Politicking (reducing) our forests to ash

[Facetious]

From The Oakland Tribune

Infighting may have hurt Tahoe fire prevention

SACRAMENTO -- Steps to prevent catastrophic wildfires in the Lake Tahoe basin, one of the country's most treasured natural wonders, have been hampered for years by bureaucratic infighting among agencies that often work at cross-purposes, according to thousands of pages of documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

The failure of the agencies to adequately protect the basin was brought to light last June when the Angora Fire ripped through a thickly forested ravine and destroyed 254 homes near South Lake Tahoe.

Since then, blame has fallen on the overlapping agencies that have environmental and regulatory oversight of the Tahoe basin. A commission established after the fire is recommending ways to heal the rifts and will vote on its report today.

The AP's review showed just how glaring the problems have been over the years.

For Migrane - See this


This is all you need to know as to why we're burning. :thefinger

I have this great idea ! - Pull the batteries out of your smoke alarms ! Hell ! decommission any and all fire protection devices in your home and place of business !

We only have ourselves to blame.
We're responsible for the gross malfeasance displayed by our govt.

You can't just elect the popular candidate via peer pressure and not follow up on the doings of that politician. Scrutinize them ! Scold them ! . . . or deal with dysfunctional representation.

 

[bombardier52]

From The Oakland Tribune

For Migrane - See this


This is all you need to know as to why we're burning. :thefinger

I have this great idea ! - Pull the batteries out of your smoke alarms ! Hell ! decommission any and all fire protection devices in your home and place of business !

We only have ourselves to blame.
We're responsible for the gross malfeasance displayed by our govt.

You can't just elect the popular candidate via peer pressure and not follow up on the doings of that politician. Scrutinize them ! Scold them ! . . . or deal with dysfunctional representation.

And that article was only the government agencies involved in the mess. Throw in the private environmental groups and the only outcome is no action which is probably their goal anyway.

 

[calpoon]

I have a better idea that is good for the environment AND will keep homes from getting destroyed by wild fires:

don't build your fucking houses in the middle of the forest.

simple. Forest fires are caused mainly by two things, lightning and people.

fires are natures way of house cleaning for the forest. they get rid of dead trees and cluttered branches and the ashes put nutrients back into the soil. Most of the big trees are fire-proof, their bark and leaves will get burnt, but they will stay alive inside.

people and houses are not fire proof. when people invade a forest and cut down the trees they leave lots of dead trees and branches around to fuel fire, as well as opening up oaths that allow it to spread and wind to blow in which fuels and spreads it. when people replant trees after cutting them down, they plant them too close together and that also creates more fire risk.

but it's always easy just to blame environmentalists for everything. like I said, there is a very easy way to keep safe, but people would rather live in a box of matches and then be a bunch of moochers, yeah, remember those guys that you hate so much Facetious? and expect the government to come and save their asses.

Or here's another idea, let people do what they want, and take care of themselves. your house is burning down? Tuff luck. you want a fire road? start digging.

i'd love to live out in the woods on my own and not have to deal with red tape and bureacracy. I'd just build my house out of stones.

 

[Facetious]

For a supposedly young guy you sound like a defeatist old man ! Have you already given up hope that you might some day become a potential home owner as opposed to a renter or subsidy recip ?

Guess what ? many homes that torch aren't exactly in the serene forest - winds in large infernos can carry embers for miles and besides - who gets to be the "decider" as to where people can live and interpret what is or isn't a preservation etc. ? Sometimes people can't afford to live in the cities and they kind of have to live in smaller rural, wooded communities.
It's funny that you suggest that people shouldn't disrupt the forest . . . how about Cal Berkeley And UC Santa Cruz ! The latter, I happened to be doing some contract work at about three years ago and I'll be damned ! they had crews outside the dorms cutting down trees in excess of 80 feet and nobody batted an eye ! Apparently a whole lot of trees were removed throughout the UC Property to make way for a widening of the roads at the communist university. Pure hypocrisy ! Also, there is no dead dry brush around the UCSC !

Presumably, before you were born, there was such a group called the CCC who cleaned out overgrown dead lower branches, scrub, brush . . the shit that fulfills your scorched earth policy . . well, the red daiper - enviro goons have since overthrown and revised what it means to be a conservationist and it appears as if out of spite you may have joined those ranks (?) or are you being a thorn in the side contrarian again ? :tongue:

So that's fucked up to think that mankind can never do any good, therefore, encourage (via doing nothing) the burning of the forest lands, kill exorbitant amounts of wildlife, fuck up the air for the entire planet, increase co2, help encourage landslides for the following winters runoff, create acid or alkaline imbalanced - dead lakes as a result of ash landslides . . . all because, not of man's doing, but of a couple a thousand dry lightning bolts !

I think this grudge all stems (no pun) from the religiosity of enviro that maintains - we shall never let the lumber companies make one cent of profit off of our savior lord douglas fir . . and in the event the lumcos do . .:flame: rabbits, chipmunks, spotted owls, condors eagles red tailed hawks blue jays, deer, centipedes, millipedes, bobcats, lizards, snakes, raccoons, possums :flame: Let it / em burn !

Another thing in ref to living amongst the trees - In many areas, its ILLEGAL to touch any vegetation outside your front step . . dry kindling, fire hazardous or otherwise. That's pure coercion and intimidation.

Have a heart

 

[maildude]

Calpoon is right on many counts. The folks who live near these areas should be aware of the risk they're taking. The same as folks living in flood plains, or in beach houses. There is an inherent cost in wanting and deciding to live in a nature area. Nature isn't always benign. This doesn't excuse the government, however. They have a responsibility to their people, after all. Or they should.

 

[calpoon]

gee, gramps, why don't you tell me what it was like back during the civil war?

I'll give you that people don't always have a choice where to live, and some people do have to live in the woods, and those people either have there houses burn down or they deal with it. people have manged to find someway to do it for thousands or years when all they had was hand saws and axes, and a couple million before that when they had nothing. I think that they will be alright.

and about UC Berkeley, fuck them. first they cut down all the trees, then they build houses on them, then they shut the houses down and evict all the people, then they bulldoze the houses and build a park, then they kick all the homeless people out of the park and bulldoze it down and build tennis courts. then they bulldoze the tennis courts and build houses, and repeat the process over again.

I don't know what you mean about mankind "doing nothing" and all that shit happening. forest fires don't kill much wild life, they aren't stupid like humans, when the place starts getting hot and smokey they don't stick around in their homes, they get the fuck out of there. and landslides are caused by soil erosion which is caused by removing the upper layers of vegetation aka. cutting down the trees. that shit doesn't happen in a non-logged area, haven't you heard about this natural mt. spring water crap? it's all good expect for bear shit and all the mercury and dioxin and pesticides and toxic waste that people dump into it.

it's a pretty simple relationship. Private Lumber companies cut down the trees in the national parks that are publicly owned. They profit and we pay for it.

and why do you want to see species get wiped out? there really isn't any good reason for anyone to want that.

lastly I don't have a problem with people picking up dead branches. shit, I don't even care if people want to chop down live trees. like I said before, a guy with a handsaw, even a guy with a chainsaw isn't going to cut down an entire forest. I just don't want lumber companies to do it.

 

[maildude]

gee, gramps, why don't you tell me what it was like back during the civil war?

It was pretty goddamn rough, if you want to know!

 

[Facetious]

Calpoon is right on many counts. The folks who live near these areas should be aware of the risk they're taking. The same as folks living in flood plains, or in beach houses. There is an inherent cost in wanting and deciding to live in a nature area. Nature isn't always benign. This doesn't excuse the government, however. They have a responsibility to their people, after all. Or they should.

Again though My main point is that there was a time when the government actually let homeowners remove dead and dry brush and low hanging branches on their own property. This is illegal in many areas. That's bullshit intimidation ! C/O the sierra club shill attorneys.

I believe that it's damn good stewardship to return to the sensible methods of clearing out dead brush and dead lower branches so that fire fighting resources don't have to waste all of the energy that they do in fighting fires, or attempting to. The blaze in Bir Sur has been burning for over 2 weeks and is only 11% containment ! Why ? From the firefighters mouth - "Too much fuel out there".
I was in a forested area yesterday where it's so f'en thick that no sunlight hits the floor . . none ! It's so thick that a bird surely couldn't fly in it, you couldn't walk through the abundance of fallen, busted, overgrown material it's so unkempt and volatile. Branches are old and dry from the ground up to about 15 - 20 ' All it takes is some asshole to toss a smoke out the window and we have another inferno.

I wont change your mind - You won't mine

 

[Friday on my mind]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't fire in forests a natural and needed process? And isn't even the people who always used to try to put them out in places like yellowstone not coming round to that thinking?

 

[senob44]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't fire in forests a natural and needed process?

That's what I thought too. I think without the problems of suburban sprawl and overpopulation, folks wouldn't need to build their houses in the forest. But then again, some folks like the "rustic charm". And if you like that charm, well then you suffer the risk of your house burning down. :dunno:

Very similar to the problem in NJ where people complain about bears in their backyard even though the houses were built within the past 10 years right smack dab in the bear's habitat.

 

[calpoon]

I assume you mean this:

The most common definition of a "bear" is a man who is hairy, has facial hair, and a cuddly body. However, the word "Bear" means many things to different people, even within the bear movement. Many men who do not have one or all of these characteristics define themselves as bears, making the term a very loose one. Suffice it to say, "bear" is often defined as more of an attitude than anything else - a sense of comfort with our natural masculinity and bodies that is not slavish to the vogues of male attractiveness that is so common in gay circles and the culture at large.
Check out American Bear Magazine

 

[senob44]

I assume you mean this:

Unfortunately, those soon may be the only "bears" left in NJ.

 

[Facetious]

That's what I thought too. I think without the problems of suburban sprawl and overpopulation, folks wouldn't need to build their houses in the forest. But then again, some folks like the "rustic charm". And if you like that charm, well then you suffer the risk of your house burning down. :dunno:

Ok lets forget about man's dwellings for now -

It's still sensible for mankind, when possible, to remove dry fuel sources nearest the ground in the prevention or deterrence of catastrophic infernos. Sort of like the road crews remove dry grass along side of the highways. I don't know of a better way to express it. Remove excess fuels -> you're less likely to have a fire hazard. But The sierra club shops judges - acquire huge sums of money (attorney Fees) paid for by you and me - and file bogus lawsuits to do exactly the opposite of what is right for the forestland.

The Big Sur Calif. wildfire has amassed over 110 square miles of forestland, has been burning for over two weeks and is only up to 1/3 contained. The firefighters are reduced to watching this fire burn. Oh, sure, they're working their tails off, however they can do little to change the course of this determined, full fueled blaze.

The U.S. Forest Service has been reduced to desk "jobs". The reality is that they are no longer a forester. This is just like everything else going on today - we're essentially upside down.

 

[Dean Wormer]

I was in a forested area yesterday where it's so f'en thick that no sunlight hits the floor . . none ! It's so thick that a bird surely couldn't fly in it, you couldn't walk through the abundance of fallen, busted, overgrown material it's so unkempt and volatile. Branches are old and dry from the ground up to about 15 - 20 ' All it takes is some asshole to toss a smoke out the window and we have another inferno.

In the natural world it is the fire's job to get rid of all the overabundance and underbrush. Also there are species of trees that will not reproduce until fire opens up their seed pods.

 

[calpoon]

I see your point F, and I agreed with it before...

but now that I think about it it seems like another legal loophole for logging companies to move in where they are not supposed to be. "forest fire prevention" has long been an excuse for logging protected areas - it's just what it sounds like: "to keep you safe we are going to chop down these trees for you so that they won't catch on fire, no need to thank us for this public service, when we turn around and sell them that is thanks enough."