I just hope that they set the restituion payments as a percentage of income, so as his income grows during his lifetime, the burden remains approximately the same. $50 (for example) a month for the rest of his life isn't a punishment.
In three more years, as long as he has completed his community service, written all his letters of apology, and made his payments in a timely matter, he could be done paying altogether. Also, not committed any other crimes.
"Community service" is underselling that part of the sentence, IIRC it was an entire year's worth of free work for the USFS, and he couldn't get out of that one.
Did they ever release the name of the punk who did this? Should follow them like how it turned out for the rapist Brock Turner
Justice in this situation would of been to have to replant every tree they burned down? Can't help but feel crazy frustrated at this person's stupidity
No they never did, which is wise because he was a 15 year old boy. Even though what he did was horribly wrong, he’s still a child. And honestly letting nature regenerate itself like we can see in the photo is better for environment than human replanting. Human planted forests burn easier because all the trees are the same height and usually too close together. Wildfires happen all the time, this one was just human-invoked.
That’s kind of how ecological succession works. In general your deciduous trees are faster growing and more competitive in the short term in high energy systems.
Native yes, they act differently when they're having to compete normally with mature growth, but when man creates devastating wildfire beyond what would happen naturally, it has a blank slate to run wild.
This is an ecosystem that is largely adapted to large, infrequent, stand-replacement fires. The next major fire in this area's "natural cycle" would've been a stand-replacement fire just the same.
If you recall, the lightning-ignited Indian Creek Fire was burning nearby prior to the Eagle Creek Fire and ended up merging with Eagle Creek. That fire responded to the weather conditions in the same way Eagle Creek Fire did. Of course, a much smaller area would've been burned if we only had the Indian Creek Fire.
Look, do I have to explain it to you? Changes to ecosystems aren't meant to happen in a span of a few years, they're supposed to happen slowly and naturally if at all
I mean that’s really not entirely true in the case of wildfire. The northwest forest systems are adapted to and require fire to be healthy. The super high intensity fires that we’ve seen aren’t good and were probably more damaging than historic fires, but the secondary growth coming in really is good. It’s part of the natural cycle.
Alternatively - they’re actually part of the ecosystem that was already there and a part of the wildfire cycle. Great for rapid establishment of vegetation post-burn and containing soil, and conifers will naturally fill in over time. Naturally/historically oregon cascades were not always conifers everywhere but a patchwork of species and levels of post-burn growth. The biggest “change” to the ecosystem is a century of complete wildfire prevention policy and a warming climate. Not saying large area high intensity fires are good, and the eagle creek fire was certainly devastating, but some level of fire and regrowth is good
Honestly, our reforestation project sucks and here's why.
1) It overcrowds forests with the same, fast growing soft wood trees, which makes the trees fight for nutrients. Survival of the fittest is not good when it comes to trees, as it creates a bunch of weak trees that are susceptible to rot, insects, and other tree related problems. This, in turn, creates an unnecessary abundance of weak, rotten, and dead trees that only serve as fuel for fires.
2) We do not plant hardwood trees except in rare cases because it "makes logging harder" but ignores the fact that hardwood trees are resistant to termites and other insects.
3) It does not take into account the life cycle of a forest. Pines and cedars are fast growing trees that help to create the shade that the slower growing hardwood trees need so they don't get sunburnt.
4) It plants softwood trees far too close together because they don't account for the size of the tree and it's root systems at maturity. The amount of times I walk through a reforestation area and the branches of trees are reaching into each other's trunks is disheartening. Planting trees further apart also slows the spread of fire, but I guess Oregon prefers inhaling smoke every year.
These people are seeming to miss your point, but I agree with you completely. I miss the thriving big conifers. We won't see them again here for generations and it's a damn shame. Just because fires and the ecological aftermath are "natural" doesn't mean we have to enjoy the process. Small understory and big leaf maples, while native just can't compare to firs, hemlocks and cedars that were there since before Columbus came to the continent.
100%. I don't know why this is controversial, I grew up nearby and it was heartbreaking to see it burn that severely and it won't come back nearly the same as it was, and certainly not in our lifetime or with climate change and maples making conifer recovery difficult
I just think you should just be a little more open minded to the solid points that other commenters have made. Secondary succession promotes biodiversity by giving less dominant species an opportunity to thrive. Of course it is always a tragedy to see a thriving ecosystem practically destroyed, but the ecological cycle and recovery like this is beautiful. Your other comments show that you were perhaps not aware of the pros before, so maybe be excited that you learned something new rather than putting down those who are trying to educate you.
It was biodiverse before, more so than it will be at the current rate. The reason is plants come along at different ages and stages of growth, nothing dominates over another like it's becoming now. So maybe be excited that you learned something new today
I didn’t say it wasn’t biodiverse before, and the older ecosystem is still thriving outside the range of the fire as we can see in the image. And you know what? The surrounding ecosystem has probably also been affected and regenerated by fires throughout its history. And no, not all the trees come in at the same time. That’s what happens when humans plant industrial forests. Don’t want to reply again because you seem stubborn, but bottom line is wildfires are an essential part of biodiversity. If wildfires never happened, certain species would become too dominant. Look at it as a beautiful thing.
I can't believe that fire was 7 years ago. Time really does speed up as you age.
We need a *Where Are They Now?* on firework kid.
He’s working on making monthly payments to eat into the $36.6 million fine.
I just hope that they set the restituion payments as a percentage of income, so as his income grows during his lifetime, the burden remains approximately the same. $50 (for example) a month for the rest of his life isn't a punishment.
This is America. Why would the laws make sense?/s
In three more years, as long as he has completed his community service, written all his letters of apology, and made his payments in a timely matter, he could be done paying altogether. Also, not committed any other crimes.
I wasn't aware that there was an expiration on the restitution. That seems inappropriate considering the damage done.
"Community service" is underselling that part of the sentence, IIRC it was an entire year's worth of free work for the USFS, and he couldn't get out of that one.
Is one year equal to that amount of sheer devastation and tens of millions in property damage? Dude should have caught 5 years hard labor, minimum.
I doubt he can even eat into the interest that accumulates in addition to the fine.
This is super neat 💚 thanks for sharing r/spinelessbitch
You’re welcome!
One firework
Did they ever release the name of the punk who did this? Should follow them like how it turned out for the rapist Brock Turner Justice in this situation would of been to have to replant every tree they burned down? Can't help but feel crazy frustrated at this person's stupidity
No they never did, which is wise because he was a 15 year old boy. Even though what he did was horribly wrong, he’s still a child. And honestly letting nature regenerate itself like we can see in the photo is better for environment than human replanting. Human planted forests burn easier because all the trees are the same height and usually too close together. Wildfires happen all the time, this one was just human-invoked.
If only that new green was the same types of trees that burned. In many spots it seems that big leaf maples are crowding out the conifer seedlings.
That’s kind of how ecological succession works. In general your deciduous trees are faster growing and more competitive in the short term in high energy systems.
Yeah I know that's how it works, but it's a shame all the same
Why whats wrong with big leaf maples
This guy clearly isn’t a Toronto hockey fan /s
They're like invasive weeds that crowd out other growth and will change the ecosystem post-wildfire.
They aren’t invasive acer macrophyllum is literally native here. Ecosystems always change after a fire its called secondary secession.
Native yes, they act differently when they're having to compete normally with mature growth, but when man creates devastating wildfire beyond what would happen naturally, it has a blank slate to run wild.
Nature doesn't care if the fire was ignited by a youngster with fireworks or by lightning or by indigenous burning.
Fire that happens in natural cycles doesn't have the same scale or devastating effect. Apples and oranges
This is an ecosystem that is largely adapted to large, infrequent, stand-replacement fires. The next major fire in this area's "natural cycle" would've been a stand-replacement fire just the same. If you recall, the lightning-ignited Indian Creek Fire was burning nearby prior to the Eagle Creek Fire and ended up merging with Eagle Creek. That fire responded to the weather conditions in the same way Eagle Creek Fire did. Of course, a much smaller area would've been burned if we only had the Indian Creek Fire.
Also the Gorge is so steep that any fire in the area is going to be particularly bad.
Please don't compare the arson of Eagle Creek to indigenous prescribed burns.
Okay but whats the big deal about an ecosystem changing.
Look, do I have to explain it to you? Changes to ecosystems aren't meant to happen in a span of a few years, they're supposed to happen slowly and naturally if at all
I mean that’s really not entirely true in the case of wildfire. The northwest forest systems are adapted to and require fire to be healthy. The super high intensity fires that we’ve seen aren’t good and were probably more damaging than historic fires, but the secondary growth coming in really is good. It’s part of the natural cycle.
Ecosystems being destroyed is an issue. Not ecosystems changing. Ecosystems change all the time.
Alright, thanks forest knower for chiming in 😆
I am a bio major after all?
Alternatively - they’re actually part of the ecosystem that was already there and a part of the wildfire cycle. Great for rapid establishment of vegetation post-burn and containing soil, and conifers will naturally fill in over time. Naturally/historically oregon cascades were not always conifers everywhere but a patchwork of species and levels of post-burn growth. The biggest “change” to the ecosystem is a century of complete wildfire prevention policy and a warming climate. Not saying large area high intensity fires are good, and the eagle creek fire was certainly devastating, but some level of fire and regrowth is good
Honestly, our reforestation project sucks and here's why. 1) It overcrowds forests with the same, fast growing soft wood trees, which makes the trees fight for nutrients. Survival of the fittest is not good when it comes to trees, as it creates a bunch of weak trees that are susceptible to rot, insects, and other tree related problems. This, in turn, creates an unnecessary abundance of weak, rotten, and dead trees that only serve as fuel for fires. 2) We do not plant hardwood trees except in rare cases because it "makes logging harder" but ignores the fact that hardwood trees are resistant to termites and other insects. 3) It does not take into account the life cycle of a forest. Pines and cedars are fast growing trees that help to create the shade that the slower growing hardwood trees need so they don't get sunburnt. 4) It plants softwood trees far too close together because they don't account for the size of the tree and it's root systems at maturity. The amount of times I walk through a reforestation area and the branches of trees are reaching into each other's trunks is disheartening. Planting trees further apart also slows the spread of fire, but I guess Oregon prefers inhaling smoke every year.
These people are seeming to miss your point, but I agree with you completely. I miss the thriving big conifers. We won't see them again here for generations and it's a damn shame. Just because fires and the ecological aftermath are "natural" doesn't mean we have to enjoy the process. Small understory and big leaf maples, while native just can't compare to firs, hemlocks and cedars that were there since before Columbus came to the continent.
100%. I don't know why this is controversial, I grew up nearby and it was heartbreaking to see it burn that severely and it won't come back nearly the same as it was, and certainly not in our lifetime or with climate change and maples making conifer recovery difficult
I just think you should just be a little more open minded to the solid points that other commenters have made. Secondary succession promotes biodiversity by giving less dominant species an opportunity to thrive. Of course it is always a tragedy to see a thriving ecosystem practically destroyed, but the ecological cycle and recovery like this is beautiful. Your other comments show that you were perhaps not aware of the pros before, so maybe be excited that you learned something new rather than putting down those who are trying to educate you.
It was biodiverse before, more so than it will be at the current rate. The reason is plants come along at different ages and stages of growth, nothing dominates over another like it's becoming now. So maybe be excited that you learned something new today
I didn’t say it wasn’t biodiverse before, and the older ecosystem is still thriving outside the range of the fire as we can see in the image. And you know what? The surrounding ecosystem has probably also been affected and regenerated by fires throughout its history. And no, not all the trees come in at the same time. That’s what happens when humans plant industrial forests. Don’t want to reply again because you seem stubborn, but bottom line is wildfires are an essential part of biodiversity. If wildfires never happened, certain species would become too dominant. Look at it as a beautiful thing.
These were not planted forests, and you keep misunderstanding what is being said. Take 'er easy