Skip to comments.
Dead Trees Pose 'Apocalyptic' Calif. Wildfire Threat
Reuters via Yahoo! ^
| 10/29/03
| Gina Keating
Posted on 10/29/2003 2:59:30 PM PST by dead
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-84 next last
1
posted on
10/29/2003 2:59:31 PM PST
by
dead
To: dead
What's wrong with letting the trees burn down? They're dead and dying anyway and we simply don't have the manpower to chop em all down. Anyways, it can hardly get worse than it is now. We've already been through the worst of the apocalypse.
2
posted on
10/29/2003 3:01:39 PM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: goldstategop
What's wrong with letting the trees burn down?Nothing, if you don't live adjacent to them...
3
posted on
10/29/2003 3:02:56 PM PST
by
Poohbah
("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
To: goldstategop
I was watching some mindless exchange between Katie Couric and Tim Russert this AM (emphasis on mindless) and it was clear they were missing the elephant in the room. what's that you ask? after months of threatening fillibusters and lots of overblown hyperbole from her pantsuitedness, Hillary!, the DemoncRATs just gave in quietly yesterday and allowed Gov. of Utah to be confirmed as Bush's choice for EPA secretary. Why is that? mere coincidence? I think not. Me thinks that the environmental issue has turned broadly for the Republicans over the past year, one in which we've seen eco-terrorists burning housing developments and, now, with all the fires and other outright incompetence brought by the liberals in CA government (especially Grayout Davis) - the last thing in the world Californians will want to hear about in next year's election is why we need to be more sympathetic to the now totally homeless gnatcatchers or bark beetles which left the entire California ecosystem in such an unhealthy state of disease and decay, nature came back with a vengeance to correct, undo, refertilize & regerminate the terrible errors wrought by the enviro-wacko's ways.
4
posted on
10/29/2003 3:08:16 PM PST
by
Steven W.
To: goldstategop
When a fire eats 400,000 acres of dead trees, it's going to really really really big and still out looking for fuel.
Houses, office buildings, cars, and people will do.
5
posted on
10/29/2003 3:09:29 PM PST
by
dead
(I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
To: dead
Oh I agree. Why did the enviro wackos oppose clear cutting in the first place? Then we wouldn't to worry about the possible effects on homes, buildings, cars, and people. That's par for the course in a state in which common sense is the last thing to be found in its environmental policy. So Mother Nature has to take care of what people should have been taking care of in the first place as a result of their own blindness and plain old-fashioned stupidity.
6
posted on
10/29/2003 3:13:16 PM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: farmfriend
ping
To: Poohbah
>Nothing, if you don't live adjacent to them...
I've been wondering
if in some small way this fire
might be a message
to the noisy, rich
liberals who do live there...
Maybe they'll catch on
that rational use
and clear-cutting of timber
is a good, good thing...
To: theFIRMbss
Exactly my point. The liberals have learned a VERY expensive lesson. Now let em pay for it.
9
posted on
10/29/2003 3:14:34 PM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: goldstategop
Why did the enviro wackos oppose clear cutting in the first place? Because they're enviro-wackos, of course.
I hope they can learn their lesson without too much more damage.
The government and insurance companies will pay to rebuild their mansions, and that's coming out of our pockets one way or the other. Plus having your house burn just really sucks, and I wouldn't wish that on anybody, no matter how stupid they are.
10
posted on
10/29/2003 3:20:00 PM PST
by
dead
(I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
To: theFIRMbss
San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties are major Republican strongholds.
To: goldstategop
Now let em pay for it. I would suggest that they start paying for it by letting Bush pass some forest management legislation and open up federal land for thining.
FOX had a San Francisco liberal on to discuss what should be done, and all he could think of is spend more money (our money) and complained that management of federal land would do little for the brush areas of southern california. But this does show the Sierra Club and liberal management of the environment can have some expensive consequences.
12
posted on
10/29/2003 3:22:35 PM PST
by
KC_for_Freedom
(Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
To: So Cal Rocket
Yep, politics at work. If San Francisco were ablaze, I wonder how soon the state government would have acted to deal with the situation.
13
posted on
10/29/2003 3:22:47 PM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: Steven W.
It was a REALLY mindless exchange. Katie (whose head must be about as empty as a deflated balloon) was almost giggling with glee over all the trouble Arnold Schwarzenegger will inherit from Gray Davis. Thousands of human beings are losing all they worked for, and all that witch can think of is how difficult the fires make it for Arnold to succeed as governor. If that isn't evil in a smiley face, I don't know what is. (I thought Dems were supposed to be the sensitive, care-about-the-little-people party.)
Then, just to reinforce how stupid she is, she had the gall to ask Russert whether Californians will be unhappy with Arnold because he's in Washington instead of back home while the emergency is going on. Well, duh, Katie. NOoo. The man is not governor yet. He's actually more effective back in Washington lobbying for the state than he would be standing around on the sidelines here at home. When Russert began to answer her stupid question in the affirmative, I switched channels. Had about all I could stomach.
14
posted on
10/29/2003 3:26:09 PM PST
by
Wolfstar
(An angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.)
To: goldstategop
The liberals have learned a VERY expensive lesson.Ideally, yes.
But you, I, and everyone else here knows that liberals don't learn sh#t from their mistakes. They'll just simply turn around and find some way to blame this on Bush, all the while refusing to admit that it was their own fault.
15
posted on
10/29/2003 3:26:36 PM PST
by
ItsOurTimeNow
("Forth now, and fear no darkness!")
To: Steven W.
Me thinks that the environmental issue has turned broadly for the Republicans over the past year, one in which we've seen eco-terrorists burning housing developments and, now, with all the fires and other outright incompetence brought by the liberals in CA governmentThe Republicans OWN the environmental issue, especially after this conflagration in California.
How can anybody oppose clear-cutting now?
These fires belong to the Democrats, a point the Republicans should make for the next twelve months.
16
posted on
10/29/2003 3:27:48 PM PST
by
sinkspur
(Adopt a dog or a cat from a shelter. You will save one life, and may save two.)
To: goldstategop
Why did the enviro wackos oppose clear cutting...
The problem is that they oppose ANY forest management in favor of letting nature take its course. Clear-cutting isn't necessary if the forests are thinned and managed properly over time.
17
posted on
10/29/2003 3:28:44 PM PST
by
Wolfstar
(An angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.)
To: Wolfstar
I'm afraid Perky Katie is in for a big letdown. Taking over a horrible situation like this virtually guarantees that Arnold will be a success as governor. It's like a new coach after a winless season, one victory and you look like a genius.
To: sinkspur; All
I'm not sure you have to clear cut a forest.. Perhaps I have the meaning of clearcutting wrong. My thought is that as long as we maintain our forests (like the Indians freekin did) we'd be in good shape. I think there is a post somewhere on these wildfire threads about a scientist that said our forests from 400 or so years ago (as documented by explorers) were not soooo dense as some are today b/c we used the timber and they were maintained by the Indians-- that you could in theory ride a horse through the forest easily without a lot problems (like hitting a tree!). Makes you wonder how messed up those enviro whackos really are and how stupid we've been for letting them run their campaigns as if they really want to save the environment.. what's that saying...
THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS..
good going Sierra Club!
California is one big burning Hell right now. Many prayers for those affected by the fires.
19
posted on
10/29/2003 3:38:56 PM PST
by
tray-sea
(I think Mother Theresa just created her first miracle! Terri is ALIVE for now!)
To: Wolfstar
Exactly. Not only that though, these fires are UNNATURALLY out of whack since the ecofrauds allowed the forest to decay without some sort of management before (specifically, cutting down old dead trees which allows the forest to thrive...and if there is a fire...allows the "old growth" trees that the econuts say they are for protecting to surive a fire). At the moment, the entire forest is killed due the EXTREME amount fuel that makes the fires more intese and dangerous. As for all those nutrients? Well, those nutrients in the soil are no good if they are washed away in a rain storm. Something the left seems to forget in the environment debate. For more info...check out
20
posted on
10/29/2003 3:41:03 PM PST
by
Simmy2.5
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-84 next 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