[NormsRevenge]

Ping

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

For real time political chat - Radio Free Republic chat room

[farmfriend]

Many forestry experts, however, say the thinning envisioned in different versions of Healthy Forests legislation would do little to prevent the fires now raging in Southern California. "These fires, for the most part, are burning in coastal sage and chaparral, which we can't thin and are notoriously vulnerable to the fires we see now," said Norm Christensen, a Duke University forestry scientist who grew up in California. In addition, he said, many of the fires are burning on private land instead of public land -- the focus of the Healthy Forests legislation.

I know someone who has a solution to this problem.

[Carry_Okie]

Much of this work must be done by a combination of state, federal and local agencies that are sure to face objections from neighbors and air quality officials.

We wouldn't want private companies doing a better job for less? Why not?

In the San Bernardino mountains, residents have tried to get sawmill companies to set up shop and salvage dead and dying wood. But many of the trees are a type of knotty pine that doesn't have much commercial value.

Well put that ol' thinking cap on Mr. Leavenworth, because all that biomass up there is currently turning into...

energy.

There is enough excess brush and tree mass in the 190 million acres currently at risk to provide the residential electrical needs of 140 million Americans.

[MineralMan]

"Southern California's record wildfires have not only scorched hundreds of homes, they have rekindled debate on whether the government could prevent such conflagrations by actively removing brush and other forest "fuels."
"

And who's going to pay for this? In most of the areas being burned in CA, there are no trees whatsoever, just chaparral and other brush. There's no logging to be done there, even though much of the land is National Forest land. There are no trees in most of the burned area.

So, this will not be solved by logging companies clear-cutting the land. Clearing this land is expensive, prohibitive in cost, really.

The biggest problem is the expansion into these brushy hillsides. Developers build tracts of expensive houses on these chaparral-covered hills, but don't clear space around them.

Home-buyers pay lots of bucks for these hillside homes with a view, but don't think about fire protection until the fire starts. Then...we all pay to try to protect their homes, which probably shouldn't have been built in such a fire-prone area in the first place.

So, who pays to clear this land? Me? I don't think so. I live in a sensible residential area...far from any hillsides.

Right now I'm looking out my office window and can see a cluster of homes built halfway up a steep hill that is covered with chapparal. There's one road in, and that hillside has not burned in the 33 years I've lived here.

When the hillside finally does catch fire, and it will, there won't be a prayer of saving those homes, many of which are in the $1M+ price range.

Are the homeowners there trying to get the hillside below them cleared? Nope...it's too expensive. So, when their hillside catches fire and burns down all those expensive houses, I'll be paying the bill, not only to fight the fire, but to my insurance company in increased rates.

The question always is: Who pays for this?

[Roughneck]

These fires, for the most part, are burning in coastal sage and chaparral, which we can't thin and are notoriously vulnerable to the fires we see now,"

Not only are TREES a part of this fire, but trees already blighted by beetles! Those DEAD inderbox trees should have been taken out for that alone.

Blighted, infested trees spread the blight to other, healthy trees, and are fuel for fires!

The environmental lobby in California should be held at least 60% responsible! 20% should be Davis for not releasing water for firefighters, 10% to Pelsoi (just cause she's a beach!), and another 10% for the nut that lit the match!

[Prime Choice]

Call me unorthodox, but the forests don't look so healthy when they're on FIRE.

[Oatka]

"These fires, for the most part, are burning in coastal sage and chaparral, which we can't thin . . ."

Roust out all those inmates sitting on their butts 23 hours a day thinking up new scams. A few hours bent over clearing brush might motivate some of them into a career change.

Come to think of it, it would be a good place to utilize all those illegals who we now "catch and release".

[Porterville]

You don't control your forest the forest will control you.

[junta]

Even Ted Turner logs at his Vermejo Park ranch, the libs are on quick sands over logging.

[hattend]

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.