Replies

It's the underbrush and smaller trees that are the problem here, not the large trees that the "enviro-wackos" wanted to save, that turned these fires into major disasters.

This statement makes this this former statement obvious.

I've been no more than a disinterested observer of this topic in the past.

If you have not been paying attention, you wouldn't know that you can't clear the trees and underbrush if you have no roads. They want NO activity in the forests because it might disturb something. And heaven forbid those evil lumber companies should make a profit!

If you have not been paying attention, you wouldn't know that you can't clear the trees and underbrush if you have no roads.

OK, point taken.

But isn't the most effective way to keep these forest fires from becoming disasters of biblical proportions, ironically enough, letting them burn naturally every few years?

It keeps coming back to the logging industry saving the day. So I'll repeat - how were the forests able to survive before loggers arrived?

Who has been dictating policy when it comes to putting out fires? I can't imagine the logging industry being happy about letting large forests just burn, so I assume they do have a say. If that's the case, then they have to bear some responsibility.

Don't get me wrong. Given a choice, I'd much rather have the lumber put to good use rather than let it burn. That doesn't mean that they should be given free reign to cut down everything in sight and turn it into a shopping mall though. I cannot believe everyone here wants that.

It's obvious that there needs to be a much smarter policy put into place that isn't dictated by lobby groups from either side. A policy that allows reasonable access to the logging industry, while maintaining a healthy eco-system. The environmentalists absolutely have to give, no doubt about it. But I can't lay the blame solely on their shoulders. That may not sit well with cookie-cutter conservatives, but I'm not one of them.