Skip to comments.
Battle erupts anew over 'Healthy Forests'
Sac Bee ^
| 10/29/03
| Stuart Leavenworth
Posted on 10/29/2003 11:00:47 AM PST by NormsRevenge
Edited on 04/12/2004 6:00:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-38 last
To: NormsRevenge
You don't control your forest the forest will control you.
21
posted on
10/29/2003 11:35:11 AM PST
by
Porterville
(American First, Human being Second; liberal your derivative lifestyle will never be normalized.)
To: MineralMan
Developers would be more than happy to pay to clear off the land to build more things that people want, like stores and homes. But you know as well as I do that the envirocreeps absolutely despise development. They call it "sprawl", and consider it (aka capitalism) a dangerous threat.
22
posted on
10/29/2003 11:37:14 AM PST
by
jpl
To: Carry_Okie
"Are the homeowners there trying to get the hillside below them cleared? Nope...it's too expensive.
That's bullcrap. The cost of vegetation management is far less than the cost of a new house and all its furnishings as you know quite well. We just hide that fact by pooling the risk statewide as you pointed out."
I agree, of course. My point is that the developers should be clearing this stuff and passing the cost on to the buyers of those particular homes. They are not doing that, so we all end up paying for this. Of course it's cheaper to clear the brush than it is to fight a fire and pay for burned houses. But, it's not being done by those who should be paying for it.
23
posted on
10/29/2003 11:37:55 AM PST
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: farmfriend
Oklahoma Agriculture Bump.
24
posted on
10/29/2003 11:38:00 AM PST
by
E.G.C.
To: MineralMan
The Cuyamaca Mountains, which are in San Diego County and which are currently burning, are forested and suffer from the infestation of the bark beetle
25
posted on
10/29/2003 11:46:46 AM PST
by
p. henry
To: MineralMan
Who pays to clear?
Gee, doesn't anyone think of chainsaws as fun anymore? Seems like the neighbors could get together and have a good time cutting --then pile it up, wait for rain, and torch it. GW thinks brush clearing is recreation.
26
posted on
10/29/2003 11:48:37 AM PST
by
Mamzelle
To: p. henry
"The Cuyamaca Mountains, which are in San Diego County and which are currently burning, are forested and suffer from the infestation of the bark beetle"
That's true, but it's not one of the fires in the photo.
27
posted on
10/29/2003 11:49:24 AM PST
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: MineralMan
Interesting photo. What you don't realize is that the fires in that photo are burning exclusively in brushland. There are no harvestable trees in any of the fires in the photo. Still applies, I think, considering the opposition to brush-clearing.
28
posted on
10/29/2003 11:51:57 AM PST
by
Prime Choice
(---] Stay the course -- Bush 2004 [---)
To: Mamzelle
"Gee, doesn't anyone think of chainsaws as fun anymore? Seems like the neighbors could get together and have a good time cutting --then pile it up, wait for rain, and torch it. GW thinks brush clearing is recreation."
Ever cleared chapparal? A chainsaw's not much use, since you can't even see the center of any of the bushes. A dozer works pretty well, if it can handle the terrain. And then there's the poison oak. And there are the rattlesnakes.
It sounds like you don't live in California. On the hillsides that are burning here, the brush is so thick it is literally impossible to walk up a hill covered with chapparal (a mix of a number of different plants). There are a couple of the fires that do have some trees and might be called forests, but most of the burned area is just brush.
But what brush it is! Clearing chapparal is no fun at all.
29
posted on
10/29/2003 11:52:54 AM PST
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: MineralMan
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe part of the problem is that the enviros won't let people clear brush from NEAR their homes. In order to protect some rat or insect they have to leave all this "habitat" untouched and right next to their homes. Along comes a fire and it all becomes "kindling" for the house. Also, if they were able to clear FIREBREAKS, the fire might actually be able to be contained. If we cleared brush from now till Satan bought ice skates, we wouldn't do 1% of the harm these fires have done.
30
posted on
10/29/2003 11:56:26 AM PST
by
anoldafvet
(Democrats: Making the world safe for terrorists one lie at a time.)
To: anoldafvet
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe part of the problem is that the enviros won't let people clear brush from NEAR their homes. In order to protect some rat or insect they have to leave all this "habitat" untouched and right next to their homes. Along comes a fire and it all becomes "kindling" for the house. Also, if they were able to clear FIREBREAKS, the fire might actually be able to be contained. If we cleared brush from now till Satan bought ice skates, we wouldn't do 1% of the harm these fires have done.
"
You're correct, in a sense, but that's not the whole problem. Many of the houses on hillsides in Southern California just never should have been built there. It's not just the brush, it's the mudslides, and all the other reasons.
If you build a cluster of homes halfway up a brushy hillside, the "fire break" needed is amazingly large. In these fires, burning embers can fly long distances. The problem is not in clearing around a house...it's the whole hillside that has to be cleared, particularly below the homes, but also above, and that's just not going to happen, for many reasons. One of those reasons is that the folks in those houses like looking down on their scenic hillsides.
Yes, environmentalists object to clearing habitat, but that's not really the problem on these CA hillsides.
31
posted on
10/29/2003 12:04:59 PM PST
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: NormsRevenge
Even Ted Turner logs at his Vermejo Park ranch, the libs are on quick sands over logging.
32
posted on
10/29/2003 12:07:28 PM PST
by
junta
(Xenophobia a perfectly reasonable response to the feckless stupidity of globalism.)
To: NormsRevenge
they have rekindled debate on whether the government could prevent such conflagrations by actively removing brush and other forest "fuels." The government should get out of forestry and let the private property owner take care of things.
33
posted on
10/29/2003 12:18:22 PM PST
by
hattend
To: MineralMan
You're right. WHen I lived in L.A. they had a fire at the bottom of a flattened hill (I think it was near Elk Hills). It raced up the sides and when it got to the top, the Santa Ana's blew it across the top like a blowtorch and incinerated almost 100 homes in a few minutes.
34
posted on
10/29/2003 1:12:59 PM PST
by
anoldafvet
(Democrats: Making the world safe for terrorists one lie at a time.)
To: MineralMan
Nope, I don't live in CA, and I don't know the terrain, so my suggestion's all wet.
35
posted on
10/29/2003 2:26:32 PM PST
by
Mamzelle
To: farmfriend
Eradicate enviornazis, Now!
36
posted on
10/29/2003 2:29:12 PM PST
by
blackie
To: blackie
Here in Arizona, last year's fire wiped out a town because the environmentalists helped pass a law that didn't allow them to clear the brush in their own YARDS!
To: princess leah
That's why they need to be eradicated, Princess. :-/
38
posted on
10/29/2003 4:26:51 PM PST
by
blackie
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-38 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson