Anti ENVIRAL BillBoard is up!!!! Take a Look!

EBUCK and the Fire Group ^ | 10/04/2002 | EBUCK

[EBUCK]

Here it is folks! It's finally up.

In the words of the Steve the BillBoard guy...

"This is gonna cause a $hit Storm..."

Enjoy

EBUCK

[Salvation]

BTTT for Oregon. Next one will have to say.

"AlQaeda, go away."

[stalin]

You were just cutting and pasting farmfriend. You didn't respond to my post at all. Then you complain at me for not responding to your's ? Prety silly.

[stalin]

This bilboard blames environmentalists but there has been no evidence given at all except that they are the reason we have forests to burn. That's rediculous.

I agree as my post states and environmentalists state that there must be a thining process. With managed lands that is done by man. With unmanaged lands that is done by fire.

I agree that 10+ years ago, forest fires, while a problem, were not nearly as prevalent or as devastating as they are now.

That is because they haven't been managed properly. The missmanagment is a result of many competing interests only a small part of which are the very few environmentalists that don't want to cut down any tree and have almost no power. Some environmentalists want to not cut down any tree but that is an extreemly small minority.

The bilboard blames environmentalists in general but that is false. If the advise of the majority environmentalists and scientists had been taken then these fires wouldn't have been the problem that they were.

[stalin]

The bilboard is talking about the past. I am pointing out that it is missleading.

[LurkerNoMore!]

Read it & smile.
:-)

[stalin]

Gramps ; Try to form lucid thoughts and not ramble quite so much.

The missmanagment that caused these fires to be so terrible was not due to environmentalists unless you think that there should be no trees to burn but even without environmentalists there still would be trees.

The bad fire season was due to decades of fighting fires and not clearing out the brush and small and medium trees that fires kill while leaving the big ones. Then when a fire burns through it not only does it not do much damage but it is helpfull.

To the extent that some environmentalists may have blocked the thining of small and medium trees and clearing of brush in managed forests they are partially responsible but it hasn't been demonstrated at all.

It was fighting fires in mismanaged forests over decades that caused the problem.

[farmfriend]

I cut and paste because Carry_Okie is more eloquent than I. Why mess with perfection. Pretty lousy excuse for not reading it.

[stalin]

I agree with one. That is correct in the managed forests.

Because we screwed up and stopped fires in unmanaged forests , they will be destroyed if we don't keep stopping them but it is only a matter of time before they all go up if we do that , so we mustn't.

To fix our screw up we should have controlled burns in unmanaged forests to bring it back in harmony with it's natural cycle then we can leave them alone again.

[stalin]

ref #84. yes that is a very good thing. That way you don't need to use the big trees at all and you can have managed foreststs that are healthy and don't go up in smoke every other year.

[farmfriend]

The fuel load is too high to have controlled burns. If you had read my post instead of bashing me for cut and paste, you would known that.

[nicmarlo]

bump for a great billboard

[farmfriend]

then we can leave them alone again.

Wrong!!! There are too many invasive species to "leave them alone". Again, if you had read my post you would know that.

[stalin]

I siad it 4 times because I was responding to 4 diff people and the same post was appropriat.

Read my other posts. Yes fires were around before people but they weren't as devestating. That is why we have 2000 year old trees that have survived countless fires. Those same 2000 year old trees would be killed in a fire today because of missmanagment. The VAST VAST majority of that missmanagment was not due to environmentalists.

[stalin]

The same post was applicable.

[stalin]

I agree with your first paragraph. The environmentalists who are telling us to save just the old growth trees are wrong about what constitutes a healthy forest...and they're also the ones insisting we close the fire roads, let brush go unchecked and leave stands of trees killed by fire, disease and pests untouched.

In unmanaged forests this is true. In managed forests some trees must be cut down to produce wood products.

[farmfriend]

I siad it 4 times because I was responding to 4 diff people and the same post was appropriat.

You could have used one box and put all 4 names in it.

The VAST VAST majority of that missmanagment was not due to environmentalists.

Wrong. They set land aside which kills it. They advocate and file law suits to make people "leave it alone" which is the worst thing that can be done to the land. The fires that burned so hot this year were directly cause by eronious evironmental regulation. Ther is a solution.

[Hemlock]

Bump. Excellent.

[stalin]

I agree with you. It must be cleared. I think that you are mistaken when you say that environmentalist don't want this. Maybe a very small minority don't but not the vast majority of environemtnalists or conservationists.

The past mismanagment needs to be corrected. Then , in the extreemly small percentage of forests that are not harvested in any way nature should be left alone.

[farmfriend]

Then , in the extreemly small percentage of forests that are not harvested in any way nature should be left alone.

And what is your solution for freeing them of non-native invasive species? If you believe that leaving a forest alone will keep it as pristine habitat, you are mistaken.

[Humidston]

Thanks for the ping, E-S. And I absolutely LOVE that billboard! A thing of BEAUTY!!