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

[Still Thinking]

The defacers should carefully look for little red laser dots before approaching the sign too close. They can be targeted from half mile away.

You must be one of those eeeeevil white male conservatives (spit) with a gasp, SNIPER RIFLE!!

[EBUCK]

Can I consider that a "stepping forward" from the ranks?

If so get in contact with me immediately!!

Gotta get the news out to a few outlets right away (before the sign gets vandalized)

EBUCK

[EBUCK]

The bilboard is not misleading, you just don't like what it says.

Yup. Couldn't have siad it better...

EBUCK

[CyberCowboy777]

If we had listened to the environmantalists , preserved the old growth only cut medium to small trees and not fought all fires we wouldn't be having the problem of intence fires killing everything like we have now.

This is BS, you are either ignorant to the agenda of the ELF, Sierra Club and other environmental orgs or you are lying.

These groups have always stated a position of NO logging on public lands, no roads, no people. They have also stated a policy of no large track ownership by private individuals or corporations. This eliminates the ability to log anything large or small.

Our problems did begin long ago with a poor understanding of forest management. We did stop far to many fires. That is our reality now, we cannot pretend like this damage is not already here. Now is the time for man to manage the forest responsibly. And while most have learned and have come to understand what it takes to balance our production needs and other non-tangible needs. The environmentalist have not, they still want humans relegated to cities with no access to vast majorities of the country. They desire a pre-human world that cannot and will not be. They have even made statements to the effect that fires will help them drive people out of the interface and into the cities.

Beside, these groups support terrorism. That should give hint to their extremist views.

[CyberCowboy777]

Contact EBUCK and get somthing together.

I will do all I can to get it in the right hands.

This may also be a coat tail for some campaigns.

Thanks so much for stepping forward. I'd write it, but then we might look ignorant! lol

[EBUCK]

So , they imposed tarffs on Canadian lumber. Not quite. The price of our homegrown lumber is so damn high (and I'm sure you can figure out why) that lumber from Canada and overseas is a bargain. In a misguided attempt to make domestic lumber (mills, loggers, JOBS!!) competitive our good ol pres just increased the price of lumber from places that aren't hemstrung by envirals.

EBUCK

[CyberCowboy777]

Great job EBUCK.

You and I may not agree on everything (though I am softening my position), but in my book you are a great patriot and are to be commended for your ACTION.

Thanks for DOING something.

CyberCowboy777

[EBUCK]

If we all agreed we would need to start wearing our tinfoil because we'd surely be under somethings influence.

Thanks for the words and I only hope that more folks will do the same (take action that is)

EBUCK

[stalin]

The bottom line is that my statment is absolutely correct even if your interpretation of environmantalists in general ( notjust the extreemists ) is correct. Small cooler fires would have burned though and these fires wouldn't have been as devestating.

The billboard is false.

[stalin]

If the Canadians want to subsidize our building industry then I say let them do it. They provide hundreds of times more jobs than the logging industry.

[stalin]

I shouldn't say that the billboard is false just missleading because some environmentalists had the affect of making it worse by not allowing logging in some places but that is a drop in the bucket compared to fire supression over the years which they had nothing to do with.

[CyberCowboy777]

No it is not.

The fact is we have massive underbrush and small trees on public lands and it must be removed by man or the forest will be harmed.

The environmentalist DO NOT want ANY logging on public lands and have FOUGHT EVERY time the government has tried to do so over the last few decades. Thus preventing the proper management of the forest and allowing the worsening condition of the forest. That action created the current level of Fire storm experienced in our Forest here in the West.

Firefighters have died because environmentalist do not want ANY Logging, nay they do not want people at all.

[stalin]

What created the vast majority of the high fuel load was fire supression unless you want to blame environmentalists for the US having trees to burn.

Firefighters died because of fighting fires in the past not because of environmentalists. Many environmentalist say that we shouldn't have even fought these fires. I dissagree with that but that's not the point. The point is that the firefighters wouldn't have died if they were not there fighting the fires. Hence , you assertion the environmentalists are responsible for firfighters deaths is also false.

You are desperately trying to blame people that you don't like for these ills that are not thier faul and using false logic to do so.

[CyberCowboy777]

As I have said. Yes Fire suppression and other policies were to blame for the buildup.

However, decades ago the government figured this out and tried to make changes in the policy. Those changes included logging of small and medium trees and brush clearing in the process. This would also mean the building of access roads.

The environmentalist blocked at every opportunity, increasing the buildup and preventing the fix the Government had. That is why they are to blame, this could have been solved years ago, yet they presented in their ideology of NO Logging, NO roads.

We created a problem with old the management of fire suppression, now we know how to fix it (we have tried for decades) but cannot because the nuts on the left HATE people in the forest for any reason.

We cannot allow fires to burn until we fix the old problem of buildup. The environmentalist do not want the problem solved.

You question should be why.

[stalin]

You're lumping all environmentalists into one category which isn't accurate. You're saying the the environmentalists don't want any thinning by logging is wrong. They want to protect old growth first and formost and they don't want fire supression.

To blame even the extreem environmentalists for the problem is incorrect. They don't want fire supression. If we had listened to them we wouldn't have this problem. We wouldn't have many US forest products either but that is not the issue here.

The issue here is -is this billboard correct. The answer is no.

[EBUCK]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Pull your head out and think for yourself for a second.

The fires were caused by lightning (more or less). The fires' severity was caused by a massive buildup of fuel. The massive buildup of fuel was caused by the MENTAL environmentalists' (you are correct in that there are good ones to be found) policy of "hands off management". And finally, the lasting damage, weeds, weeds and more weeds, will also be the fault of the envirals.
There is no way around it. People have been messing with the land for far to long to stop messing with it.

And if you think for one second that the green jihadists are only out to help the environment think again. Their number one goal is the end of private property. And it just so happens that wild fire (due to incredible amounts of ground fuel, directly resulting from their insane hands off laws) serves that end quite nicely. Coincidence?

EBUCK

[stalin]

The increased fuel load was due to fire supression. Hands off would therefore have meant that the fires wouldn't have been as servere. Sue if we cut down the trees they wouldn't burn either.

The point is that if we had listened to them the fires wouldn't have been as bad. It's impossible to logically argue with that.

The fact that you think that they wanted these fires to take away private property speaks volumes.

[CyberCowboy777]

You're saying the the environmentalists don't want any thinning by logging is wrong.

The environmental organizations want NO logging and NO roads. This keeps us from clearing the Forest enough to allow natural burns. This is the stated position of all environmental groups I have read positions on.

Your statements on the failure to listen to Conservationist of 60 to 70 years ago has no bearing on the situation of today. The fact that the Government, States and private Businesses have been trying to clear the forest of the build up and that the environmentalist have tried to block every road building project and logged tree proves the billboard correct. If they had not blocked the clearing projects of the last two decades the Fire season would have been much less devastating.

Also the environmentalist of today bear no relationship with the Conservationist of 60 years ago and the true conservation of the past 60 years has been designed and implemented by a coalition of timber, government, ranchers, miners and science. Not the Sierra Club, ELF, Earth First or any terrorist organization that wants to prevent human interaction or use of the forest or wild lands.

[kancel]

>>Most of the urban professionals who inhabit rural forests think that a forest choked with brush and scraggly trees is "natural." Their faith in forest preservation is unchallenged by the tragic personal experience of a firestorm. <<

In Leavenworth, Wa there is a small a spot that has some pictures from maybe 100 years ago. It is amazing- I have NEVER seen forest that bare and growing up in a camping family I saw a lot of forests. The entire setup is about healthy forests and fire prevention i want to say it is sponsered by the Forest Service but the info it presents as the right thing for forest management and actual policy seem to be completely at odds. next time I am there I will havt ot look at it better and read the text more carefully.