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.
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.