Replies

On the contrary, the powers that be in Lake Arrowhead have been VERY pro active in forcing homeowners to cut down their dead trees (due to the beetle) or they will come in and cut the trees down at the homeowners expense.

They have been very vigilant in that regard.

That community has always been pro active in regard to preventing fires and keeping the pine needles off the roofs of the homes.

Yes, thre have been many articles in the paper about the fire risk up there recently. Apparently it is NOT the property owners in the moutains that caused this but the public lands that were not cared for properly.

Because I live in the basin, I wasn't even aware of the beetle problem until the fires (our useless local media in non-action, again). Watching on TV, it sure looks like there are vast stretches where trees are dead. The TV news reporters have been emphasizing that the dead trees are providing fuel for the fires. It's good that Lake Arrowhead has been making people cut down the dead trees, but it doesn't look like anyone did anything about the trees in the wilderness areas, or even those near schools and such.

There was some dude making the rounds of talk radio last night being interviewed as a forestry expert. His claim was that the Native Americans used to practice good forestry, which was stopped when all the Indians were removed from the land. He sounded like an environmental extremist until he said we should be doing what the natives used to do, and thin the living trees, remove dead trees, and use "low-level" burns (natural and man-made) to remove dead leaves and such on the forest floor.

While I don't disagree with him about the solution, I found it annoying that he conveniently excuses the work of the extreme environmentalists over the past 35 years or so by placing the time when things went wrong at about the 1890's or so. Sigh.

On the contrary, the powers that be in Lake Arrowhead have been VERY pro active in forcing homeowners to cut down their dead trees (due to the beetle) or they will come in and cut the trees down at the homeowners expense

And that makes sense. What doesn't make sense is this:

Tom Sullivan talk show in Sacramento this PM: Caller states that one of his best friends took out a large wild blackberry bush because it was too overgrown and too close to house for safety in case of fires. CAL FISH & GAME fined him $7000- that is seven thousand dollars- not a mistype- for "removing bird habitat without their permission and permit.
What's even more stupid about this is that wild blackberries here in Nevada County are considered "Mother Nature's barbed wire", and birds don't nest there. What does lurk there is wild skunks and rattlers. Nevada County has the nighest number of rabid skunks trapped year after year, so no loss there, and rattlers are self-explanatory.
The CDF comes along and tells us to keep a defensable space- 30 feet- away from the house, and the Fish and Game fines us $7000 for removing wild blackberries. You figure out how to stop this madness. We have very little say about our own property.
State of Calif is now adding a minimum of $70 per parcel this year and $35 next year to over 2 million rural property owners in their next tax bills to cover the $50 million shortfall in the CDF budget because the state legislature cut their money. If you do the math, they will collect $140 million to replace $50 million the first year, and $70 million the second year. On top of this "FEE", the counties can charge a "surcharge for a handling fee", amount to be determined.
Davis has left this state truly in a scorched earth position. I predicted he would, but I was thinking more in a financial manner. I never even thought about this kind of fires. But my words were more prophetic than I care to contemplate.