Canadian Forest Management Fails, Fueling Massive Wild Fires.

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

I know you're stupid enough to believe you know better than experts without even reading what was cited. Duh

Your appeal to authority fallacy aside, as someone that has burned fields and put out the fires, I am at least partially qualified. Crop fields that have no chaff or stocks laying down just don't burn. You have to knock down the vegetation to get it to burn. In contrast, grass, leaves and dead limbs do an amazing job of spreading fire quickly. Due to their density, they can be nearly impossible to extinguish without water. 

Whomever wrote that article is a dumbàss.

[robosmith]

56 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Your appeal to authority fallacy aside, as someone that has burned fields and put out the fires, I am at least partially qualified. Crop fields that have no chaff or stocks laying down just don't burn. You have to knock down the vegetation to get it to burn. In contrast, grass, leaves and dead limbs do an amazing job of spreading fire quickly. Due to their density, they can be nearly impossible to extinguish without water. 

Whomever wrote that article is a dumbàss.

You STILL have NOT read it, so YOU'RE the DUMBASS jumping to conclusions that crops and forests are the same. 

They're NOT.

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You STILL have NOT read it, so YOU'RE the DUMBASS jumping to conclusions that crops and forests are the same. 

They're NOT.

Sure they are.  We harvest forests.  We replant. Forests are basically crops here in canada. 

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Prove it, lDIOT.

Prove that I read the regulations?

You're buckin' for The Groovy Guy of The Day award, aren't ya.

[robosmith]

9 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Prove that I read the regulations?

You're buckin' for The Groovy Guy of The Day award, aren't ya.

Prove that what you read is what you said, lDIOT.

[Nationalist]

17 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Prove that what you read is what you said, lDIOT.

No Pee-wee. Go look it up yourself.

[robosmith]

21 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

No Pee-wee. Go look it up yourself.

^BANKRUPT as usual.

[User]

20 minutes ago, robosmith said:

^BANKRUPT as usual.

Says the guy who cowardly hides and runs from just about every thread we have been in together. 

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Sure they are.  We harvest forests.  We replant. Forests are basically crops here in canada. 

There are millions of acres of forest in northern Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba that have never been logged as well as the NWT. Other  than removing slash and planting more fire resistant species after logging and fires there isn't much in the way of management that can be done for the rest. Hotter, dryer summers and lower snow packs mean more fires. They also mean more thunderstorms and lightning strikes.

Edited Monday at 10:11 PM by Aristides

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

There are millions of acres of forest in northern Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba that have never been logged as well as the NWT. Other  than removing slash and planting more fire resistant species after logging and fires there isn't much in the way of management that can be done for the rest.

Sure there is, there's creating natural fire breaks, there's planned burns, etc etc etc. 

But it's not like you need to worry about the ones that aren't close to towns or buildings. 

Once again you're making crap up to justify a conclusion you arrived at out of preference rather than reason or logic. 

Also  how you address fighting the fires is part of that management and that needs to change too. Hell if you take that to an extreme why don't we have a national fleet of firebombers or the like? For years Canada made the very best firebombers, why aren't we world leaders in that with a strong national fleet that can help out provincial assets when necessary? 

Or detection, why aren't we improving our ability to detect fires before they get large enough to be a threat in more remote areas? 

The list of improvements we could make in pre and post fire forest care is endless and we've done nothing, 

There's many reports that show that forest management needs to change,  and that we haven't. 

If we know that the climate is changing, and we dont' adapt, then the problem isn't climate change. 

[gatomontes99]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

You STILL have NOT read it, so YOU'RE the DUMBASS jumping to conclusions that crops and forests are the same. 

They're NOT.

I don't have to read it to know how fire burns. Whether the fuel is wheat chaff, pines or oaks, fire spreads based on surface area and proximity of the next fuel source. Dead leaves, grass and small limbs offer more surface area and closer proximity than two living trees. Further, the moisture that exists in living plants slows the spread of fire. 

Also, fire spreads fastest from bottom to top. Dead leaves, grass and limbs are on the forest floor. When they ignite, they act like kindling for the live trees. 

But you love your appeal to authority fallacy because it fits your fantasy world and no amount of logic, science or sourced material will change that. 

[Aristides]

21 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

I don't have to read it to know how fire burns. Whether the fuel is wheat chaff, pines or oaks, fire spreads based on surface area and proximity of the next fuel source. Dead leaves, grass and small limbs offer more surface area and closer proximity than two living trees. Further, the moisture that exists in living plants slows the spread of fire. 

Also, fire spreads fastest from bottom to top. Dead leaves, grass and limbs are on the forest floor. When they ignite, they act like kindling for the live trees. 

But you love your appeal to authority fallacy because it fits your fantasy world and no amount of logic, science or sourced material will change that. 

Actually that’s not true, intense forest fires “crown”, the fire jumps from tree top to tree top. 

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Actually that’s not true, intense forest fires “crown”, the fire jumps from tree top to tree top. 

They can jump like that and that explains the speed they can spread at but it's the crap at the bottom that makes them hard to put out. 

[Aristides]

22 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They can jump like that and that explains the speed they can spread at but it's the crap at the bottom that makes them hard to put out. 

There is a case to be made for both but once one of these fires get away there isn't much that can stop it other than weather. Controlling brush in recently logged areas should be a no brainer but not possible in the other millions of square miles of forest.

Edited Tuesday at 01:38 AM by Aristides

[gatomontes99]

28 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They can jump like that and that explains the speed they can spread at but it's the crap at the bottom that makes them hard to put out. 

Leave it to @robosmith to argue the physics of fire. It's only well established. 

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

There is a case to be made for both but once one of these fires get away there isn't much that can stop it other than weather. Controlling brush in recently logged areas should be a no brainer but not possible in the other millions of square miles of forest.

Well you don't need to control at all. You need to control areas where if a fire gets out of control it's likely to interface with structures or the like. It's not desirable but at the end of the day it's not the end of the world if a fire burns in the middle of nowhere

The other factor to consider is you may not stop a fire but you can definitely impact its intensity. And that has huge ramifications, if a fire burns too hot in that area will not regrow forever whereas a normal forest fire often creates life and growth in the area

Again there's lots of things that can be done and lots of things that have successfully been done. But we need to understand that the risk is higher for several reasons right now and plan accordingly

Just now, gatomontes99 said:

Leave it to @robosmith to argue the physics of fire. It's only well established. 

I think he must know a lot about it, I mean there's always smoke coming out from his ears....

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, User said:

Says the guy who cowardly hides and runs from just about every thread we have been in together. 

It takes NO COURAGE to destroy your "arguments," just tolerance for the BOREDOM of dealing with a CHILD.

[User]

3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

It takes NO COURAGE to destroy your "arguments," just tolerance for the BOREDOM of dealing with a CHILD.

LOL, yet you have run away from almost all the threads we have been in... right about the time I destroy your arguments. 

 

[robosmith]

14 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Leave it to @robosmith to argue the physics of fire. It's only well established. 

I didn't say ANYTHING about the physics of fire; I said you don't know the difference between forest and crop fires but imagine you do, without even reading the experts who explain it. 🤮

Leave it to @gatomontes99 to not read a post with EVIDENCE, and then ask questions (like sources)  answered in the cite.

Both LAZY and STUPID. LMAO

Edited Tuesday at 04:42 PM by robosmith

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

I didn't say ANYTHING about the physics of fire; I said you don't know the difference between forest and crop fires but imagine you do, without even readying the experts who explain it. 🤮

Leave it to @gatomontes99 to not read a post with EVIDENCE and then ask questions (like source)  answered in the cite.

Both LAZY and STUPID. LMAO

Umm... that's the physics of fire big guy.

[robosmith]

On 6/2/2025 at 11:25 PM, CdnFox said:

Umm... that's the physics of fire big guy.

The EXPERTS I CITED explained it all, IF you know how to READ. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

The EXPERTS I CITED explained it all, IF you know how to READ. 

I think you misread what they wrote. You seem to do that a lot. 

[Aristides]

On 6/2/2025 at 6:45 PM, CdnFox said:

Well you don't need to control at all. You need to control areas where if a fire gets out of control it's likely to interface with structures or the like. It's not desirable but at the end of the day it's not the end of the world if a fire burns in the middle of nowhere

The other factor to consider is you may not stop a fire but you can definitely impact its intensity. And that has huge ramifications, if a fire burns too hot in that area will not regrow forever whereas a normal forest fire often creates life and growth in the area

Again there's lots of things that can be done and lots of things that have successfully been done. But we need to understand that the risk is higher for several reasons right now and plan accordingly

I think he must know a lot about it, I mean there's always smoke coming out from his ears....

Most of these large fires in remote areas are caused by lightning strikes. Higher temperatures also make thunderstorms more common and violent. That's why we don't have them in winter. Smoke from the Sask and Man fires is now blanketing the north east US. They also massively increase CO2 emissions while destroying the forests that absorb them. 

[Nationalist]

22 hours ago, robosmith said:

The EXPERTS I CITED explained it all, IF you know how to READ. 

Lol...are you sure you're a male of the species?

[herbie]

I find it humorous that a nation that needs duties to protect it's uncompetitive lumber industry should be offering opinion on Canadian forestry practices.