Forestry based on clearcutting may create an advantage in that young forest stands, at least, may not catch fire very easily. “At this stage, the amount of deadwood in the forest is small and in general, there is not that much to burn in the forest, so a rampant fire cannot really develop,”
“to gather logging residue from the forest floor”, and this kind of activity is carried out in Finnish forests, and partially in order to decrease the amount of flammable biomass on the forest floor."
From, Finnish Forest Association.
This last quote, again from the the Finnish Forest Association, speaks directly to my points, which you were so quick to dismiss. Oh, and there's a special bonus in this article too! A picture of a firefighter standing in a stumpless firebreak!!! :DQuote
The difference between the two Nordic countries is not explained by vegetation or climate, but is believed to be based on differences in infrastructure and forest management."
Another major factor preventing forest fires is the fragmented forest ownership in Finland... forest management plans are based on the specific growing conditions of each of them [so that] a fire cannot spread as a fast-moving treetop fire when it reaches a clear-cut area or a thinned compartment.
And to drive home the forest/deforest planning on the grand scale in an attempt to mitigate fires:
From, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland! Again, these are not foreign concepts and the Finns should rightly be commended for how they've integrated them into their industry, which is the exact opposite of our nation and of most states, including California. You can also find more information, legal information, about the requirements of clearing (you know, "raking") and other general forestry operations on their cite and on the Association's cite.Quote
In Finland forest fires can in most cases be contained in a smaller area thanks to well-functioning collaboration among the authorities, varying natural conditions and long history of good forest management... the structure of Finnish forests limits the progress of forest fires. The small size of individual forest parcels prevents fire from spreading. In mature forest the progress of crown fire may stop or slow down as it meets an open space or seedling stand. To a certain extent wildfires in peatlands are also restricted by forest ditching.
Try it. Let your lawn..."
- I'm guessing the "Nonsense" was the title for what followed?? XD Honestly, Audrey, no one was making the case that either Finland or Japan are a 1-to-1 with California. The case that was being made was is that the best hope, thus far, for fire prevention or mitigation is not a one or the other approach, but a blend of business and environmentalism. That is what we see from the Finns and from the Japanese, and in the case of the Finns, we have a direct 1-to-1 between them and Sweden. With the same environmental factors and tree-huggers, only one suffers from massive fires.... So why is it nonsense to want to bring that blend to our forests? And please stop confusing the props for the drama. Bulldozers are clearly used in Finland, at least in that area, but as we've discovered, California isn't like Finland! But that doesn't change the need to remove the undergrowth/biomass.
"Most of the forest land is owned by the government. Are they in the logging business?"
- Do we know the answer to this? Why do you think it's this way?
"Trump said a stupid thing - rake the forests. You trumpers desperately try to justify/explain all the stupid things he says."
- Is it comedy fodder? Yes. Was it baseless? No (see the Finns above). That you're not educated on the subject and get triggered by #OrangeManBad does translate into stupid. Don't worry, both conditions are treatable but you have to want to get better... start with reading before SHOUTING!!!