| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Home Front | |||
| California Fires Reignite Forest Thinning Debate | |||
| 2003-11-02 | |||
| From Fox... EFL and Fair Use By Steven Milloy Posted on behalf of Frank G and the other Rantburgers affected by the recent fires — and the fact that some jihadi had suggested recently that they should take credit for them... "Our forests are detonating like napalm bombs. We need to remove dead and dying bug-killed timber," said Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif. Is this Monday-morning quarterbacking spurred by the wildfires now raging in California? Hardly. Rep. Herger uttered those words in August 1994 as part of his demand that Congress declare a state of emergency in federal forests to permit quick removal of dead trees, fallen branches and other debris that fuel wildfires — like those that burned 3 million Western acres and killed 14 firefighters that year. A spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council responded at the time by calling Rep. Hergerâs demand âa pretext for accelerated logging in the Sierra Nevada.â
Still clueless after all these years...
...More... EcoPolitics: where green and greed are reversed. | |||
| Posted by:.com |
| #17 Uh, Shipman, by the time Reagan cut taxes, the Beatles were pretty washed up anyway. Ringo'd already quit, and I think the group had disbanded. Have to blame that on either Nixon, Ford, or Carter - MUCH before Reagan's time. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-11-2 7:14:06 PM |
| #16 Bechtel's loading up willie pete in those old Electras... it's true. Those forests are covering up valuable oil fields. Reagans tax cut caused the sprawl and the Beatles. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-11-2 6:12:13 PM |
| #15 We have the same problem is south central Alaska (kenai peninsula and Anchorage). Millions of acres of dead beetle-killed spruce trees stand like flambeau ready for a light. The enviro-weenies have been fighting logging for years, so the value of much of the timber has been lost due to rot. Hopefully their self immolating attitudes will be overcome soon after SoCal fires. My son and I dropped over a hundred dead trees in our neighborhood to give some defensible space. Sensible people need to take charge of their lives and get policies in place that protect the forests and the people. The enviroweenies have the same nonsensical hysteria about energy, oil, food, and the WoT. They have big lungs and vocal chords, but it is time, for the purposes of our survival as a nation, to tell them to STFU and G.O.O.D! |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-11-2 5:07:49 PM |
| #14 After insurance companies get done paying out claims you can bet that it will be a whole new enchilada getting fire insurance in places that go poof. Actually, once a place has gone up in smoke, there is little danger of it burning up again. Forest fires need fuel, and once the fuel is gone, it'll be a while before those areas present a fire risk. In this respect, forests are different from flood plains, hurricane zones or earthquake zones. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-11-2 2:59:17 PM |
| #13 After seeing some of the fabulous homes that burned I think some balance may be coming. Those that built in those areas thought little about the fire danger. Probably thought the trees were there for shade. After insurance companies get done paying out claims you can bet that it will be a whole new enchilada getting fire insurance in places that go poof. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2003-11-2 2:46:18 PM |
| #12 OP -- the "big trees don't burn" myth probably came from people watching parkland burn. In a park, the dead wood is typically cleared, and the grass under the trees doesn't burn very hot. Grass fires won't even hurt smaller trees, so you can see how the myth was born. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-11-2 2:00:15 PM |
| #11 The eucalyptus burn like giant matchsticks - see: Scripps Ranch, burned to the ground, et al it's all about the fuel - we've had way too much undergrowth (controlled burns prohibited) and not enough removal of dead trees |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-11-2 12:25:21 PM |
| #10 Big trees like the ones the logging companies are interested are actually fireproof What planet do YOU live on? I can walk up into the foothills west of here and see Ponderosa pines three feet thick where all that's left is a bit of the lower trunk and the stump. The Hayman fire burned them quite well, thank you. The only time large trees don't burn is when the fire temperature is low. Underbrush, closely-packed trees, and dead trees have a tendency to raise the temp of most forest fires from around 450 degrees to well over 2000 degrees. NOTHING is immune. This is just another bit of nonsense to try to 'convince' people old-growth forests aren't in danger. It's bullshit. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-11-2 12:02:41 PM |
| #9 Eventually, I would like to see the process of controlled burns contracted out. I may misunderstand the current system, but I think it has been abused in the past. For example, the training and burning budgets of the Forest Service were re-routed into land aquisition in the nineties. I beleive there was a large wildfire that same year in Arizona. I'm a little fuzzy as there have been so many fires. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-11-2 11:31:26 AM |
| #8 Thinning the forest has nothing to do with the fires, as Super Hose kind of points out. Big trees like the ones the logging companies are interested are actually fireproof (the bark is much too thick for them to burn down). In the past, natural fires used to come through, burning out the undergrowth while leaving these trees, and in the end, making the forest healthier. Taking out the larger trees is not going to do anything, and the reality of a "controlled burn" can be seen in the western fires of a decade ago. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-11-2 11:18:41 AM |
| #7 If you keep the trees thinned, then a controlled burn zaps the undergrowth. That policy will be a hardsell to teh kook who consider weeding the garden an afront to bio-diversity. Their logic alludes me. I think it is the Sierra club that sells oil from a well on its property to fund anti-drilling advocacy. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-11-2 11:08:16 AM |
| #6 That's weird - must indicate the temperature of the fire was rather low... When I lived in Sammy Dago an Aussie friend of mine there said that the eucalyptus trees explode when they burn - spreading flaming sap for several meters around - she had seen it in the fires around Sydney. Anyone know more about this - it sounds a little odd that they would be helpful in this case!!! |
| Posted by: .com 2003-11-2 11:03:35 AM |
| #5 Interestingly, Eucalyptus trees survived amidst scorched earth conditions. In some cases, they even served as a firewall. I wonder if the tree's oil could be used as a fire retardant? |
| Posted by: Anonon 2003-11-2 10:50:57 AM |
| #4 But it's about the |
| Posted by: .com 2003-11-2 10:41:25 AM |
| #3 I should add as well, that there are no large scale lumber mill ops in Southern California. There is no chance of logging for commercial gain, these a-holes just refuse to see the forest for the trees, so to speak |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-11-2 10:29:33 AM |
| #2 the ecos are on the defensive around here right now - I'm sure they'll rebound, but their response seems to be that their policies were correct, and it was people's faults that they built suburbs and ranch houses in the hills - we should all be huddling in NY style highrises and leaving the backcountry alone. The drought over the last couple years (2" of rain in all of the '01 rain year) led to tree susceptibility to bark beetles, which left scores of big 'ol matchsticks standing. The ecos are against haul roads - they want to helicopter the trees out.....riiiiggghhhtt |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-11-2 10:01:51 AM |
| #1 I wish Jesse Jackson would take over the enviro business. Then at least we could just pay the guy off and agree to interview black candidates for all forestry positions. The status quo is killing people. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-11-2 8:52:29 AM |