Oilpan4 wrote: ↑
Thu Sep 17, 2020 12:52 pm
Yes I know southern California doesn't fit your propaganda that the wet cool parts of the state are burning. So we shouldn't talk about them.
New mexico has cool wet mountain areas that like to dry out occasionally and they're not on fire.
Southern California and Northern California are very different. Pointing out a basic fact isn't "propaganda". I'd guess, but I don't know, that New Mexico's forests are rather different from both.
For Southern California, prescribed fires and stopping most construction of houses in low density settings with zoning laws and/or making insurance not affordable and/or changing building codes to require fireproof construction... And landscaping codes to keep trees away from structures.
The biggest fire in California is in Northern California. So why the focus on Southern California?
Most of the forests burning are on Federal Land.
Deserts with almost no vegetation never burn. Almost no fuel.
Arid lands with grasses and shrubs burn often.
Dry forests have frequent small fires. Ponderosa pines. Inland CA, from north to central. Fire suppression can lead to larger fires. As can logging, as only the large trees are fire resistant.
Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine forests have periodic large fires. "Many populations of the Rocky Mountain subspecies, P. contorta subsp. latifolia, have serotinous cones. This means that the cones are closed and must be exposed to high temperatures, such as from forest fires, in order to open and release their seeds." In other words, this forest needs to burn for this tree to live. Typically these fires are huge.
Lodgepole pines in California don't have serotinous cones. What does that tell us?
Wet forests rarely burn. Small fires don't happen as the floor is too wet. Fires, if they happen are either tiny and very localized, or huge.