The Turd's response to Canada's wildfires is to threaten to tariff them

Apparently, the Orange Fuckface is planning to be in NYC and doesn't like the smoke that the entire northeastern US is experiencing.

The decent response to this crisis would be to offer our neighbors help--just like they did with California wildfires, North Carolina hurricanes, and other natural disasters. Send fire crews and planes, helicopters, etc. But noooooo. The Turd's reaction is to insult and threaten them--with his stupid Turdiffs.

Canada is larger than the US but has one tenth the population. Their lands are much more heavily forested than ours. They do a much better job maintaining their forests than we do with ours. But the climate change that we've caused has made that more difficult.

I hope that they're able to handle these and other recent fires. The last few years have been worse than ever. They really don't and can't have the resources to handle things if they continue to get worse. We should help them, not have our stupid evil asshole President shit on them. Poor Trumpy doesn't want to smell smoke. Boo fucking hoo.

They do a much better job maintaining their forests than we do with ours

Doesn't appear that way as canada has almost double the number of fires and more than double the number of acres burning

Not that much more acres of forest.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Natural Resources Canada, Canada’s forests cover about 369 million hectares

In comparison, the U.S. Forest Service reports that the United States has about 304 million hectares

The liberal default response with no facts to back that up

But the climate change that we've caused has made that more difficult.

The real story

For much of the 20th century, Canada prioritized putting fires out quickly, which reduced natural fire cycles. This left forests with more deadwood, undergrowth, and flammable material than before, making fires burn hotter and spread faster scienceinsights.org.. Human activity About half of Canada’s wildfires are human-caused, from campfires and cigarettes to power line sparks scienceinsights.org. While these fires are often smaller, they can still ignite in dry conditions

Now the real story:

No water, more fires. No water, no Lake Powell. No water, no Lake Mead. No water, no Blue Mesa Reservoir.  No water, no Colorado River.

I humbly await your response. 

Stupid Tom, with one tenth the manpower, but more acreage, and about one tenth the financial resources, they do a much better job than we do. 

Climate change has put a much greater burden on them than previously, because the fire season is now longer and more widespread.

You rummaged around the internet until you found something that sounded good to you. That website's stuff isn't peer-reviewed; it's just a bunch of opinion articles. But let's humor you. For much of the 20th century, both Canada AND the US "prioritized putting out fires quickly." But let me educate you a bit, little Tommy--the 20th century ended quite some time ago. Both nations now manage their forests differently.

According to the National Interagency Fire Center, 85% of all wildfires in the US are human-caused.

So it looks like they're taking a lot better care of their forests than we are. You had to rush to the defense of the orange asshole whose dick you so lovingly suck.

Don't you feel silly now, stupid Tom?

With 10% of the manpower and double the number of fires; they are not taking care of their forests; while the smoke damage from these these fires is hurting the US.

Maybe they need to hire more people.

According to federal data cited by the National Interagency Fire Center, humans cause anywhere between 85% and 97% of all reported wildfires in the United States US Forest Service. While the exact percentage for Canada is not published in the NIFC’s public statistics, the same range applies globally, and Canadian wildfire data aligns with this figure.

If the fires are human caused then climate change is not a factor

No water, more fires. No water, no Lake Powell. No water, no Lake Mead. No water, no Blue Mesa Reservoir. No water, no Colorado River.

There are no fires near these water sources

Actually, with larger forests and 1/10th the manpower, they should have at least ten times as many fires, so they're taking MUCH better care of their forests than we are. DUHHH.

Climate change makes it easier for humans to start forest fires. Hotter and drier conditions lead to more and larger fires. DUHHH.

Climate change has led to a reduction in rainfall and an increase in temperatures. That means that both Canadian and US forests are more likely to burn. DUHHH.

Your first "source" said that half of wildfires in Canada are caused by humans. Then, your second "source" guessed that it's between 85 and 97 percent. Which Tom-stat do you want to use?

Stupid Tom,

When forests are very dry, they burn faster and hotter, no matter how the fire is started. The statement, "If the fires are human caused then climate change is not a factor, " is ridiculous. If you don't have water, the forests burn more, and the lakes and river levels fall to dangerous levels, which is exacerbated by climate change.

This, "If the fires are human caused then climate change is not a factor", still has me shaking my head. You really believe that? Incredible.

Liberals have been predicting enviromental disasters for 55 years; but have been spectacularly wrong

https://outdoorhacker.com/33-climate-predictions-that-never-happened-a-history-of-inaccuracy/

https://climatecosmos.com/climate-news/10-times-climate-change-predictions-missed-the-mark

Erlich stated that nothing could prevent famines in which hundreds of millions of people would die during the 1970s and that there would be a substantial increase in the world death rate. These were not tentative forecasts. They were presented as iron law.

The predictions did not stop there. During a 1971 speech, Ehrlich prophesied that he would take even-money odds that England would not exist by the year 2000. He also claimed the U.S. would be rationing water by 1974 and food by 1980. He went further still, predicting that 65 million Americans would starve to death

MAGA and Trump like to blame natural disasters on government - presuming the government identifies with the left.   Strangely, when a hurricane hits Florida....or a flash flood hits Kentucky....or a fire burns down Texas then that whole BS disappears.

The current Canadian fires are predominantly in unpopulated areas of the country with the closest fire fighting infrastructure 100 miles away or more.     Fire Marshall Tom with his big DOGE mentality seems to think Canada is at fault for not having fully staffed fire departments 3 hours away from the closest town.     In addition to being uninformed and stupid - thats also hilarious given Tom's big small-government-DOGE mentality that cut FEMA budgets in the US.

In the past America and Canada would lend support and resources to help each other in situations like this.   But just like we saw with the fire in California - MAGA uses opportunities like this to shit on their political opponents and make up bullshit to support it.    It takes a special kind of asshole to do that.   And thats what we have in the White House and the people who get in line behind him right now.     

We do aid Canada

The United States has repeatedly sent wildland firefighters, aircraft, and support personnel to Canada under a long‑standing mutual‑aid agreement dating back to 1982 factually.co+1. These deployments are coordinated through the U.S. National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC) and the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre (CIFFC) and are activated when Canadian authorities request assistance during severe wildfire seasons factually.co.

And in Ca the state emptied a reservoir, had multple fire trucks out of service and told the dept to stand down and be careful about damaging trees and bushes and of course the missing mayor who ignored warnings of potential fires

Evidence includes text messages that appear to show California State Parks employees seeking to limit the impact of fire suppression to protect endangered plants; an unreleased agency document stating that the park’s preferred policy is to let the area burn in a wildfire event; and secret maps that attempt to constrain firefighting operations in certain areas of the park—even adjacent to densely populated areas—to protect “sensitive natural and cultural resources” like endangered plants and Native American archaeological sites. It also includes allegations that state employees failed to monitor the smoldering burn scar in the days before the January 7 conflagration, despite nearly half a century of accumulated vegetation and forecasters issuing their direst warnings.

The plant matter in that area hadn’t burned since 1978—nearly half a century of accumulated fuel

California State Parks completed a draft Wildfire Management Plan for Topanga State Park. The document, obtained through public records requests by the fire victims’ attorneys, reveals a system of policies and maps designed to restrict firefighting operations on state parkland to protect “sensitive cultural and natural resources.” Those restrictions, attorneys for the Palisades fire victims allege, shaped the response to the New Year’s Eve fire. The plan designates large swaths of the park as “avoidance areas,” where normal firefighting tactics are typically restricted. Within these zones, “no heavy equipment, vehicles, and retardant are allowed,” the plan states, and “fire suppression activities may not occur within these areas without consultation of an Agency Representative, or a Resource Advisor assigned to the incident.” The plan also says that no “mop-up” operations to extinguish smoldering hot spots are allowed in these areas “without the presence of an archeologist READ [resource advisor]”—meaning that thoroughly putting out a fire required bureaucratic oversight.