Opinion: Public lands being neglected
To the community,
All ecological conflicts are over space. Whose is it? What can or will be done with space? In the Tahoe basin we have creatures great and small. There are bears and mountain cottontails (three reside in my yard). And of course there’s man who wants the basin’s space to use for this and that and other things.
And there is the Forest Service ad the CTC. Government agencies that own land in the basin. They own many lots in the city of South Lake Tahoe. What do the agencies do with the land? Nothing except let the grass and weeds grow. And now is the season for fire. And the agencies will not make their property safe from fire. Especially the Forest Service.
Bill Crawford
Why the neglect? Why allow the overgrown space be a threat to life great and small? There has been a house fire across the street from my house and trees on a CTC lot next to the house fire caught fire. The city fire department (three engines) put the fire out.
We were lucky then. But the next time, who knows?
Bill Crawford, South Lake Tahoe
I don’t always agree with Bill Crawford but on this topic I agree 100-percent. While private property owners are expected to maintain their property and implement defensible space measures the CTC and Forest Service in large part don’t do either. I would think that the City’s new citation process will enable the citing of those agencies to perform the necessary clean-up for fire prevention purposes, and if those agencies don’t do the clean-up then the City should contract with a local company to go in and do it and send the CTC or Forest Service the bill. City Community Service Officer Bob Albertazzi should be contacted regarding this matter and his contact information is available on the City’s website at http://www.cityofslt.us
In other high fire danger areas (Lake County, Sonora, Grass Valley, etc.) property owners must maintain their land by a specified date and if it’s not done the local jurisdiction comes in and does it and charges the property owner. This policy should be implemented in all residential portions of the entire Tahoe basin and it should apply to CTC and Forest Service owned lands also.
Because the funding is drying up… I think bill brings out a good point. How will all this be managed.? It appears much of the ctc land was bought using state funding and now the responsibility of maintaining it put in the hands of the state. How will the ctc survive this in the face of budget cuts and declining revenues? It also appears they will be selling off land previously bought for next to nothing at a profit to the highest bidder. This land bought for conservation and previously banked coverage will then be sold as buildable. Corporations and developers will be the primary funders for this effort. The writings on the wall…
Thanks to this excellent opinion piece, the all-powerful USFS employees at the LTBMU traveled back in time to begin the lengthy process!! Check here for their progress:
http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/!ut/p/c5/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gDfxMDT8MwRydLA1cj72BTUwMTAwgAykeaxRtBeY4WBv4eHmF-YT4GMHn8usNB9uHXDzYBB3A00PfzyM9N1S_IjTDIMnFUBABtoHw8/dl3/d3/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS9ZQnZ3LzZfMjAwMDAwMDBBODBPSEhWTjJNMDAwMDAwMDA!/?navtype=BROWSEBYSUBJECT&cid=fsm9_046762&navid=130110000000000&pnavid=130000000000000&ss=110519&position=Project.Html&ttype=detail&pname=Lake%20Tahoe%20Basin%20Mgt%20Unit-%20Projects
The CTC does not maintain anything they buy or build. It’s planned that way. This was my concern with building the bike trail from meyers to stateline. The CTC will build it and then walk away and expect some other agency to maintain it.
It isn’t a matter of the funding “drying up”. Public lands, unless they’re an actual National Park, are rarely maintained. Yet the Federal government wants to take more land from the states and declare them “wilderness”.
“Public” ownership is for all practical purposes, Non-ownership. And when nobody owns something, nobody takes care of it. Private property is much better maintained. You only need to look around you to see that is true.
The aftermath of the Angora fire showed some government plots that had fuel reduced as pretty good survivors. Ladder fuels, crown fires, ect… are a different subject in subdivisions than the perimeter around them. Costs skyrocket when buildings are denser. Much private land in the city of South Lake Tahoe is no where near fire resistant. Keeping lots fire resistant most likely keeps the environment healthier too.
Because we are getting ready for for information meetings on our forest plan revision today and tomorrow, I can’t respond to this opinion piece at length right now, but I also can’t let it pass without remark.
Unmanaged? Really? Even a cursory reading of Lake Tahoe News and other local papers would reveal how far this is from the truth. Major stream restoration projects at Blackwood Creek, High Meadows and now beginning on the Upper Truckee… Thousands of acres of fuels reduction on National Forest System lands to protect communities around the lake from severe wildfire, including 10,000 plus acres of treatments scheduled for the South Shore, which have now started near Camp Richardson…initial fuels reduction and forest health treatment on lots the Forest Service manages within local communities… invasive weeds and aquatic species eradication and prevention efforts…countless managed recreation opportunities…visitor information and conservation
Extremist fringe sociopaths are unable to grasp the concept of “public” ownership. Selling off everything to the highest bidder, reducing or eliminating regulations, and then expecting the new owners to maintain the land wisely is beyond delusional. The big bucks free-marketeers have one goal and one goal only…. more big bucks… regardless of the consequences.
Cheva, don’t let these people ruin your day. Some of them don’t think beyond their reactions that they type.
The USFS has a very large mandate and is given little resources.
Cheva might have the most difficult job in the basin, having to deal with irrationally angry people. That should be considered hazard pay.
We have it good here. We have a lot of staff and funding in the basin. They are taking on very large fuels reduction projects in response to problems caused by people generations ago. Thank them for that.
The urban lots program, from what I understand, is on a 7 years cycle. Every urban parcel is treated once every 7 years. If you don’t like the parcel near you, you can talk to someone at the LTBMU and become a steward of the parcel under their guidance.
The author of the letter does not mention this at all, and leaves out a big part of the picture.
I am not sure what the CTC plan is, but I am sure if someone has the time to write articles like this, they can call the CTC and find that out.
The article raises some good questions, but it irresponsible for not including the answers that could be easily found with 1 phone call to each agency.
Find answers as you ask questions. As you criticize, try to understand.
If you are feeling intellectually lazy, just write some bad poetry (I kid on that, I respect anyone who shows anyone else their poetry).
A house catches fire, the house ignites a tree on an adjacent lot and this somehow is an indictment of all USFS and CTC fuels treatments?
I am so glad Crawford is off the City Council so that a spot can be opened up for an actual thinking person.
thing fish – Thanks for your points, and I won’t let it ruin my day! Nor will I share any of my poetry!
Mr. Crawford – instead of the constant complaints, why don’t you *do* something. As in something constructive? Organize a letter writing campaign to get more funds into the basin.
“Extremist fringe sociopaths”
Nice. Why do SOME people here get banned for their ideas while others are allowed to spew personal abuse indefinitely?
I would call a 7 year gap between “treatments” neglect. Certainly if you only did maintenance on your personal property every seven years, the agencies would be having words with you.
But it doesn’t matter what I think, because I don’t own that land. i do, however, maintain the Conservancy lot next door to my property. Because nobody else does. You’re welcome.
Dogula, here is the point. Seven years is a great maintenance routine if the land is to be kept wild. But the fact is, you would howl if your taxes went up to pay for annual maintenance. So basically you want something for nothing. Now lets look a little deeper, your property value reflects the fact that the adjacent lot is open space and not a house. You have profited from that fact and now you also want thanks for taking a couple hours to clean up? Selfish anyone?
What is WRONG with you? Why do you attack me? Who said anything about annual maintenance? Why should I have to pay more taxes at all? Why am I selfish for doing physical labor on property that isn’t mine?
You people are nuts.
Go ahead and ban me again. I’m done.
Excellent response John. I wanted to go into more detail about why 7 years makes sense, from a realistic management perspective that uses forest ecology as a basis for the timeline. But I knew it would fall on deaf ears, or would be criticized for being ‘lazy’ or ‘neglectful’. 7 years is a pretty small number when it comes to the development of ladder fuels. 7 years… that’s maybe 2m of vertical growth, 7cm increase in dbh at most. That is completely reasonable, and is on the proactive side. 10 years would be fine if the first pass aggressively treats ladder fuels.
And this, makes me laugh:
“Nice. Why do SOME people here get banned for their ideas while others are allowed to spew personal abuse indefinitely?”
Maybe you shouldn’t post links to islamophobic propaganda videos and own up to being proudly islamophobic. Maybe your ideas are ignorant and bigoted?
LOL at ‘extremist sociopaths’ coming from a religious bigot.
Between this and regular doses of Louis CK, my need for surrealistic absurdity is fulfilled.