Replies

"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!
"

That only applies in a very small portion of one of the fires. Those trees are way up the mountainside. Yes, they should have been removed, but they're not trees that any logger would want, so who pays to remove them? We don't have paper mills in CA, as far as I know, and that's all those particular pines would have been good for, if that.

90% of the acreage burned in all the CA fires were in brushland. There is no commercial use for the plants that grow there. None. So, again, who pays to clear that land?

This is not the forests that burned in Arizona. This is chapparal. Who pays to clear it?

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.

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.