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

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

[farmfriend]

I read that too but it can have a liberal slant. Science can be subjective, as much as we like to believe it is not. If you can wade through Scientific American, you should have no trouble with Mark's book. Wouldn't you prefer to do something about the problem of both enviromental conservation and property rights preservation? Wouldn't doing something to solve the problem be preferable to arguing over the cause? Read my long posts, check out my links, buy the book and even discuss it with the author. He will answer any questions you have.

[marsh2]

Sept. 30 News Release from the Lassen National Forest:

Cone Fire Burns Experimental Forest

(Susanville, CALIF.) The Cone Fire that began on Thursday, September 26, on the Lassen National Forest (N.F.), is providing wildland fire experts and forestry researchers a unique view of the effects of fuel treatments on an active wildfire and the fire?s effects on the forest ecosystem.
This situation is unique due to the fact that the fire is burning in areas on the Lassen N.F. that have received extensive fuel treatments including prescribed fire and tree thinning. The fire is also burning in the Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest (BMEF), which was created in 1934 to study extensive pine forest ecosystems.
Initial observations indicate that the experimental forest experienced a high intensity burn in areas that received no treatment. The timber stands that had been treated with thinning, prescribed fire, or both experienced a low intensity ground fire, resulting in lower tree mortality. Initial observations indicate that the treatments were very effective in slowing down and sometimes even stopping the fire.
The BMEF is an active research project within the forest and is one of the few forests in America with more than 50 years of recorded data. Experimental treatments were conducted on twelve 250-acre plots. Each of the 250-acre research plots was mechanically thinned and half were treated by prescribed fire.
The last sizeable fire within the experimental forest was in 1910. 1,600 acres of the 2,000-acre Cone Fire burned in the Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest. Pacific Southwest (PSW) Station scientist Bill Oliver, along with Eagle Lake District Ranger Bob Andrews, and District Silviculturist Al Vazquez, surveyed the burned portions of the experimental forest and provided the initial observations.
Bill Oliver realizes that the Cone Fire gives scientists an opportunity to evaluate and record the effects of the fuel treatments on areas later impacted by wildfire. In November, Oliver will be bringing a scientific team to the burned treatment areas to assess the effects. ?We need to analyze the treated and untreated areas that burned and document those findings,? Oliver said Saturday afternoon.
The NorCal Interagency Incident Management Team II will be actively managing the Cone Fire for the next few days and is available to conduct media tours of the burned area. Please contact Cone Fire Information at 530-257-3719 or Susanville Interagency Fire Center at 530-257-5575 to arrange for a tour.
Additional information Go here to see photo comparisons of the treated and untreated areas after fire: http://www.r5.fs.fed.us/lassen/incident/conefire/gallery/index.html

[Joe Brower]

editor-surveyor,

Don't sweat, RonF. He is a well-known troll and disruptor.

[dware]

I've been known to type up a pretty mean press release - every one I have ever done has received media attention.

At your service,
DWare

[Madame Dufarge]

Thanks for the ping.

Great way to start the day and BTTT!

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[RWG]

A burned house would have helped the impact even more.

[brityank]

Looks great, with a great vista backdrop. Let's hope it stays that way and doesn't turn out like VA's montage -- thanks VA for a sobering look at the damage done by the misguided leading the misinformed.

[MeekOneGOP]

This is worth reposting.....

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

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

Enjoy

[TigersEye]

$hitstorm BUMP!

[stalin]

The problem is obvious and I wasn't created by environmentalists. It was created by fire supression.

The solutions are debatable but this thread is about a missleading billboard. It is false to blame environmentalist for the bad fire season.

I think that the American scientific community and Marks book agree on many points. Where they diverge I diverge. Yes , any publication has a political agenda. I agree with that. It can't be helped. Somtimes it is obvious that SAmerican's editor are liberal but they still have to back up thier positions with science. I agree with them on this issue.

[farmfriend]

Fire suppression may have created the large fuel load but it was environmentalist who stopped us from reducing it before the fires. Therefor the fires are their fault period. The bilboard is not misleading, you just don't like what it says.

[blackie]

Property Rights...Bump !!

Stop the attacks on our Freedoms by the wacko, extreme left-wing, lunatic fringe, dirt worshipping Green Jihadist, enviro-nazis terrorist's and their toadies in the media !!

Stop Rural Cleansing !!

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!

Molon Labe !!

Fighting Irresponsible Radical Environmentalism !!

[stalin]

Some environmentalists may be partialy responsible for the high fuel loads by stopping some logging is some managed lands but that responsability is miniscule compared to those that insisted on fighting all of the fires even in unmanaged lands. That responsability doesn't lie with environmantalists.

Environmantalists disagreed with most of the fire supression as your previous post describes. If we had listened to them the fire season wouldn't have been devestating. Therefore it is false to blame them for the bad fire season.

It may be true to blame them for a lack of forest products but not the bad fire season.

There is no lack of forest products though. In fact our government has raised the prices of forest products in the US by trying to impose restrictions Canadian lumber and lower supply to raise prices because the Bush admin clearely believed that there were too many forest products in American markets.

[blackie]

Molon Labe !!

[Free_at_last_-2001]

Excellent!

[farmfriend]

You don't do much construction do you?

[Aquamarine]

It looks great!

[supercat]

but that responsability is miniscule compared to those that insisted on fighting all of the fires even in unmanaged lands.

What about fighting all the fires in managed lands, only to have them later turned into unmanaged lands by the environmentalists?