years leaves LOTS of fuel in those hills.

the Chumash to those in MD where I grew up, was to set fires. Now we call them "controlled burns," but back then they were frequent enough and the population sparse enough that 'uncontrolled' was acceptable.

Controlled burns are unacceptable to many. There's unacceptable risk--which means "there's risk"--of property damage, or environmental concerns that fire is bad.

As one reporter said today, when the winds reversed direction and pushed part of the Mandeville Canyon fire back to an area previously burned, it was a kind of "nature fire break." Which is identical in meaning to "fire brake."

I like the practice that those around in 1500s MD and the centuries prior to spread mast. And set fires. Think "roasted chestnuts" as a mnemonic. I sort of liked Smokey the Bear's cute "only you can prevent forest fires" when I was a kid, and he's not wrong. Doing stupid crap with fire in the forest is bad. Not a control freak, I still think untimed out-of-control isn't a good. But stopping all forest fires? Also bad.

Now differs only in small details from the early-mid '90s when I lived in LA. Drought. Torrential rains. Fast forward to fire seasons. Deal with the ash "snow" that was Malibu, or "had been" Malibu. Then the next step--rains that lead to mass wasting, which is, after a fire like this, mostly just bouncing the rubble. That was Malibu, not Mandeville Canyon. (I used to take time when I lived in the UCLA grad dorm to bike, not an easy ask in LA; but biking up the canyon roads was a joy, and many a time I biked miles up Mandeville Canyon Road. Nice houses, scant traffic good incline, great ride, tired, on the way back. Still, I got a lot of funny looks because I obviously did not belong.)

in those tight residential canyons — unless we can throw lots of money and personnel at the problem. One main difference I’ve heard discussed between now and even the ‘90s, when I moved here, is that we no longer have a wildfire season. A Santa Ana wind event in January wouldn’t normally cause a huge fire or two because we wouldn’t be so dry. And in the winter, it used to be safer to do some of these maintenance activities, clear brush, fix reservoir issues. Now we don’t have a “quiet” period to complete necessary tasks.

You definitely have your head on straight on the issue. I thought I would send you some
links that would help against all the misinformation going around on every subject under
the sun these days.

This link is food for thought on what you believe and is a judgment call for you
to decide https://truthout.org/articles/the-myth-of-the-managed-wildfire-how-us-forest-service-policies-perpetuate-deadly-wildfires/

This is the Malheur National Forest in Oregon, it has a wealth of information on things they
are doing and testing to find the best ways to battle forest fires and fires in general.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/malheur/fire/?cid=fseprd668220

I think I watched Tv program about Malheur where they actually had a test facility big enough
to build two houses with little front yards. One built out of exactly what you mentioned; older
more flammable building materials versus newer fire-resistant materials. They had a whole
bank of really huge fans and burned wood to embers, turned the fans and cranked then to get
the desired wind speed and let nature take of the rest. I am very certain you know the end result.

This one is on Science.org. It is also at Malheur, but you only get so many free views.

https://www.science.org/content/article/huge-forest-experiment-aims-reduce-wildfires-can-it-unite-loggers-and-environmentalists

The last one is the Western Fire Chiefs Association. It has good resources, but it also has an inter-
active map for all the states in the association. You pick the state, and it will show the status of
the fire as well as showing any aircraft they have in the air. I think it might be very helpful for you
given the current situation.
https://wfca.com/wildfire-articles/the-science-of-wildfires-an-in-depth-guide/

I hope this helps. Please stay safe.

Wind changes everything.

"The Palisades Fire started at about 10:20 a.m. Tuesday, near Temescal Ridge Trail in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area." It's 10:20 a.m. at, near or on, a hiking trail. There was no electrical storm and no lightning. The temperature was normal for a Winter January day in California. Fires usually don't just spontaneously ignite under these circumstances. Someone was negligent.

If it was arson, I hope they catch the perp and put him away for a very long time.

This I am watching

I am out here. It is not accurate.

It was determined that their power lines were at fault — well, that and severe drought and Santa Ana winds.

No lit cigarettes. No campfires. No matches. No arson.

So you know what SoCalEd does now — aside from an accelerated level of upgrading? They turn off the power in our neighborhood when the wind kicks up. The longest was 36 hours, which was a pain in the butt — but no fire, and especially no fire that could be traced to them.

We could still lose our house some day, and if (or more likely when) that happens it will be due to climate change: severe drought and Santa Ana winds at 100 mph.

Last edited Mon Jan 13, 2025, 02:21 PM - Edit history (1)

on Facebook that was spouting the "rake the forests" crap a while back.

I live in Washington state. You could drop 10000 people into the forests around this area to "rake the forests'. If they ever got to the point of finishing raking the forest in this area it would take years and everything they raked during the early days of raking would have grown back just as thick as it was originally. They would have a perpetual job.

Its such a ignorant idea. No wonder right wingers think its brilliant.

It helps around towns but there is no way you can "rake" the forest.

and forest fires can still travel tree top to tree top.

As you note the cost to pay people to do it would be astronomical. At which point they would be screaming about libs/dems wasting tax payer $ to clear uninhibited forest.

I wanna throttle the idiots. They go spouting off RW/MAGA talking points without the slightest clue what conditions are like in URBAN, arid west. Horse whipping propagandists comes to mind for me, raised in arid urban southern California.

I'd like to get some feedback on how quickly they run into the forest, or simply drop the rake and fun into their houses.

Any implement that requires manual labor is foreign to them.

To be honest, I woke up in the middle of the night Friday morning convinced I had to start removing trees from my property.

But then I saw video this morning of a neighborhood where the houses were gone but the trees were still standing, apparently unscorched.

I need to find out more about what constitutes firewise yards.

having firewise landscape is not much security. Non native grasses can be a problem, but those winds are the enemy.

Removing fuel will always help. The fire still likely would have spread, but it is disingenuous to claim that clearing underbrush would not have helped.

We should stick to the orovable facts and not try to spin reality. We are not repukes.

Removing some of it won't help unless you completely denude the hill sides. Then, what do you do when the next "atmospheric river" rolls around, dumps inches of rain in a short time and the hill sides turn to a sliding slurry of mush?

Fire suppression efforts and allowing development in areas that need fire historically are huge issues. The state has badly failed in its duties to conduct controlled burns and other mitigation efforts. Add in global warming, and this fire is a predictable outcome.

With 80mph winds, possibly the strongest Santa Anna winds on record, nothing short of completely denuding the hillsides would make any difference. Controlled burns would not have helped in that environment. Not with this kind of vegetation and recent conditions. This isn't temperate forests of the wet east.

Would there still have been a devastating fire? Yes, but if mitigation is first had been undertaken, the fire likely would have been more manageable.

No one is saying that mitigation efforts would not help. They are just saying that mitigation would have not 100% prevented the fires.

Once into built up areas, all bets are off. And there's no way to keep it out with winds that strong.

Let’s just say it is not what the experts in the OP’s article are saying. They have a far more nuanced take that what the OP is claiming.

Once into built up areas, it's a whole different ballgame. Keeping it out of populated areas, given the conditions, is impossible, even with controlled burns.

areas where it is no longer feasible, if it ever really was. Controlled burns and brush clearance become that much more difficult in those areas. Trying to force homeowners to clear and maintain their properties is also unfortunately a huge battle, and some of these homes are also quite old with shake roofs and other fire hazards.

It might be best if we could scrape together the funds to buy these people out, but it would be astronomically expensive.

forests. in tall tree forests low key fires often burn at ground level to remove the carpet of debris without burning up into the tall trees.

Which is why I said controlled burns and other mitigation efforts. There is room for both. Prevention is a multifaceted, multi layered process. And yes, that includes mechanical removal a.k.a. “raking“, as much as we hate to admit it.

but “raking” wouldn’t be possible in many areas. Add to that the fact that we’re in a cycle of wet years causing massive growth followed by dry years where they all burn. Both the state and the feds would have to devote an enormous amount of money — I don’t think that’s going to happen at the fed level, do you?

and I had no idea the terrain out there was like it is - with houses stacked on top. Yowza those homes are close together. And clinging to hills. Of course, we on the east coast stack houses on sandbars one foot above sea level... Everybody wants his ocean view.

Not as true of Altadena, but….

Just keeping the trails clear is a major chore. Then we try to go off trails to eradicate invasive plants. That is even more difficult because we encounter thorns, branches tree trunks, insects and on and on. Oh, and our terrain is mostly flat or it probably wouldn't be a swamp.

Fortunately, we have no poisonous reptiles on the property. Nor bears or Mountain Lions.

So let's consider Pacific Palisades. I have never been there. But the photographs and videos.I don't know if the area qualifies as mountainous. But there are clearly substantial hills. When my club volunteers to clear a part of the Appalachian Train in N.J., then we get hills. And guess what. We "run out of gas" in about an hour or two. In other words, the weed wacking, combined with chopping, cutting and so forth - tires us out quite quickly.

I cannot imaging trying to clear the brush from those hills.

3H

Clearing or "raking" the forest is just an impossible ask.

Controlled burns do need to increase as do cutting larger and more breaklines to protect neighborhoods, etc. With all that said winds that high would likely have jumped any breaks that would have been there anyway.

Part of the problem in the west is that we can developed these huge population centers in areas with limited water and high incidence of wildfire.

far beyond any breaks, and over the decades development moved closer and closer to the mountains, too many targets to adequately defend against a force of nature event like this.

Growing up in SoCal, I've lived through a couple fires that came uncomfortably close, the Cedar Fire of 2003 and the Laguna Fire of 1970, which as a kid I watched coming at us from the roof of our house - all of the houses in our development had shake shingle roofs (you sure don't see that anymore). We were very, very fortunate.

she said she still had the shake roof! I think in Altadena, which is largely working and middle class, there were probably a lot of homeowners who couldn’t upgrade to more fire-safe materials.

I hope you're safe, and stay safe, and thanks for weighing in. I love our state, and this is hard to watch.

especially Altadena, which is an especially economically and ethnically diverse community which will have a really hard time rebuilding.

Most of the guys in my high school went to fight fires and help neighbors in foothills move horses and house pets. Some lost their cars while helping neighbors in the canyons.

We lived in the flats, but the police came thru with messages on bullhorns: There is no one left to call for help in town, so if your house starts to burn due to blowing live embers, there is no help. Be ready to evacuate. Keep roofs wet if you can.

My brother & I spent a lot of time on our roof and helping older neighbors keep theirs wet. My grandfather lived with us and had lung cancer & emphysema. We tried to keep shades drawn so he wouldn't see the smoke. Kept house closed up, but the smoke permeated everywhere. He died within the week. My brother and I were pretty ill. Can't fathom what it was like for the firefighters in the thick of it.

People in wetter climates with different vegetation have no clue what it is like. GOP pols from states with high water tables, surface water & different native plants need to STFU.

People who don't know California terrain, particularly Southern California's volatile chaparral, how hard the winds blow during a Santa Ana (I've been in them in the mountains (not during a fire), how it's hard to stand upright in the gusts. How humidity drops to the single digits. Maybe they don't realize how much of the state is mountains and canyons that funnel the wind. How unpredictable the wind is.... yeah they can STF all the way up.

Leaving it on-site would cause a higher fire risk than moisture-stressed live vegetation. And just bill it to the locals taxpayers. The notion of high-cost cutting, collecting, and transporting square miles of dense chapparal shrubs to God knows where is a very bad joke. Limited city landfall space? Ha ha! And once cut, the stuff resprouts vigorously. So benefit-wise, the native vegetation does provide watershed stability. In the short term after intense wildfire, Slopes fail and mudslides following heavy rain become a secondary problem. Manually denuding hillsides would "accomplish" the same thing as wildfire. Once again, stupid impractical solutions to complex land management issues are added daily as chapter and verse in the MAGA playbook.

and then what happens when it rains, and there is nothing to hold the soil? Yep - landslides.
Stupid idea.

So short of turning Southern Cal into a denuded moonscape, there not much you can do when it comes to the natural environment. Add climate change, drought and possibly the strongest Santa Anna's on record and this is what we get. Going forward, California and a bunch of other places are going to have to learn to live with increased wildfire, thanks to fossil fuel companies and petro-states. The real culprits in all this. It can be done without destroying the natural environment. It's a matter of codes, landscaping and building materials.

That they used to do controlled burns to prevent this type of thing? Well, at least reduce the likelihood of it anyway. Now, most of what I see is people throwing up their hands saying it’s unpreventable. If that is the case. Then why in the hell would they allow anything to be rebuilt in that area at all? This isn’t a one off thing. Yeah the damage is unprecedented, but this happens every year. It’s as predictable as the sunrise. I’ve read that some people have had their homes burned down more than once. I dunno, seems to me. If you build your home in a known fire hazard, you shouldn’t be surprised when this happens.

It's susceptible to hurricane induced flooding, both minor and biblical. I know. Use to live in the area. Soon as I heard something definitive on Helene's path, I figured Biltmore Village was gonna flood. It always does. This one was just the latest in a long list of hurricane induced floods dating back to the beginning of human habitation in that area. Funny, I didn't hear your argument when it came to that natural disaster.

will be goners

About MANY places around the country over the years. Especially those in hurricane prone areas.There is a reason I didn’t say anything about the ones you mention in particular. As far as I know, they aren guaranteed perennial disasters.

As far as flooding goes. That is a failure at the federal level. In case you aren’t aware. They are these things called fema flood maps. You may not build in the floodway. If they failed to properly identify this, it’s on them. The rest comes down to failure at the local zoning level. I don’t know of any community that is at know risk that hasn’t spent a lot of time and effort on mitigation measures. Unfortunately you can’t plan for every possible contingency.

It really should not be controversial

End of story.

... give rise to designs that work in concert
with native ecosystems? There are stories of
Spanish and English sailors 100s of years ago
noticing fires in the Chaparral in what is now
Southern California.

The oils in Chaparral are highly flammable but
no matter how big or hot the fire is or was the
roots almost always survive to push up new growth.

Genetic mutations cause variations within a species and the individuals with the most beneficial mutations survive at a greater differential rate than individuals without those mutations. Over time the beneficial mutations dominate the population. This is a continuous process. While the mutations are effectively random, the survival of those mutations is determined by the environment the organism lives in. There is no “design” and no “designer.”

Mutations and or novel genetic lines that are beneficial to a living organism are part
of an evolution or co-evolution that happens over time with environmental conditions
and or genetic drift? Btw only a small fraction of mutations are beneficial and in most cases for those
new beneficial aspects to express themselves you need both parents to have that mutation and
or the mutation or new morphological change needs to be dominant. See the back squirrels
of N.E. Ohio.

Evolution is really change in genetic frequency over time with sex shuffling the deck
and if people see this and want to call it a design to adapt to a given environment then
so be it

Saying that Chaparral is a plant that is based on a pyrrhic environment that is designed
to live and thrive with fire is not wrong.

Evolution requires neither.

In a fire area right above a canyon.

The brush can be managed right off the backyards. After that, a steep cliff that animals couldn’t walk.

The area burns about every ten years and the only way to fight it is with air support and firefighters in backyards.

Every time some asshole will come yell at fire fighters for not going down into a narrow V shaped canyon to fight the fire. Let’s us know which neighbors are assholes who need to be ignored.

“Every time some asshole will come yell at fire fighters for not going down into a narrow V shaped canyon to fight the fire. Let’s us know which neighbors are assholes who need to be ignored.”

About this and "newson" and fire hydrants and woke

What the hell would you do with all the brush that you cleared? It would be a pile the size of Mt Everest.

and rate of spread.

Lies in that this kind of 'brush' growth - replaces itself in very short periods of time. How many times ( and how often) are you going to deploy your army of ' brush cutters' through the miriad hills and valleys .. ?

Go ahead and whack away if it makes you feel better. But with the kind of climate issues presented this year (desperate drought and near tornado force winds ..) - Mother Nature is going to walk away with a W here. Every single time.

and much of it is sparsely populated. OK, so we put people to work (which people? How much do we pay them? How do we get them to the more remote areas?) in the San Gabriels, they do a great job, and the next dry season fires start in Sonoma county, 500 miles to the north. Or in the mesa/canyon landscape of San Diego. And don't forget eastern Oregon and Washington, which have seen major fires in the last decade.

Maybe we can have a new version of the CCC, a la the 1930s, that can handle these - but they'd also have a lot of work to do cleaning up after floods and hurricanes in the East. And the CCC was a Democratic idea - I don't see a Republican-controlled legislature funding a new one. But the main issue that the MSM seems to be ignoring is that the climate is changing, and old weather models don't fit as well as they used to. But Congress and MAGA in general won't acknowledge that, and they certainly won't do anything except make matters worse.

Of course not every corner of the state.

old bone spurs brought this up. The article says National Recreation Area. That is the Federal
Government. If it is a state park that is the state's job. Who pays when it is not federal or state,
most likely the county. What if the area is unincorporated? My best guess the locals that live
there. So, as usual it boils down to the old reliable axiom money, money, money, MONEY.

It is working for Australia. Clear brush. Have controlled burns. Clear brush from around homes. Remove Eucalyptuses trees. Have water available.

in a fire event.

I may be biased because she's a friend, but she knows her business and talks about firefighting in a way that makes sense to the rest of us. This particular episode discusses the LA fire including the political potshots taken at the fire chief and governor:

https://bobbieonfire.com/2025/01/10/102-some-truths-about-the-la-fires/

Last edited Sun Jan 12, 2025, 08:41 PM - Edit history (1)

and topography much different from what occurs east of the Rockies. First is the semi-arid Mediterranean climate: rain doesn't occur during much of the year, and what we do get is much less than the average east of the Mississippi. (I used to give tours in a garden near here - a visiting couple from Kansas refused to believe that we got essentially no rain from May to November.) The further south you go in California the drier it gets. Second, it's full of mountains. There's a large valley occupying the center of the state - which is where much of the agriculture is - but mountains are close to the inhabited areas (why do you think it's called Silicon VALLEY? We have smaller hills here - most under 3000' - but you can go from sea level at the Bay, across the divide, and back to sea level at the ocean in less than 20 miles.) Los Angeles county is more rugged than up here: it's pretty, but there are a lot of small, steep canyons that have to be approached on foot.

Third, California is big. Third largest state in terms of area after Alaska and Texas. The Klamath river, which right-wing "pundits" think could have save Los Angeles county if it weren't for those pesky fish, is in the northernmost part of the state, about 600 miles from the current fires. Even if Newsom dammed the Klamath and wanted to send the water south, the pipeline would have to go over a few mountain ranges, including the Siskiyous.

Fourth, there are the off-shore flows. These are winds that come from inland, rather than from the ocean as they usually do. This means they blow over dry inlands, losing more moisture as they go. They're fast and they're hot - they've been called hurricanes without the rains. Here in the Bay Area we're having these offshore winds right now, and it's warm and dry. Luckily, we had a fair amount of rain in December; the Los Angeles area is way below average for rainfall this year because this type of weather pattern pushes the moist air up north towards Oregon and Washington.

Can we do better? Probably. But current building standards are based on the old normal, and that's changed in the decades I've lived here and it's going to keep changing as long as we keep encouraging unlimited population growth and use of fossil fuels.

Now I'm going outside to take advantage of the weather to get rid of weeds - or at least reduce them. A pox on whoever thought it was a good idea to bring oxalis to the Bay Area.

It is both familiar and VERY different here, in terms of the flora, the weather, etc. People who haven't lived in it for a while have no idea how different.

And EVERYTHING enrages them.

Stupid Dunning-Kruger fucks.