RSS Feed
Loading ...
Ted made the comment:
I want to make a comment about the superfires burning in California.
I wish to point out the cause of these have been the policy of the US Forestry Department 40 years ago that were enacted by a Democratic congress and the same conservationist lobby screeching over global warming.
The folks with real expereience in forestry said that the best was to control these ewre with controlled burns, but the Dem congress and the “conservationist” were against this. 40 years later, these folk were proved wrong.
So, why should we believe them now regarding global warming? This is another failed Democratic policy, but will any acknowledge it? I am getting weary of the GW screeching over this and happily thrust these facts in their face.
And Michelle takes it from there: Wildfires and environmental obstructionism. The text below is from Michelle:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is calling up the National Guard and asking for military support. President Bush has declared a state of emergency.
We’ve been here before and we’ve been warned that these disasters will continue. Just last month, experts were calling on Congress to expedite forest thinning and other forest managment alternatives:
Wildfires thrive in hot, dry weather. But the conditions also contribute to the die-off of trees, which must compete for water in forests that have become unnaturally dense because of a century of misguided fire suppression. Once dead and brittle, the trees become more fuel for catastrophic fires.
The panelists testified that more resources are needed to keep up with necessary tree thinning and removal campaigns. One witness, University of Arizona Professor Thomas Swetnam, said even that won’t be enough to reverse the trend.
“I don’t think we can thin our way out of this,” Swetnam said.
He said more prominent use of intentionally set fires to mimic naturally occurring blazes has certain risks, but is less costly than mechanical thinning with hand crews and chainsaws.
Environmentalists blame global warming for the problem, but guess who’s standing in the way of a solution?
The GAO examined 762 U.S. Forest Service (USFS) proposals to thin forests and prevent fires during the past two years. According to the study, slightly more than half the proposals were not subject to third-party appeal. Of those proposals subject to appeal, third parties challenged 59 percent.
Appeals were filed most often by anti-logging groups, including the Sierra Club, Alliance for Wild Rockies, and Forest Conservation Council. According to the GAO, 84 interest groups filed more than 400 appeals of Forest Service proposals. The appeals delayed efforts to treat 900,000 acres of forests and cost the federal government millions of dollars to address.
Forest Service officials estimate they spend nearly half their time, and $250 million each year, preparing for the appeals and procedural challenges launched by activists.
“The report demonstrates that the appeals needlessly delay federal efforts to prevent wildfires, and if the process is not streamlined, millions of acres will be lost this summer,” said Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico).
“The American people will no longer tolerate management by wildfire,” Domenici added.
“This finding is nothing short of appalling, especially when you think of the catastrophic losses suffered in last year’s [2002] horrific fire season alone,” said House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-California).
“These were not only losses of forest, endangered species, and wildlife habitat, they were losses of human life and family property,” Pombo said.
Same old, same old. Lawsuits have tied up the president’s Healthy Forests Initiative passed in 2003.
Prediction: Look to the Bush-bashing Left and the nutroots Democrats to mimic the Kossacks and blame the wildfires on the Iraq war–even as the environuts continue to litigate while the West burns.
***
More:
N.Z. Bear has set up a helpful page of wildfire web and blog resources.
October 23, 2007 - 10:06 AM on October 23rd, 2007
Pam,
You trying to make me blush?
October 23, 2007 - 10:20 AM on October 23rd, 2007
What you said is very true, intelligent and not partisan in any way. It is a statement of fact that you made. I am trying to incorporate comments into posts as I feel it is important to the discussion.
Thanks for adding to the conversation.
October 23, 2007 - 11:51 AM on October 23rd, 2007
The Sierra Klub and it’s offshoots should be sued for liability in these superfires we are seeing. Then their lawyers should be charged with perjury for lying in Federal Court, under oath, about the nonsense crap they peddle to these sucker Judges who buy it then rule against common-sense forest management. Much of it is just lies; the bastards should be held accountable.
October 23, 2007 - 12:42 PM on October 23rd, 2007
We used to have one of those eco-wacko groups in our town his group were always filing those stupid lawsuits to stop logging and the fact was he lived in a log house and his former HQ was made of wood and he had another place that had a wood burning water heater and when these same eco-wackos sit in trees they always use 2 x 4s and plywood or use cardboard they are indeed hypotcrits
October 23, 2007 - 02:07 PM on October 23rd, 2007
And ust how many of them are Republicans? I’ll bet the answer is ZERO! They are Democrites; typical lying, manipulating arch-hypocrites.
October 23, 2007 - 03:11 PM on October 23rd, 2007
Urban sprawl is to blame, not “liberal” forest management policy.
We shouldn’t have houses and property on these often remote, forested and/or grassy lands to begin with.
October 23, 2007 - 03:23 PM on October 23rd, 2007
“Urban sprawl is to blame, not “liberal” forest management policy.”
Most every expert in the field in says otherwise- you could say it’s a “scientific consensus”.
The failure to replace natural burns with controled burns have built a surplus of dead matter, which acts as a super fuel for these super fires.
October 23, 2007 - 04:02 PM on October 23rd, 2007
SFL you are confused. We are not just talking about homes destroyed in the So Cal and other fires. We are also talking about the complete destruction of wilderness areas and national Forests because the pieces of shit in the Sierra Klub and others who obstruct eveyrhting so they can stuff more legal fees in their pocket.
They are criminal frauds and should be tied to trees in forests ahead of the flames and left to burn there because of the extreme conditions they helped create.
October 23, 2007 - 07:30 PM on October 23rd, 2007
The Sierra Club does little to support the health of the forests in this country. We had some HUGE forest fires in AZ a couple of years ago. They left millions of pine trees dead but still viable for lumber. One or more of these Eco Whacko groups went to court to prevent the native American tribes in Northern AZ from harvesting the dead trees for sale despite the fact that the Indian reservation is desperately short of jobs and needed the revenues. Even Janet Napolitano, a HUGELY left wing Dem, came out against the Eco Whackos’ attempts to stop forest thinning the year following the big fires. There was a great editorial cartoon in the local paper about the situation and the local political cartoonist is decidely left wing. In the first frame it showed two foresters looking at each other with one saying that “It is too dense and needs to be thinned”, and the other saying “Where shall we start?” The second frame showed them standing atop the head of a tree hugger and the first forester saying “This would be the best place.”
Since 1934, the people who have done the most to support the health of the forests in this country are the gun owners. A significant portion of the cost of every new firearm, round of ammo, or piece of archery equipment goes to taxes to support the wildlife habitat in the US. I love how hikers complain about having to pay a $10 fee to hike in a national park. They should try paying $200 - 500 for an out of state hunting tag to basically do the same thing.
During the fires last year there were some people who didn’t have their homes destroyed while their neighbors did. What was the difference? The home owners who kept their homes had disobeyed the county ordinance and had cleared an area twice the allowed size of all brush around their homes. Because they had been willing to ignore stupid regulations to protect their home, they kept it. Those who blindly obeyed the PC rules lost their homes and everything in them.
Personally, I think we need to stop building houses so close together. We had a fence fire that caught 3 houses on fire with the middle one destroyed and two others severely damaged because of the distance between them. I deliver to develops daily where the houses are so close that you could throw an empty coke can from one house into a garbage can in the other.
October 24, 2007 - 09:39 PM on October 24th, 2007
Nature manages its forests just fine. Natural fire does its job, and has done so for millions of years.
Forests do not need human “help”.
October 24, 2007 - 09:45 PM on October 24th, 2007
I don’t know who you’ve been talking with Ted, but just about every park ranger or knowlegdable person I discuss the issue with agrees that the underlying issue regarding these big news story fires is urban sprawl.
Simply put: These homes we see on TV burning in canyons and on hill tops should not have been built there in the first place.
October 24, 2007 - 09:46 PM on October 24th, 2007
By the way, I came across Michael Savage on the AM radio today and heard him saying the the fires in SoCal were possibly caused by terrorists.
And one of your ideological ilk called in to say that illegals started the fires to use the smoke as cover to gain entry into the US.
LOL…
The left admitidly has its fair share of kooks, but damn…so does the right.
October 24, 2007 - 10:10 PM on October 24th, 2007
“I don’t know who you’ve been talking with Ted…”
I speak with USDA Forest Service and Park Rangers. They wanted to do controlled burns in lieu of the natural burns that weren’t occurring due to man’s interference, but the congress at the time would not allow it.
October 24, 2007 - 10:55 PM on October 24th, 2007
Hey SFL, I’m telling you exactly what has been going on. Why sue to stop the removal of dead wood (aka additional FUEL for the next fire) unless you’re an idiot? These nutjobs are so stupid that they don’t even want the loggers to remove dead trees. Nature can’t regulate itself. It hasn’t been able to since California was settled. There have been HUGE forest fires in the past. The only way to prevent HUGE forest fires, is to remove the excess fuel through clearing and controlled burns. Simply letting it burn itself out isn’t an option. It could burn all the way to San Fran as far as I’m concerned, but the resulting smoke is far worse than the emissions from millions of cars.
BTW San Fran, documents found in an Al Quaeda training camp in (I think) 2003 indicated Al Quaeda was looking at setting massive forest fires in the western states as a means to disrupt the economy. At least one of these fires was intentionally set. The think they know by whom, but are still investigating.
October 25, 2007 - 03:39 AM on October 25th, 2007
#10, SFL: Very sad. Your post reveals that you have absolutely no understanding of the subject.
You really should consider not voting in the next election. It appears you may not have enough information to make an informed decision.
October 25, 2007 - 05:47 AM on October 25th, 2007
10,11,12, SFL, fellow dope smoking Democrats are not experts in anything but breaking the law, jerk. You know nothing and prove it daily. You Democrats should be the ones burned out of your homes.
October 25, 2007 - 06:47 AM on October 25th, 2007
Hang on a second SFL. The fact is that the homes are on the sites legally. Therefore the park rangers have to adapt to the new conditions. That’s like saying kids shouldn’t play with matches. 7 year old Tommy started a fire, well too bad, the little ass shouldn’t have been playing with them, we are going to let his house burn.
October 25, 2007 - 01:35 PM on October 25th, 2007
Actually Robert, I am very well informed on issues relating to wilderness and state/national parks, especially here in California.
Ted, Urban Sprawl is the MAIN issue to address if we want to see a reduction in fires that cause so much damage to humans.
DON’T build houses and businesses in the woods or in remote canyons and you won’t see them go up in flames as often.
It’s as simple as that.
We need to put more people in already established urban environments for SO many reasons, and make it more difficult for them to build homes and business is remote wilderness environments.
October 25, 2007 - 01:37 PM on October 25th, 2007
Pam, I feel sorry for the loses of the folks whos property was destroyed or damaged, and I certainly feel sorry for those who lost their lives.
But, to put it bluntly, these properties should not have been built on these hills, canyons and in these forests to begin with.
Urban Sprawl needs to be under better control than it currently is.
Until that changes, you will continue to see devastating fires like the ones we have in SoCal.
October 25, 2007 - 01:39 PM on October 25th, 2007
FAO, these laws you are talking about regarding brush and tree removal on properties would not even be needed if these homes and communities weren’t built there in the first place.
Stopping Urban Sprawl is the first step towards putting an end to these kinds of fires in the future.
October 25, 2007 - 01:40 PM on October 25th, 2007
“Ted, Urban Sprawl is the MAIN issue to address if we want to see a reduction in fires that cause so much damage to humans.”
That’s absolutely stupid. If you insist on continuing to feign ignorance, why should I make an effort to converse with you SFL?
October 25, 2007 - 01:52 PM on October 25th, 2007
18: SFL…I am trying to be kind… You have zero understanding of the issues. So it is not possible to debate this with you.
October 25, 2007 - 02:03 PM on October 25th, 2007
“We need to put more people in already established urban environments for SO many reasons, and make it more difficult for them to build homes and business is remote wilderness environments.”
SFL, please, you are talking to adults here. San Diego County is a remote wilderness area?
October 25, 2007 - 02:08 PM on October 25th, 2007
FAO says: “Since 1934, the people who have done the most to support the health of the forests in this country are the gun owners. ”
It’s clear enough to me that we need MORE gun owners and LESS Sierra Klub members.
October 25, 2007 - 02:16 PM on October 25th, 2007
20, SFL, if you are going to argue that the US or California is over populated, why don’t you contribute to your solution personally?
October 25, 2007 - 02:21 PM on October 25th, 2007
This is a free country SFL and not everyone chooses to live in urban areas. The cleaning of forests is all that is needed to virtually eliminate the problem. When forests are cleaned they re-seed and grow. Beautiful, abundant, growth.
October 25, 2007 - 02:23 PM on October 25th, 2007
No really.
It’s like saying the best way to prevent fires in the city is not to build cities. Pure idiocy.
Natural burnoff has been prevented by man and the result is an over abundance of fuel. The Ponderosa Pine have naturally evolved to resist forst fires by natural causes, however because of the prevention of any fires by man and the resulting superfires are even destroying even those.
There are actual laws in California that says land owners are not allowed to clear cut around their homes because of a rat. These fires reach homes because of these idiotic rules.
Because of these laws, natural burnoff that would not usually endanger man is resulting in what we have today.
October 25, 2007 - 03:06 PM on October 25th, 2007
No, Robert, I understand this issue VERY well. Apparently more than you do as you deny the need to reign in Urban Sprawl into wilderness areas to prevent these fires from happening in the first place.
Seriously, ask ANY park ranger about the danger urban sprawl has on the environment and on property.
Can I get a yes or no answer from you or Ted on this?
_____________________________________________
“Does reducing human habitation in wilderness areas reduce the risk of losing property to a fire in a wilderness area?”
_____________________________________________
simple yes or no answer, guys.
October 25, 2007 - 03:08 PM on October 25th, 2007
What is does is take away one of our most basic civil liberties. The right to choose. As long as the lands for sale and the money is there to buy it, it’s done.
October 25, 2007 - 03:10 PM on October 25th, 2007
“SFL, please, you are talking to adults here. San Diego County is a remote wilderness area?”
The remote hilltops, canyons and forested areas of the county that are being burned are, yes.
The neighborhoods that are being destroyed are ALL isolated and remote, when compared to nearby communites that are not in danger of burning.
It is SO fucking simple to understand here.
STOP building neighborhoods further and further away from established population centers.
Then, your shit won’t get burned.
October 25, 2007 - 03:13 PM on October 25th, 2007
BonBon, pretty soon…Urban Sprawl that I’m talking about won’t be allowed anymore.
By whom?
Insurance companies.
It will simply be harder and harder for you to buy/build property that is at risk of wilderness fires.
Urban Sprawl will be slowed by those who make it financally more difficult to put a house in the woods on on some hilltop or in a remote canyon.
October 25, 2007 - 03:16 PM on October 25th, 2007
“That’s absolutely stupid. If you insist on continuing to feign ignorance, why should I make an effort to converse with you SFL?”
————
Hey Ted, instead of calling it “stupid”, why don’t you offer an idea on WHY it is a GOOD IDEA to put houses and businesses in high fire risk areas?
Tell me, why SHOULD I build my house deep in the woods, on a hilltop, next to a remote canyon.
I’m interested to see why you think it’s OK to build your house on the proverbial sand, insead of the rock. You know, like that story in the bible?
October 25, 2007 - 04:03 PM on October 25th, 2007
-sigh- the following is a gift to SFL, in the hopes of lifting the veil of ignorance from his uninformed eyes:
SFL, there are two distinctly separate issues here:
1. Management of forests (including wilderness areas).
2. Building outside of the urban areas.
Issue 1:
Are you even aware of any of the following facts:
1. Natural fires are nature’s way of cleaning the forest but a hundred years of fire prevention has left forests so full of underbrush that when a fire does happen, it is a superfire and destroys EVERYTHING. So no, it is not the same as it once was.
2. The Sierra Klub and it’s offshoots have obstructed all attempts to manage the forests, including thinning and brush removal and salvage of dead trees, ensuring the fires will not only be devastating but rotting trees will encourage bug and disease infestations to destroy more green forests.
3. The Sierra Klub does this because they are a bunch of lawyers who make their money from the attorney’s fees they end up getting paid for filing their lawsuits against anything and everything (in order to get the legal fees). They are dangerous criminal frauds, and should be held civilly and crimininally liable for what they have done.
Now for issue 2:
1. Private property is a fundamental Constitutional right. You buy land, you should be able to use it. Period, end of story, anything less is un-American.
2. The Greenie watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) also try to keep property owners from managing the land around their houses, as was so abundantly shown in the recent Tahoe fires. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency forbid management of the forest, even on private property. The result? Totally destroyed forest, plus homes.
So there is your education for today. If you want to be a contrarian, you need to find another issue. You are trying to argue an absurdity, to defend the indefensible.
October 25, 2007 - 04:29 PM on October 25th, 2007
#30 SFL the areas burned in SD area are neither remote nor wilderness areas.
Let’s face it: you just want to tell people how and where they can live.
Not everyone wants to live like rats in cages in some overpopulated urban jungle, surrounded by disease and degeneracy.
I love my acreage; 27 acres of rolling, oak tree-covered hills with a large year-round creek running through it. I manage the land, clearing dead wood and keeping vegetation around the houses under control. The houses have tile roofs and I have my own fire hydrant system, plus my own fire truck (ex-Oakland Fire Dept.) with which I can extinguish a grass fire should one come around.
Now THAT’s the way to manage for fire safety. It’s called planning, preparation, individualism, self-reliance, in short: AMERICANISM!
October 25, 2007 - 04:29 PM on October 25th, 2007
October 25, 2007 - 05:18 PM on October 25th, 2007
Robert…wonderful
October 25, 2007 - 05:36 PM on October 25th, 2007
Thank you BonBon…just keepin’ it real and tellin’ it like it is!
October 25, 2007 - 05:42 PM on October 25th, 2007
Quote from the topic:
“Appeals were filed most often by anti-logging groups, including the Sierra Club, Alliance for Wild Rockies, and Forest Conservation Council. According to the GAO, 84 interest groups filed more than 400 appeals of Forest Service proposals. The appeals delayed efforts to treat 900,000 acres of forests and cost the federal government millions of dollars to address.
Forest Service officials estimate they spend nearly half their time, and $250 million each year, preparing for the appeals and procedural challenges launched by activists.
“The report demonstrates that the appeals needlessly delay federal efforts to prevent wildfires, and if the process is not streamlined, millions of acres will be lost this summer,” said Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico).”
Yes, the #1 problem is Leftist EnviroFraud Activism.
October 25, 2007 - 07:09 PM on October 25th, 2007
Now, here’s the LA Times: Forest thinning helps spare some homes - A federal effort to clear brush and remove trees in the Arrowhead area is controversial but makes a difference:
But Michelle’s just a big stupid meanie for saying it!
October 25, 2007 - 07:33 PM on October 25th, 2007
What a vicious, hate filled, foul mouthed blog. Gee, I am beginning to see why the Democrats use an ass for their mascot.
October 25, 2007 - 08:31 PM on October 25th, 2007
I looked at that blog. The mentally-ill degenerates posting there are completely clueless.
October 25, 2007 - 10:19 PM on October 25th, 2007
“Hey Ted, instead of calling it “stupid”, why don’t you offer an idea on WHY it is a GOOD IDEA to put houses and businesses in high fire risk areas?”
I already did in post 27, but you conveniently over looked it. Here is another anaolgy like your “urban sprawl” myth:
People wouldn’t be mugged as much if they didn’t live in the city. So to prevent property loss due to mugging, everyone should move into the country.
Yeah, I know- that sounds stupid, but it is exactly what you are saying.
I don’t have to provide a reason why- it is a simple fact. Like the sky is blue and the grass is green, people can choose to live in the cities or in the country. but this is completely irrelevant to the issue. “Urban Sprawl” has nothing , absolutely zilch, to do with the super-fire that have been cause lately. There is no correlation.
October 26, 2007 - 12:58 AM on October 26th, 2007
Well I can give one realy good reason for everyone to not live in cities. It’s really damned difficult to plant a field of crops between the skyscrapers. It is rather amusing here in Phoenix though as there are cattle feed lots, cotton fields, alfalfa pastures and watermelon fields that are literally between some suburban towns and the outlying developments. With the current growth in the western part of the valley, there will eventually be farmland in the middle of one of the outlying cities. But then again what do you expect from a city named Surprise, AZ.
October 26, 2007 - 01:00 AM on October 26th, 2007
Oh wait, I know how we’re going to feed this burgeoning Urban population that SFL is so fond of…. Soylent Green!!!
October 26, 2007 - 06:36 AM on October 26th, 2007
FAO, SFL is too stupid to know what Soylent Green is, and Neither is Olbermann, who is SFL’s thinker.
October 30, 2007 - 03:59 PM on October 30th, 2007
Robert: “SFL the areas burned in SD area are neither remote nor wilderness areas.”
———————-
Look at this image and then try to tell me again that the fires are NOT in remote wilderness areas.
http://alg.umbc.edu/usaq/images/2007-10-22_2057-2102_HSDO_010403_QKM.jpg
October 30, 2007 - 04:07 PM on October 30th, 2007
CLEARLY the fires in SD are, as I have said over and over again here, affecting “subdivisions” that are STUPIDLY built on remote hilltops, canyons and valleys.
The BEST thing to do regarding preventing damage caused by these kinds of fires on lives and property is…
…not building your houses and businesses in remote canyons, hilltops and valleys.
October 30, 2007 - 07:48 PM on October 30th, 2007
#46: Wilderness Area definition:
“wild area that Congress has preserved by including it in the National Wilderness Preservation System.”
http://www.nrdc.org/reference/glossary/w.asp
Need I continue?
October 30, 2007 - 08:03 PM on October 30th, 2007
Sen. Feinstein: Stop Building In Fire-Prone Areas
(CBS 5 / AP) WASHINGTON California’s senior U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said local officials should start using zoning laws to keep residents from living in fire-prone areas.
Feinstein, who used to be a county supervisor and mayor in San Francisco, said the zoning authority that local governments have could limit catastrophic fires by keeping subdivisions out of dry areas prone to Santa Ana winds.
October 30, 2007 - 08:05 PM on October 30th, 2007
oops…the link.
http://cbs5.com/politics/local_story_297142334.html