Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - California Fire, the Environmentalists fault?

Superbelt · 10-30-2003, 11:41 AM

I'd like to shove a bat down Michael Reagans throat.

This is a reply strictly to the article.

If my house had burned down in the Cali fires I wouldn't go beat up an environmentalist. I'd rather burn down a developers home or anyone else who would put their subdivision right on the edge of forest land. It's called suburban sprawl

He's not right, it's not the 'tree huggers' fault. 'Tree huggers' are one of the primary proponents of controlled burns Burns that scrub out all the underbrush, which is the real reason these forest fires start, and they try and keep developments away from the forests. We can't do the controlled burns as often anymore because the forest service's budget has become a favorite place for congress to acquire more pork funding and the logging companies don't want to see prime forest land burn down that they would rather harvest. LUMBER COMPANIES ARE BLOCKING US FROM PROPERLY MANAGING OUR FORESTS AGAINST FOREST FIRES.

If you look at pictures of Scripps ranch, you see it isn't the forests that did it. All the trees are still there, green and growing as they ever were. The rich peoples houses with banned cedar roof tiles are the ones that are burnt to the ground and are currently a smoldering pile. The fire, after getting out of the forest confines, just jumps from house to house like dominoes. Get the houses away from the forests, stop the devestating (to humans) fires.

Forests don't need to be taken care of as a garden does. Dead trees, even a mass of them, are still part of a viable ecosystem and provide habitat for forest animals.

"Black darkened mountains" are fertile ground for new growth. Many trees can only germinate after a fire. Even a fire of this magnitude, is good for the forests.

The birds and flies and frogs and owls will be back when the trees come back, and natural biodiversity among trees is back. That is something you DON'T get when you clearcut and a lumber company only plants one type of tree back or a development or Wal Mart goes in it's place.

Environmentalists are stronger than Michael Reagan and most of us understand the value of a healthy forest. Stop whining Michael Reagan.

Bush's "Healthy Forest Initiative" is an oxymoron. It allows lumber companies to build roads through and clearcut stands of old growth trees and replace them with homogenous saplings. That does not create a healthy forest.

Hey Michael Reagan, how many homes must burn, how many people must lose their valuables, how many lives must be threatened before you foolish bastards learn how to live in harmony with nature? Quit building your homes against a forest because it's picturesque and you want to live with nature. That's the fucking reason this fire turned out the way it did. Because of a few shortsighted fucks how many hundreds of homes were destroyed this week? And you have the goddamned gall to blame this on us? Fuck you.

Review:
Smokey the bear works for the lumber companies, lumber companies have successfully lobbied to stop controlled burn, this includes underbrush clearing

developments that abut our national forests provide a crucial link in the spread of fire, without them connecting the rest of a town to the forest that catches fire, the fire would never threaten a single person's life who was not inside the forest bounds.

10-30-2003, 11:41 AM	#8 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I'd like to shove a bat down Michael Reagans throat. This is a reply strictly to the article. If my house had burned down in the Cali fires I wouldn't go beat up an environmentalist. I'd rather burn down a developers home or anyone else who would put their subdivision right on the edge of forest land. It's called suburban sprawl He's not right, it's not the 'tree huggers' fault. 'Tree huggers' are one of the primary proponents of controlled burns Burns that scrub out all the underbrush, which is the real reason these forest fires start, and they try and keep developments away from the forests. We can't do the controlled burns as often anymore because the forest service's budget has become a favorite place for congress to acquire more pork funding and the logging companies don't want to see prime forest land burn down that they would rather harvest. LUMBER COMPANIES ARE BLOCKING US FROM PROPERLY MANAGING OUR FORESTS AGAINST FOREST FIRES. If you look at pictures of Scripps ranch, you see it isn't the forests that did it. All the trees are still there, green and growing as they ever were. The rich peoples houses with banned cedar roof tiles are the ones that are burnt to the ground and are currently a smoldering pile. The fire, after getting out of the forest confines, just jumps from house to house like dominoes. Get the houses away from the forests, stop the devestating (to humans) fires. Forests don't need to be taken care of as a garden does. Dead trees, even a mass of them, are still part of a viable ecosystem and provide habitat for forest animals. "Black darkened mountains" are fertile ground for new growth. Many trees can only germinate after a fire. Even a fire of this magnitude, is good for the forests. The birds and flies and frogs and owls will be back when the trees come back, and natural biodiversity among trees is back. That is something you DON'T get when you clearcut and a lumber company only plants one type of tree back or a development or Wal Mart goes in it's place. Environmentalists are stronger than Michael Reagan and most of us understand the value of a healthy forest. Stop whining Michael Reagan. Bush's "Healthy Forest Initiative" is an oxymoron. It allows lumber companies to build roads through and clearcut stands of old growth trees and replace them with homogenous saplings. That does not create a healthy forest. Hey Michael Reagan, how many homes must burn, how many people must lose their valuables, how many lives must be threatened before you foolish bastards learn how to live in harmony with nature? Quit building your homes against a forest because it's picturesque and you want to live with nature. That's the fucking reason this fire turned out the way it did. Because of a few shortsighted fucks how many hundreds of homes were destroyed this week? And you have the goddamned gall to blame this on us? Fuck you. Review: Smokey the bear works for the lumber companies, lumber companies have successfully lobbied to stop controlled burn, this includes underbrush clearing developments that abut our national forests provide a crucial link in the spread of fire, without them connecting the rest of a town to the forest that catches fire, the fire would never threaten a single person's life who was not inside the forest bounds.