Investments strategy with new administration?

[MossRoad]

Originally, well 200 years ago, it was mixed bay and oak forest, with some grassland. Now it is mostly grassland as many of the oaks were cut for firewood forest the nearby cities. Grey pine forest mixed with grass land starts about three miles away, as the annual rainfall drops from twelve-ish inches to seven or so.

It is unclear to me how active the locals were in ecosystem management more than three hundred years ago, but folks east and north of here had a history of burns. The historic issue is really that this is a very thin ecosystem, and not one that folks would choose over the San Francisco Bay marshes and the forests above, all of which are wetter and support more plants and wildlife. I've never seen an archeological specimen older than about 200 years in this area, and I am normally pretty good at finding them, and we have covered thousands of acres in search and rescue on occasion. Of course, I may not understand what prime real estate was to the earlier inhabitants.

Most of the land around us is protected open space in one form or another, both public and private, and a number of agencies work to maintain and improve "the" ecosystem. Great training area for CalFire and others.

All the best,

Peter

I recently read that the entire population of North America is estimated to have been between about 4-18 million people before 1492. Today, it's estimated at 618,000,000 people.

The notion that the peoples that lived in the pacific northwest used controlled burns to prevent forest fires is ludicrous. They more than likely used slash and burn to make food plots or drive animals at best.

Now that the area is heavily populated, there's no choice but to remove the fuel load in the forest on a regular basis. But it should in no way be considered a natural process at the rates it's going to have to be done to save human life and property.

 

[EddieWalker]

The biggest problem with letting the fire burn is that it hasn't happened in decades. I believe that was the idea when Yellowstone burned in the 90's. They decided to let nature take its natural course, but didn't realize that since humans had been putting out fires there for decades, the land wasn't natural anymore, and the fire burned hotter and faster than though possible.

A thousand years ago, there where fires every year. They kept the understory clean, and the trees could withstand low to the ground fires.

When humans showed up and started managing the land, and putting fires out, the understory filled up with fuel, and when allowed to burn, became hotter than what the trees could withstand. Once the trees started to burn, the fire worked its way up the tree to the canopy and spread along the tops of the trees. This isn't natural, and it created a fire storm that was impossible to stop.

Here in East Texas, where I live, the land was cleared 100 years ago, and farmed. Then abandoned and left to regrow. A thousand years ago, the understory was wide open, the trees wear spread out, and it was easy to walk through the woods. When it regrew, the trees sprouted inches from each other. It's not uncommon to see a trees a foot apart or even touching, and the understory so thick that only wild hogs can survive there. Our deer numbers are way down, our turkeys and quail are extinct, and our forests are very unhealthy. Thinning is needed to restore it to how it's supposed to be, but in most cases, it's either cleared completely for farming, or planting pine plantations.

Fortunately, when there is a fire here, there is a massive response to put it out. Rarely does a fire get away from the fire fighters.

 

[MossRoad]

Washington in many ways is on par with high cost of living places like the Bay Area.

Washington Property Tax may force my hand as it’s 20k now from $6800 when I bought.

Good gravy that's a lot!

A few years back my wife and I were driving through the dune neighborhoods a couple streets back in from Lake Michigan in the SW corner of Michigan. My boss had recently renovated a home there and invited us to come up. Somewhere in the area we saw a small garage, maybe 24x24 stuffed into the side of a hill with a for sale sign on it. I looked up the price. It was something like $20K. Woo hoo! That's a starter. Then I noticed that the $20K was the annual property taxes, not the price. Ooops.

 

[ponytug]

I recently read that the entire population of North America is estimated to have been between about 4-18 million people before 1492. Today, it's estimated at 618,000,000 people.

The notion that the peoples that lived in the pacific northwest used controlled burns to prevent forest fires is ludicrous. They more than likely used slash and burn to make food plots or drive animals at best.

Now that the area is heavily populated, there's no choice but to remove the fuel load in the forest on a regular basis. But it should in no way be considered a natural process at the rates it's going to have to be done to save human life and property.

Hmmm. "Ludicrous" seems strong to me.

Well, I wasn't around back then, and while I'm sure that there were wildfires caused by lightning, the remnants of the indigenous people who survive to the present claim that their forebears had rituals and practices around the burning of underbrush. Might be true, might not, but absent other evidence, I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

All the best,

Peter

 

[MossRoad]

Hmmm. "Ludicrous" seems strong to me.

Well, I wasn't around back then, and while I'm sure that there were wildfires caused by lightning, the remnants of the indigenous people who survive to the present claim that their forebears had rituals and practices around the burning of underbrush. Might be true, might not, but absent other evidence, I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

All the best,

Peter

I'm more inclined to believe they did it for agricultural purposes, not wildfire control.

Anyhow, it's to a point that there are too many people in too tight a space and even if there isn't any forest or plants, the houses themselves became the fuel in the recent fires.

 

[ponytug]

I'm more inclined to believe they did it for agricultural purposes, not wildfire control.

Anyhow, it's to a point that there are too many people in too tight a space and even if there isn't any forest or plants, the houses themselves became the fuel in the recent fires.

I'm sure that you are right that the intent was better food, or better hunting areas, or a combination thereof. I wasn't meaning to imply that the idea was wildfire control.

I've been in areas where there was no control, and the only option is "run". One gets better, if not good, at keeping a weather eye for suspicious smoke or clouds. "Know your closest exit at all times" certainly applies.

All the best,

Peter

 

[kenmbz]

In Yosemite they stopped the burns and ended up with trees failing due to disease.
The spread was caused by not allowing the burns.

It's doubtful that the local forest here will ever look like it did.

Ash die off due to borers, lots of invasives.
It probably looks very different now than it did in the 1950's, no less the 1750's.

 

[ponytug]

In Yosemite they stopped the burns and ended up with trees failing due to disease.
The spread was caused by not allowing the burns.

It's doubtful that the local forest here will ever look like it did.

Ash die off due to borers, lots of invasives.
It probably looks very different now than it did in the 1950's, no less the 1750's.

Reminds me of speaking with a local resource management professional who was advocating for a certain set of behaviors and processes on our place to "restore the land to its historic condition". When I asked whether she meant 1810, or 1510, or 12,000BC she did not have an answer. But between the climatic variations, changes in apex predators, invasive species, (plants, insects, and animals), it struck me then, and now, as a terribly wooly concept on her part. I'm all for not degrading the land, and improving the ecological stability and diversity of local species, especially in the face of forced changes, but using a fundamentally unknowable point as a target, uh, no thanks.

All the best,

Peter

 

[ponytug]

On the land is always valuable topic;

California farms fail as land values plunge amid groundwater crisis

With aquifers nationwide in dangerous decline, an estimated 500,000 acres of farmland may be taken out of cultivation by 2040

www.mercurynews.com

Basically as the aquifer dries up land values are plummeting to perhaps 25% of just a few years ago.

A property that our family once owned has had its value plummet as an upstream plating company dumped PFAS in to a tributary, contaminating the rivers and lakes downstream, and making the fish not safe for human consumption.

Look at what Maine is dealing with sludge that was used to fertilize fields.

Lots of ways for things to go sideways, outside of the owner's control.

All the best,

Peter

 

[jyoutz]

The landscape would convert back to whatever it was before people started manipulating it for their own purposes and then continue the natural processes like lighting, insects, drought, flood, erosion, etc. Just like all lakes eventually fill in due to eutrophication, erosion, etc... if it weren't for those industrious beavers, of course.

​

That’s not true in all cases. Much of the western coniferous forests do not convert back to coniferous forests after high severity fires. When seed trees are removed in 100k acre patches, these types convert to grass or brush and may stay that way for decades/centuries.