How do you defend this?
- Thread starter CSCOTTOSUPOKES
- Start date
california won't let you do what's needed to prevent these fires. You can't cut a tree down without a permit and getting that permit is a deal killer. There are lots of steps that could be taken to keep these fires at a minimum instead of spreading like wildfire. California won't let you do it. A very mismanaged situation that costs lives and money...but the environmentalists like it that way.
So I know you won't listen to this but my father-in-law has a degree in forestry from OSU. He's railed a number of times against the forestry management practices of places like California. They don't allow any logging. And I'm not talking about clear cutting. But any responsible logging. They also don't allow fire breaks be cut in sections. They also fight any natural fire that happens.
All this leads to a massive amount of unspent undergrowth, dead trees, and no natural breaks. This is a recipe for wild fires since there is now huge amounts of fuel just sitting on the forest floor.
With a bit of management you turn wild fires into smaller natural fires that manage themselves. That's not to mention the diseases that happen due to forestry practices from California.
But again, I'm sure you know more than someone educated in the topic.
How do you get offended by that tweet?
You f'ers are ridiculous.
You f'ers are ridiculous.
Why is it important for you, a god hater?
Doesn't mesh with your beliefs, but you're still pissed off.
See why you're ridiculous.
Is believing there’s a god a prerequisite for having a brain and a soul?
See why you’re ridiculous.
Weird is that wasn't the point of the original post. If we wanted to discuss the lack of a tweet regarding the people impacted then you should have framed the question that way.
You asked us to defend the tweet in question. Which we did.
You just described the practice of moving the goal post.
Because @CSCOTTOSUPOKES programmers told him to be outraged. He isn’t smart enough to think for himself.
It is pretty clear that it is an empty threat. He's trying to get something done by talking tough. I don't think he would really withhold federal help where it is needed.
I have no problem with him doing what he can to try to spur California to be more pro-active.
With that said, I think it is naive to suggest that California fires can be easily controlled via forest management. Lack of precipitation is the driving force, IMO.
I have no problem with him doing what he can to try to spur California to be more pro-active.
With that said, I think it is naive to suggest that California fires can be easily controlled via forest management. Lack of precipitation is the driving force, IMO.
I'm sure your Vet Med training made you an expert on forestry management as opposed to actual experts. Good on you.
You know more about it than me. I clearly said "I think" in my post. I'm not claiming to be an expert. Just my opinion without doing any research into the topic.
Of course there are other factors like climate and topology. But the core factors are pretty universal. Obviously my FIL is the one that should be typing this - not me. But the environmental policies of California and other locations makes this a much worse problem than it should be.
When Tom Daschle, D-SD, was in the Senate they passed legislation the environmental lobby pushed which restricted the clearing of underbrush in National Forests. It was said then that clearing the underbrush and removing dead trees would mitigate forest fires but the environmental lobby objected. Somehow, the state of South Dakota got an exemption.
It’s pretty simple, you have to get the fuel off the ground.
We control burn all of our land every 3 years, on a rotation so 1/3 gets burned every April. We do this under the guidance of the local forestry and fire departments. All family members combined, we have 1,200 all wooded acres.
We had dozers cut burn lines every 3/4 miles and we burn those lines every year.
All of our neighbors do the same, one of which is Weyerhaeuser.
It isn’t that these residential areas in CA had fuel on the ground, it’s that their perimeters had fuel (and lots of it) on the ground. A hot burning fire reaching an area with little fuel is still gonna eat.
We control burn all of our land every 3 years, on a rotation so 1/3 gets burned every April. We do this under the guidance of the local forestry and fire departments. All family members combined, we have 1,200 all wooded acres.
We had dozers cut burn lines every 3/4 miles and we burn those lines every year.
All of our neighbors do the same, one of which is Weyerhaeuser.
It isn’t that these residential areas in CA had fuel on the ground, it’s that their perimeters had fuel (and lots of it) on the ground. A hot burning fire reaching an area with little fuel is still gonna eat.
Forest/Range Fires are part of the natural order.
But we don’t like our stuff burning down, so we fight the natural order. And then some people fight trying to mitigate the artificial effect we’ve created by altering the natural order.
It’s one of those things that doesn’t make any sense if you really think about it.
But we don’t like our stuff burning down, so we fight the natural order. And then some people fight trying to mitigate the artificial effect we’ve created by altering the natural order.
It’s one of those things that doesn’t make any sense if you really think about it.
It would be so impressive if you ever had the balls to just admit you were wrong about something when someone explains it to you.
And please don’t act like you would respect Trump saying thoughts and prayers.
I don't think this thread is going the direction Toon thought it would.
And backfires are what the Forest Service uses to control wildfires.I don't think this thread is going the direction Toon thought it would.
Is this the reason that states like WV and TN have much less of a problem or is it location related? I have never really thought about it and now I am curious.
That is why I think lack of precipitation is a big part of the problem. Parts of California and Nevada are lucky if they get 1 day of significant rain for extended periods of time.
And he’s gone.
@CSCOTTOSUPOKES get back in here and own up to not knowing what the fvck you are talking about....AGAIN.
@CSCOTTOSUPOKES get back in here and own up to not knowing what the fvck you are talking about....AGAIN.
Yep, that and decades of waterway mismanagement due to virtue signaling BS instead of doing the right thing.
I saw two major forest fires on national forest land within 30 miles of my house this summer. Thousands, and I mean literally thousands, of acres burned. I think these two fires alone consumed over 100,000 acres, if I’m not mistaken. One friend lost a house in that. Another friend lost their garage.
All fires start out being small. And if you don’t implement preventative maintenance, you have to react quickly or that little fire becomes out of control very quickly in the dry conditions we had this summer.
For decades, I have struggled to understand why the United States Department of Agriculture does not do much of anything to reduce this danger. But they just don’t. The forests here are simply not viewed as a manageable resource. But when it catches fire and gets out of control, the USDA spends millions of dollars to fight the fire. Typical federal government thinking.
Now the chief executive of the USDA has been appointed by President Trump. And I haven’t seen any change in policy. Disappointing.
All fires start out being small. And if you don’t implement preventative maintenance, you have to react quickly or that little fire becomes out of control very quickly in the dry conditions we had this summer.
For decades, I have struggled to understand why the United States Department of Agriculture does not do much of anything to reduce this danger. But they just don’t. The forests here are simply not viewed as a manageable resource. But when it catches fire and gets out of control, the USDA spends millions of dollars to fight the fire. Typical federal government thinking.
Now the chief executive of the USDA has been appointed by President Trump. And I haven’t seen any change in policy. Disappointing.
1/3 of the land involved in the largest fire in California is on FEDERAL LAND, so that's under the BLM's control (ala Trump.) The other 2/3 is on PRIVATE land, outside the control of the State. So, once again, please explain how the State of California is responsible, when it has NO legal authority over either Federal or Private land?
So if I want to go burn my private land in California I have total autonomy in that decision and can just go do it? BS
I believe wildfire mitigation techniques described by @Ostatedchi should be implemented on federal land. Do you agree?
