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

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

[RikaStrom]

LOL, I love it. Absolutely beautiful.

[madfly]

Absolutely Beautiful Sight! Send a press release to John Stossel and O'Reilly

stossel@abc.com

o'reilly@foxnews.com

I've been waiting for this news.
Thanks to all involved!

[cake_crumb]

"I'd be honored."

...And I'll be impressed <G> (heck, I was impressed with the excerpt.)

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

The reason we haven't been managing our forests properly is because the latte drinking, urban living environmentalists want nature left "undisturbed". They don't want scrub clearing, or selective logging, they even closed down the roads the forestry service used to patrol the forests in many National Forests.

What these Park Avenue address weilding "Nature Children" fail to realize is that Nature is a Mother. And like any Mother, Mother Nature tells us "Clean up that Forest, or I will, and you won't like how I'll clean it up!" Mother Nature cleans with fire.

[cake_crumb]

"Good rant!"

Thank you...when I read posts like that, I NEED to vent...

[BornOnTheFourth]

OMIGOSH! This is GREAT!!!!!!

I'm sure the watermellons in Oregon are going to love it! ;-)

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[stalin]

These fires were terrible because of the high fuel load.

How are environmentalists that have been saying that we need to save the biggest trees ( that withstand forest fires ) in managed lands and that we should let fires burn through in lands that we are trying to preserve in their natural state responsibe for poor managment ?

If that is what we had done these fires would have not been an issue at all.

If environmantalists are responsible for fighting fires in the past and cutting down the biggest trees that can withstand fires better then they would be responsible for this. So where is the evidence that this is the case ?

Is it environmentalists that have pushed for fighting fires in the past ? I've never heared them advocate that. Quite the oposite.

[stalin]

These fires were terrible because of the high fuel load.

How are environmentalists that have been saying that we need to save the biggest trees ( that withstand forest fires ) in managed lands and that we should let fires burn through in lands that we are trying to preserve in their natural state responsibe for poor managment ?

If that is what we had done these fires would have not been an issue at all.

If environmantalists are responsible for fighting fires in the past and cutting down the biggest trees that can withstand fires better then they would be responsible for this. So where is the evidence that this is the case ?

Is it environmentalists that have pushed for fighting fires in the past ? I've never heared them advocate that. Quite the oposite.

[stalin]

These fires were terrible because of the high fuel load.

How are environmentalists that have been saying that we need to save the biggest trees ( that withstand forest fires ) in managed lands and that we should let fires burn through in lands that we are trying to preserve in their natural state responsibe for poor managment ?

If that is what we had done these fires would have not been an issue at all.

If environmantalists are responsible for fighting fires in the past and cutting down the biggest trees that can withstand fires better then they would be responsible for this. So where is the evidence that this is the case ?

Is it environmentalists that have pushed for fighting fires in the past ? I've never heared them advocate that. Quite the oposite.

[vikingcelt]

Is the address on the sign the address to which I can send you money?

[vikingcelt]

Hey!!! We're moving to Brookings...next week.

[stalin]

These fires were terrible because of the high fuel load.

How are environmentalists that have been saying that we need to save the biggest trees ( that withstand forest fires ) in managed lands and that we should let fires burn through in lands that we are trying to preserve in their natural state responsibe for poor managment ?

If that is what we had done these fires would have not been an issue at all.

If environmantalists are responsible for fighting fires in the past and cutting down the biggest trees that can withstand fires better then they would be responsible for this. So where is the evidence that this is the case ?

Is it environmentalists that have pushed for fighting fires in the past ? I've never heared them advocate that. Quite the oposite.

[bert]

...He should vandal-proof it by saying the billboard houses a family of spotted owls...

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

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

It is environmentalists that have been pushing for the "natural state" forests. They don't want they fuel cleared out, they don't want the fallen trees removed, they don't want selective logging or low branch maintainance.

Understand?

The Conservationists who argue for maintaining the forest through forestry programs are not to blame, it is the environmentalist who want to maintain these "natural state" forests. The big healthy trees that create a well maintained forest would be in no danger if the scrub were cleared, the deadfalls removed and the forest tending by selective logging.

That is what Conservationists and the current administration are pushing for. The environmentalist want to "leave nature alone" and they had their say during the previous administration and look at the last 5 years and the damage forest fires have caused due to their foolish policies.

[cake_crumb]

"How are environmentalists that have been saying that we need to save the biggest trees ( that withstand forest fires ) in managed lands and that we should let fires burn through in lands that we are trying to preserve in their natural state responsibe for poor managment ?"

What we need to save are the stronger and healthier trees. In doing that, we need a nice age curve of individual trees - that is, individual trees representative of every age group, from sapling to mature mature trees - becase big trees are old trees, and trees, just like every other living thing, die.

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.

Unlike the old saying about people who can't see the forest for the trees, the environmentalists we're fighting ...we need a different term for us, maybe, to distinguish the forest managers from the tree hugging wackos...anyhow, the environazis can't see the trees for the forest...and a forest is COMPOSED of individual trees. That's socialist collectivism. It doesn't work in forestry, it doesn't work in wildlife management, and it doesn't work for the citizenry.

[wanderin]

The sign is located on the right hand side of the n/b 5 near mile markers 39-40, on the longish uphill grade leaving the Central Point/Medford area. It looks great!

[cake_crumb]

Is there some reason you needed to post the same thing, four seperate times, to four seperate posters? Knock it off.

[Teacher317]

RE: posts 68, 69, 70, and 73...

no matter how many times you say it, it won't make it true.

The environmentalists are responsible be cause they are the ones who stop EVERY attempt at logging ANY amount of the forests, they oppose EVERY attempt to clear out deadwood, they oppose EVERY attempt to clear roads into remote area so that the fires can be fought, they oppose EVERY proposition for human enjoyment of the forests (which makes the fires far less likely to be spotted before they are visible from space).

are trying to preserve in their natural state responsibe for poor managment? If that is what we had done these fires would have not been an issue at all.

Preserving the natural state of forests will prevent fires? You think that devastating, widespread fires never happened before humans came along??

[whattajoke]

I'm known as a nit-picker, but I couldn't let this one go:

Thinning trees has been done for thousands of years.

While your rant is sound, I'm not sure the Native Americans who lived here "thousands of years ago" had the means to thin the forests as much as we do now. Anyway, if you find a logging company who is willing to spend endless money and time clearing scrub while preserving the "money trees" let me know. Sounds like idealist liberal blather to me. It just ain't gonna happen.