<![CDATA[Imagine Sonoma County]]> Commentics Dr. Dan Levitis The indigenous peoples of this area knew how to manage this land, and they burned often. We need to learn from them. While I laud current efforts at prescribed burning, we are doing it on far too small a scale. Wildfires burn hundreds of thousands of acres in our area each year, and we burn a few hundred acres in prescribed fires. We need to simplify the regulatory hurdles, invest more in prescribed fires, experiment with a wider variety of burning strategies and make our prescribed fires much bigger. Hoping that fire won't come to an area is not a strategy. We need to decide when and how we want fires to happen.

]]> Tue, 20 Apr 2021 15:45:10 -0700 item_182 Jenny Blaker One of the best ways to sequester carbon is in forests, in trees and soils. Agree with others that the best way to protect homes and communities from fire is by home hardening and creating defensible space within a maximum of 100 feet from homes. Cutting trees in forests further away does not help prevent these fires which are usually started by flying embers; the important thing is to stop those embers igniting the house. Logging forests in the name of "vegetation management" for "fuel load reduction" does nothing to protect communities from fire and is destroying the very same ecosystems that protect our watersheds, and provide valuable habitat for wildlife. Burning forest woody biomass for energy is not clean (highly toxic), not carbon neutral (emits more carbon than burning coal) and not renewable (it takes decades for trees that are cut down to grow back to the same size as when they were cut; if at all. Meanwhile logging operations compact soil, creating erosion, runoff, etc. and do far more long-term damage.

]]> Mon, 19 Apr 2021 17:11:53 -0700 item_170 Connie Madden It is wrong to remove vegetation wherever you can chop it, cover the ground around trees or use biochar techniques to sequester carbon. We should not pay huge dollars to haul vegetation away from our county where we could sequester carbon in place.

In wildland residential interface areas, it may be necessary to remove vegetation.

Number one worry is saving life, so evacuation and exit plans must be in place as well.

The first action is hardening the houses, escape routes and prepared go bags; second is restoring the forests to health and both elements are urgently needed.

]]> Thu, 15 Apr 2021 11:41:58 -0700 item_137 Ariel Majorana Yes to above. Traditional techniques yes, skeptical about taking mass out of forest as it is carbon sink and provides nutrients and biodiversity to the land. Some are claiming they are taking biomass out to help forests, but end up clearcutting and planting monotypical plants, killing the delicate balance of the ecosystem.

]]> Mon, 22 Mar 2021 09:32:32 -0700 item_76 judıth Let’s elevate the wisdom of the people who managed this land for millennia to guide us here now.

]]> Sat, 20 Mar 2021 14:38:50 -0700 item_72 Sunny Galbraith We need to be wary of biomass electricity-generation (wood-burning energy generation). Incinerating trees for energy in biomass facilities emits about 50% more CO2 than burning coal, for equal energy produced, and is a source of dangerous air pollutions for communities living near biomass facilities.

]]> Tue, 09 Mar 2021 16:04:17 -0800 item_44