You said “Without people on the land, it can’t be cared for. It’s a huge problem.” I still disagree. So long as there aren’t people on the land, there is a good argument to let fires and other catastrophic natural disasters run their course. First of all, you clearly have no idea that I've written an entire book dealing with this topic in detail. Had you even taken the time to check out my page, go to my site and read the reviews, your post would not have been so flippant. Thus my conclusion is that you are both opinionated and lazy regardless of how much you think you know. I am not going to spend much time educating you.
Second, you obviously haven't dealt with the aftermath of catastrophic fire, as I have on a small scale. You haven't witnessed the erosion and weed infestations common after such events. The latter is NOT reversible on a large scale and can be terribly destructive.
Third, you seem to prefer to believe the eco-drivel of groups funded by the tax-exempt foundations of corporate wealth with big investments at stake and the government agencies beholden to them laden with bureaucrats looking for a cause to milk.
Fourth, you ignore the opinions of those who have spent their lives in the forest believing your preferred cadre to be somehow interested only in its benefit. Such is hardly the case. Only if things are going bad does your gang of thugs gain the justification to socialize ever more private property. From what I've seen, the admitted disaster that is government land fits that description perfectly.
Finally, when a real disaster hits this country, one so big that an incompetent FEMA is easily overwhelmed, you probably expect those same rural landowners to care for you. They'll be gone. You and your craven, shallow, and ignorant ilk will have destroyed them with your covetousness. It could be different, but you don't care about them either.
First of all, you clearly have no idea that I've written an entire book dealing with this topic in detail. Had you even taken the time to check out my page, go to my site and read the reviews, your post would not have been so flippant. Thus my conclusion is that you are both opinionated and lazy regardless of how much you think you know. I am not going to spend much time educating you.
Wow what an obnoxious blowhard. You have been hanging out with to many tree huggers. You have adopted the tactic of the enviroweenies who flip out the moment anyone says anything that doesn't fit their orthodoxy. You called me flippant? What a thin skin. I suggest you find another forum if my being flippant sends you around the bend. Either way, you are so offensive that any attempt for us to have any meaningful dialogue is lost. Take your vanity book and shove it up your ass.
Second, you obviously haven't dealt with the aftermath of catastrophic fire, as I have on a small scale. You haven't witnessed the erosion and weed infestations common after such events. The latter is NOT reversible on a large scale and can be terribly destructive.
I've read a lot about it. Your argument that I haven't dealt with it first hand is the same tired illogic that lefties use to attack people who supported the Iraq war but had never served. The aftermath of fire is part of a recovery process called forest succession. After a fire occurs the forest will go through predictable stages of regeneration. But regenerate, it will.
Third, you seem to prefer to believe the eco-drivel of groups funded by the tax-exempt foundations of corporate wealth with big investments at stake and the government agencies beholden to them laden with bureaucrats looking for a cause to milk.
Will you please take the tinfoil hat off when you post. You ascribe beliefs and motivations to me out of whole cloth. You take the position that depopulation of ecosystems is a bad thing and that fire is bad for forest ecosystems. Those are two positions that go against everything I've ever read. Granted I am a layman but it seems to me that you are the one going against the accepted position of most environmentalists and ecologists. More people interfering in a forest ecosystem bad. Less people interfering in a forest ecosystem good. Got it?
Fourth, you ignore the opinions of those who have spent their lives in the forest believing your preferred cadre to be somehow interested only in its benefit. Such is hardly the case. Only if things are going bad does your gang of thugs gain the justification to socialize ever more private property. From what I've seen, the admitted disaster that is government land fits that description perfectly.
Again with the tinfoil hat talk. I have no gang of thugs you loon. Socialize private property? What the heck are you talking about? That is the last thing I would propose to do. I started this thread with an article that supports free market solutions to environmental issues and reduced governmental intervention.
Finally, when a real disaster hits this country, one so big that an incompetent FEMA is easily overwhelmed, you probably expect those same rural landowners to care for you. They'll be gone. You and your craven, shallow, and ignorant ilk will have destroyed them with your covetousness. It could be different, but you don't care about them either.
What an idiot. For one, disasters are disasters by definition because they do massive damage beyond our abilities to prevent them from happening. They have happened before and they will happen again. You can't stop disasters from happening. You can only limit the damage. I am all for reasonable precautions and preparations for the next disaster that comes down the pike. Yes FEMA displayed gross incompetence during Katrina. That was after the disaster happened. What about before? How much money should tax payers had paid to reduce the casualties to say 1/10th the casualties that occurred and that's assuming no incompetence on the part of FEMA and everyone else? For a hurricane that might not have happened at that exact spot for another 50 years or more. And wouldn't we have to allocate recourses not only for New Orleans but also every other major city susceptible to hurricanes as well? Hey don't leave my little Delaware out. Hurricane Hugo kicked our butt because it violated massive odds and traveled right up the Chesapeake Bay to mess with us. Rural farmers helping us out? Give me a break. That would be a drop in the bucket compared to what we urban dwellers yearly pay to help out our rural countrymen for disaster relief. Read a few things by this guy William F. Shughart II. I think he knows a bit more about resource allocation and disaster relief than you or me.
"Katrina's main lesson ought to be that, no matter how much money and how many resources it commands, government is institutionally incapable of foreseeing and mobilizing prompt responses to crisis conditions. While privatizing some of the functions of FEMA merits serious consideration, at the end of the day people who choose to live and work in disaster-prone areas must learn to rely more heavily on themselves. Self-help, not government help, is the surest route to preparedness, relief, and recovery."
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17876