Bush Policy that Saved Homes blocked by Environment Groups and 9th Circuit

[7960]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

It is estimated that we have more forest growth in Europe and North America over the last century because we have prevented these massive fires. Anyone who has walked under the Sequoia tree in Calfornia cannot help but notice they almost all have fire scars. They survive, nothing else does. And by the way these fires may help new plant growth, but they take the food supply out of the animal food chain and cause much death.

right.......animals didn't have methods to survive fires before man started preventing them. They are stupid and are cooked where they stand. The fire dept only rushes into the woods during fires to retrieve the venison, moose, and bear meat before it's over done.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Publius

Forest fires are actually good for nature, they kill off old vegetation and create an environment for new vegetation to flourish.

I know that. That's why the controlled burns help.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by 7960

right.......animals didn't have methods to survive fires before man started preventing them. They are stupid and are cooked where they stand. The fire dept only rushes into the woods during fires to retrieve the venison, moose, and bear meat before it's over done.

Animals get trapped and die just like humans do. Managing the forests with controlled burns and selective timbering saves habitats.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Animals get trapped and die just like humans do. Managing the forests with controlled burns and selective timbering saves habitats.

They also starve after the fact because the whole natural foodchain is disrupted. My friend who works on Catalina is still watching the collection of animal bodies long after the fire. I don't know what is funny about that?

[tbone]

Maybe I read this differently or had a different source where I first heard, but it seems the environmental groups just want to have some oversight as this can be abused. I have to agree with oversight, given the current state of gov't. I don't think anyone is arguing controlled burns around existing housing is bad.

[6SpeedTA95]

This is typical environmentalist wacko shit.

There are thinning measures in place in many areas to minimize the destruction of fires. You dont cut down entire sections of forest, you cut out underbrush and thin it and it makes it easy to control fires if/when they break out. Without forest management it is more difficult to control fires when they do occur resulting in far more damage to the environment...not to mention the amount of CO2 released by these forest fires....

[7960]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

They also starve after the fact because the whole natural foodchain is disrupted. My friend who works on Catalina is still watching the collection of animal bodies long after the fire. I don't know what is funny about that?

It's not funny. What is funny is the environmentalists getting pussyhurt because they're not involved in the process. Read the article again. Nobody is clear cutting but that's what the kind of inflammatory (no pun) language they're using to justify inserting themselves in the process. Nine times out of ten when they say "we just want to make sure.....!!!!!" what they really mean is "we just want to have control........." or "we just want to ensure we have jobs..........."


And btw, catalina had the fire it had because minimal rain and winter freezing which led to .......... you guessed it!! Too much dead underbrush

DRY WINTER FUELS WILDFIRE WARNING / Tinderbox conditions around state a firefighter's nightmare -- property owners urged to take aggressive safety measures

Gee, if only there was a policy that allowed clearing it.