are as dry as a popcorn fart and one of these days a lightning strike will hit. When that day arrives, the path of destruction will make the Kelowna fires seem like an Okanagan Lake weinie roast.

...

Hello cap:

There's several issues here: 1) logging infected trees to hinder the beetle spread; 2) logging the beetle kill and 3) cleaning up over-accumulations of forest debris around communities (resulting from decades of fire protection).

 

I see that you've got it in for the good Dr. S (too bad you're holding back!) but I'm not sure that the issue(s) are that clear cut (sorry!). There are many parties with an oar in these battles, on all sides. I think that #1 was tried along with pheromone traps, hack and squirt etc. to no avail. #2 is a monstrous job, currently underway, but how much beetle wood can the world market absorb? And what happens when the economic beetle wood is gone? Lots of empty mills and lunch buckets, not to mention heavily reduced AAC. #3 was proposed by Filmon and others but has faltered due to foot dragging although Pat Bell paints a rosy picture of his efforts.

 

Here's a few lines from our local paper today:

"As forests flared in the Okanagan again, Bell defended the B.C. Liberal record in an interview. The fuel management fund held by the Union of B.C. Municipalities was $37 million, more than half of which has been spent in partnership with local governments, 50-50 or 75-25 in a pine beetle zone.

 

The Central Okanagan Regional District is among those that have “executed,” he said, and the containment response to the latest fires was better as a result."

 

The editorial is at:

http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_islan...n/51897962.html

 

On logging the beetle kill to reduce the fire hazard, I had heard that the grey trees (next stage after red) surprisingly weren't a huge hazard (the living trees in a heat wave are pretty volatile). I found this in the Denver Post, 2007:

 

"While dead trees burn easily, even green ones are susceptible to raging wildfires in dry times, said Kulakowski, who has studied the naturally occurring cycles of beetle outbreaks in Colorado for nine years.

...

"Property owners and communities should carve out "defensible spaces" to protect development from forest fires, said Barry Smith, the emergency- management director for Eagle County, but culling dead trees deeper in the forests is not ecologically necessary.

 

"There is a little bit of increased fire danger when we have these trees with the red needles on them," he said.

 

"They'll ignite similar to gasoline. But in a year or two, when the needles drop off and we have the ghost trees, we call them - the gray trees - the fire danger will diminish," Smith said."

The full article: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6520740

 

I think that there is consensus on the MPB problem: warmer winters and overzealous fire protection.

 

I think that the over-riding point here is that both the problems and the various solutions are complex and difficult to wrap up in a few posts. Good discussion though. I get the feeling that folks (not just here) aren't as fond of Dr. S as they used to be.

 

Cheers . . . .

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Rob, Pine are the ones that have a serotinous seal (require heat to open).

Spruce open by themselves when they dry out, usually mid August. When you see helicopter harvesting of cones, that is for spruce, befroe the cones open. Pine cone collection is done on land, usually from a cutblock after the trees are delimbed.

 

enough of the forestry stuff....... but yes, man has interupted the natural cycle very much so.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I still have the right to build my house in the forest and then expect "someone" to protect me, right???

 

 

Whatever happens, I don't want to be responsible for my choices. "Someone" should watch out for me...

 

 

 

Being kind of sarcastic here, but that is the way it seems to go doesn't it...?

 

 

 

Keith W

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there trees around it?

 

That's the interface scenario, right? Build on the edge, leave the beautiful forest in tact, and then blame the government when it burns...

 

Not sure what the answer is, but it's kind of like building on the flood plane below high water mark, and then asking "why is my house wet???"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and you can't roller skate in a buffalo herd.

 

I don't think you can point fingers at the people who build in such locations as most folks make their purchase based upon the spot being for sale and what does it look like at the time. Am sure the people who lived below frank slide thought it was a very scenic and safe location as the mountain above had been there for millions of years till it came down and buried the town. Yes I know the trees have not been there so long but trees grow and water flows so I my point of view it is the developers and government officials are responsible for ensuring people are safe to live where there is land being developed and sold. Many seem to think it is like living next to an airport and complaining of noise,,,,not even close in my opinion.

 

I remember watching a show on fire proof building materials and this fellow built his house near San Diego out of all fire proof materials, much to the amusement of his neighbors,,,,well his house was the last one standing after a fire went thru. The neighborhood was not in what we would call a forest, just scrub and such but was enough to burn many homes down. Were this guys neighbors all fools or were they merely liviing in a nice location but without the guidance or restrictions on build a home to withstand the local natural occurances. You don't build a steep pitch roofed home in snow country by choice these days, there are laws provided. Which is my point, if people want to build and live next to nature then they should be able to,,provided they build thier home accordingly.

 

I know many are going to think it is a sad politically correct post but when you see 7 houses per acre in Calgary and there are multiple houses burned down while being built(this is in the city) you have to wonder who's fault is it,,,sure not the home owner trying to live in affordable housing is it?

 

So do you mow down all the trees and live in cement neighborhoods or do you co-exist with fire guards and proper building materials and fire fighting folks close by,,,you choose.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

so I my point of view it is the developers and government officials are responsible for ensuring people are safe to live where there is land being developed and sold. ...

Good points. I agree that where the risks are obvious and likely to be realized (flood plains, steep slopes), there should be zoning against building. North Vancouver knows all about that. I believe that years ago the Municipality ignored warnings about unstable slopes, allowed building and much later a lady was killed in a landslide. There seems to be an endless cycle of build/flood/rebuild (much of it with public relief money) along the Red River in Manitoba. Zone accordingly and stop the grief and cost.

 

Fire risk is not so easy to regulate. Most of rural Canada is in or near a forest but hasn't burnt up. With climate change that balance may change and fuel load reduction in the interface areas should likely be a priority along with updated building codes.

 

The final say is probably with the insurers - if it can't be (economically) insured it likely won't happen.

 

Cheers . . . . .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the Boeing 747 tanker just flew along Vancouver Island towards Arizona.

Did it do a drop on a fire near any of you ???

 

It was in Edmonton a few days ago, doing a demonstration, after a demo tour in Europe.

 

http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/alberta/20...296696-sun.html

 

Then it went to Alaska.

They have a fire that is about 136,000 hectares that the 747 wanted to do a demo on.

 

California has two DC10s on stand-by at Victorville. They were 'on contract', but Gov. Swarzenegger backed-out of the contract a few days ago as part of his new budget package.

They are just on a Call When Needed basis now.

 

Meanwhile the Coulson Martin Mars, and its high tech S76 lead-copter are still on contract there at Lake Elsinore I believe.

 

I wonder why the 747 water-tanker didn't stop in B.C. ??

".....having the Supertanker on retainer costs $3 million US a month. That would guarantee it would be available should a large fire break out."

Maybe that's why !!!

 

However, I'm sure if Evergreen renamed it the Olympic Supertanker, Premier Campbell would find that cash in a heartbeat!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the Boeing 747 tanker just flew along Vancouver Island towards Arizona.

Did it do a drop on a fire near any of you ???

 

It was in Edmonton a few days ago, doing a demonstration, after a demo tour in Europe.

 

http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/alberta/20...296696-sun.html

 

 

Now that's just really cool!!

 

DC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...