Dr. Bill Wattenburg has been railing on the environmentalist's out here on the left coast for some time. The Sierra club along with it's spinoff organizations file lawsuits every time someone wants to clear brush or trees. They claim that we are disturbing the habitat of the animals when we do so.
The company that I work for, contracts with the CDF {Calif. department of forestry}, and the US Forest Service, so I have seen the devastation first hand. The firefighters have told me that during the raging fires, animals are screaming as they flee the fires with their fur on fire. Birds are flying until the fire and smoke consume them. I have seen the carcasses of the tortured animals myself. Meanwhile the liberal nutcases show up and protest the fire, as they say that it is God's way of taking care of things, and they have a maniacal grin as the fire is consuming the forest's. As stated above, they file lawsuits in court over brushland and in forest's.
Btw, it's all about money.. the lawyers raid the treasury as they "defend the environment".
It truly is criminal, I hope that the general population wakes up someday, but I'm not overly confident of it though..
http://www.pushback.com/environment/forests/

And Dr, Wattenburgs article on the "let burn" philosophy.. http://www.pushback.com/Wattenburg/articles/NowTheyHaveBurnedLosAlamos.html

[This message has been edited by trailboss (edited 10-27-2003).]

I've heard that fire supression is making fires worse than they would be. And don't get me started on the bonehead environmentalists. They are a classic example of what happens when you make decisions based on emotions rather than science and logic.

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 10-27-2003).]

I am not surprised at this post. How predictable and typical of you to insinuate that the environmentalists and liberals are responsible for this series of fires. Yet another delusional pipedream for you to hope for.

Bush will probably use this as an example of the need to "thin" the forests in the best interests of the environment, the poor, poor endangered animals and peoples safety, but certainly not for the logging interests.

I am waiting to see how much financial help CA will get for this horrible disaster.

[This message has been edited by Erik (edited 10-27-2003).]

Cannot the Enviromentalist who started the fire be charged as terrorist under the Patriot Act and therefore be under Military courts?

quote Originally posted by Erik: Bush will probably use this as an example of the need to "thin" the forests in the best interests of the environment, the poor, poor endangered animals and peoples safety, but certainly not for the logging interests. [This message has been edited by Erik (edited 10-27-2003).]

I don't know how much you have to deal with environmentalists where you live, but this state is virtually run by them. The problem is, they go way too far. They border on (or exceed) radical. Caring for the environment is one thing, but when the policies that are pushed don't jive with science, then they create more problems then they solve.

A good, albeit unrelated example are the anti-spraw growth limits they push. Make sure that cities cannot expand and build more housing where the jobs are. Instead, if you want to buy a house, you have to go 60-100 miles away. Then, you have to commute on crowded freeways. Oh, and they also block road and freeway construction and expansion. Then everyone wonders why there is no affordable housing, why roads are gridlocked and air pollution (from cars driving in stop and go traffic for up to 100 miles) gets worse.

Not scientific, not logical. Brought to you by the Sierra Club.

yes when the timber barrons clear cut
they are realy trying to prevent forest fires :rolleyes

btw taxes support firefighters
tax cuts hurt firefighters

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by ray b: yes when the timber barrons clear cut they are realy trying to prevent forest fires :rolleyes

Yes, *when* the timber barrons did that. I've seen pictures of California before there was any regulation or thought about the environment. It is not that way anymore. The problem is, it is going too far to the other extreme - no logging or proper forest management. Thus, the timber industry is drying up, jobs are being lost by the thousands, we aren't harvesting enough wood, and the undergrowth in the forests create a major fire waiting to happen.

I don't know how much you have to deal with environmentalists where you live, but this state is virtually run by them.

Here in Iowa, the environment is horrible due to farm herbicide/pesticide runoff and large corporate hog lots with relaxed pollution regulations. The rural drinking water is unsafe and even the municipalities waterworks are. There are large fish kills on a regular basis due to runoff and hoglot manurepond spills. The few places to swim are filthy with germs and fecal matter

The problem is, they go way too far. They border on (or exceed) radical. Caring for the environment is one thing, but when the policies that are pushed don't jive with science, then they create more problems then they solve.

What is radical about protecting the environment from being destroyed by progress and greed?
The are natural checks and balances in nature without mans help. Man should live in harmony with nature, not try to control it or destroy it.

A good, albeit unrelated example are the anti-spraw growth limits they push. Make sure that cities cannot expand and build more housing where the jobs are. Instead, if you want to buy a house, you have to go 60-100 miles away. Then, you have to commute on crowded freeways. Oh, and they also block road and freeway construction and expansion. Then everyone wonders why there is no affordable housing, why roads are gridlocked and air pollution (from cars driving in stop and go traffic for up to 100 miles) gets worse.

Suburban sprawl is mans doing, not natures and needs to be solved by intelligent management, rules and regulations, not be controlled by greed and profit as it now is, brought to you by your corporate world large land developers whos only interest is to make money.

These fires should be natural, not manmade.
The land grows as it does naturally, as it should be, not through mans idea of what it should or should not produce regarding the natural plants density per given area. Nature is logical.

Not scientific, not logical. Brought to you by the Sierra Club.

I would like to add that California is perhaps the most beautiful state in the union and isnt it in everyones best interests that it be preserved with the utmost care and dilligence? After its gone there is no turning back.

[This message has been edited by Erik (edited 10-27-2003).]

Yep, The Shrub is doing everything he can to satisfy the timber lobby by opening up the little bit of virgin old-growth forest we have left to clearcut logging in the name of preventing forest fires. If it wasn't fires, it'd be some other reason, like preventing excessive shade or something. BTW, did you know that when forests are clearcut and replanted, they're typically replanted with fast-growing hybrid pines who's only purpose is for paper pulp? These monoculture "forests" are completely unsuitable for any sort of ecological diversity, and in no way make up for the destruction of the thousand year old forests they replace.

You don't just plant trees and make an ecology. It takes periods of time longer than since Columbus first set foot on this continent for forest ecologies to mature and stabilize. Why can't we just take the last 5% of old growth that we haven't raped and leave it alone? We cut down 95%, isn't that enough?

JazzMan

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 10-28-2003).]

quote Originally posted by Wichita: Cannot the Enviromentalist who started the fire be charged as terrorist under the Patriot Act and therefore be under Military courts?

Your post is a crime against intelligence.

Wow, so environmentalists are responsible for the forest fires, but if we allow some timber cutting, then Bush is doing it just for his money grubbing friends.

You people can't be satisfied with anything. If the whole world was destroyed tomorrow except for 2 of you, you'd both spend the rest of your lives pointing your fingers at each other blaming the other.

A few people have a clue - moderation is the key. Extreme viewpoints to either side are damaging. But too many don't care about that as long as they can win their debate. That is sad.

Quote:
How predictable and typical of you to insinuate that the environmentalists and liberals are responsible for this series of fires.

The fact of the matter is that the Sierra club is run by liberals.
Many lawsuits have been filed in San Diego and L.A. county by the Sierra club to stop the thinning of brush and trees.
Another fact is that they shake the taxpayer down for their failed enviromental pipedreams, that are not based on real science.
Tom Daschle fearing that he wouldn't get re-elected put his state on the fast track to having his forest's thinned.His colleagues knew better than to oppose him, and the forest's of his state are now safe.
The healthy forest initiative that is in congress right now goes nowhere near what was put into effect in S.D.
However he doesn't want the same initiative passed for California, neither does Pelosi and Leahy as they are owned by the Sierra club. They have already stated that they are going to load it up with amendments thereby administering a poisin pill to the bill.

Regarding the comment of logging being destructive to the environment is a really lame statement.
From the first linked article that some chose not to read…

Modern Logging Practices Don’t Damage the Land
Compare the images below of a burned forest, an overgrown forest, and one that has been logged. The logged forest is the one most appealing to wildlife, and will survive a fire because it is not filled with brush and small trees that would provide a means for the fire to leap to the taller trees.
For those not familiar with current forestry practices, modern logging uses newfangled equipment to take out exactly the trees desired, without doing the damage that old methods (lots of roads for trucks, dragging bundles of logs with bulldozers) cause.
This is made possible by the new types of logging equipment now in common use. Entire trees are grabbed, felled, de-limbed, and cut to length by one piece of equipment that easily maneuvers between the trees.

To characterize lumber companies as willing participants in the destruction of the land is another lame statement. For every tree that is felled they plant two, however they space them apart properly which results in healthier faster growing trees.
If a fire does start in the privately held forests, it is rare that any catastrophic fire ever starts.

quote Originally posted by Erik: That undergrowth are the next generation of forests as the older trees die if left alone. That is proper forest management via nature. Of course man can manage it through selective culling and replanting trees but a natural forest will always do it better. Who would rather enjoy an artificial forest over a natural one?

Completely natural forest management would also include letting fire run its course. Lightning strikes cause natural fires in the wild. Wildfires have some benefits:

EDIT: to clarify that the following is a quote from a web site, not a continuation of Erik's quote above.

quote The ecological benefits of wildfires often outweigh their negative effects. A regular occurrence of fires can reduce the amount of fuel build-up thereby lowering the likelihood of a potentially large wildfire. Fires often remove alien plants that compete with native species for nutrients and space, and remove undergrowth, which allows sunlight to reach the forest floor, thereby supporting the growth of native species. The ashes that remain after a fire add nutrients, often locked in older vegetation, to the soil for trees and other vegetation. Fires can also provide a way of controlling insect pests by killing off the older or diseased trees and leaving the younger, healthier trees. Overall, fire is a catalyst for promoting biological diversity and healthy ecosystems. It fosters new plant growth, and wildlife populations often expand as a result.

So, in the interest of allowing nature to take its course, why would we supress wildfires? Obviously there are disadvantages as well. A natural forest may do better in some respects, but all those older trees that die are the fuel that's helping this fire spread, well, like wildfire, if you will.

There is also a place for selective cutting and timber management. Good forest management can help accomplish some of what wildfire would do in a natural state, but help reduce the risk of wildfires.

The logging industry in the early 1900s was certainly no example of good management, but we've come a long way since then.

[This message has been edited by AndyLPhoto (edited 10-28-2003).]

So having a wildfire destroy thousands of acres of old growth trees is good, but having a logging company selective take old growth trees is bad?

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: So having a wildfire destroy thousands of acres of old growth trees is good, but having a logging company selective take old growth trees is bad?

Yup, now you're catching on. Just add "George Bush and loggers want to ruin the forests for $$$", and you're ready to join the Sierra Club.

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 10-28-2003).]

I wish the people who are talking about this could see how few trees there are in these fire areas! This is California folks, not Oregon. Down around San Diego there may be some forest fires.. but in Central CA, these are brush fires... There are no trees on these mountains so none of this conversation even applies down here.

------------------

Fiero-Performance.com - New mods for your Fiero from Fiero Performance Bayern in Germany

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: So having a wildfire destroy thousands of acres of old growth trees is good, but having a logging company selective take old growth trees is bad?

Actually, yes. Fire does neat things to the soil that promotes rapid growth otherwise.

Logging, er, doesn't.

Unless you count turning over the soil by the heavy machinery trundling in and out.

Another reason why some forests aren't healthy due to fire suppression...certain species of trees *require* fire to get their seeds going. In other words, some trees cannot reproduce without a fire.

Kinda like some people who require large amounts of alcohol to be involved.

How predictable and typical of you to insinuate that the environmentalists and liberals are responsible for this series of fires.

The fact of the matter is that the Sierra club is run by liberals.

Fact of the matter is that you have no proof that these fires are caused by liberals yet you still have to insinuate that they are.

Many lawsuits have been filed in San Diego and L.A. county by the Sierra club to stop the thinning of brush and trees.

Good for them. Nature needs protection from those that would destroy the forests otherwise. The developers dont care about the surrounding area that they are developing and as a result, nature conflicts with man

Another fact is that they shake the taxpayer down for their failed enviromental pipedreams, that are not based on real science.

Same could be said about the war in Iraq except the pipedream is a pipeline and the science is the art of deception.

Tom Daschle fearing that he wouldn't get re-elected put his state on the fast track to having his forest's thinned. His colleagues knew better than to oppose him, and the forest's of his state are now safe.

Safe from what? Logging interests? Fires?
Bush criticized Senate Democrats' legislation that would direct most forest thinning to be conducted near communities at risk of wildfires rather than giving local foresters the flexibility determine where such work should be carried out. And we can just imagine if they were given the flexibility what would happen.

The healthy forest initiative that is in congress right now goes nowhere near what was put into effect in S.D.

Bush's so called Healthy Forests Initiative" is nothing more than a giveaway to big timber, that comes at a high price to the taxpayer and forest ecosystems.

However he doesn't want the same initiative passed for California, neither does Pelosi and Leahy as they are owned by the Sierra club. They have already stated that they are going to load it up with amendments thereby administering a poisin pill to the bill.

Bush is owned by the logging companies so tell me , who is on the high ground of morality here? Oh yeah I can predict that answer

Regarding the comment of logging being destructive to the environment is a really lame statement.

Lame to who? You? Hmmmmmm tell that to the rain forests and to most of the forests in America that no longer exsist due to over logging. Tell that to the land that is eroded. Your arguement is really lame.

From the first linked article that some chose not to read…

I read it.

Modern Logging Practices Don’t Damage the Land.
Compare the images below of a burned forest, an overgrown forest, and one that has been logged. The logged forest is the one most appealing to wildlife,

Appealing to what wildlife? A deer? insects? a racoon? There are many levels of habitat in a natural forest, can you say NATURAL? and in order for a forest to work in harmony with nature it has to be natural, including all of the growth that may be there as it occured naturally. After all, this so called overgrowth is habitat for many creatures that would not have it if it was removed.

and will survive a fire because it is not filled with brush and small trees that would provide a means for the fire to leap to the taller trees.

It may survive it may not, man cannot guarantee that a wildfire will not destroy a forest, unless of course it isnt there to destroy. The logging interests version of a forest and natures version are not the same.

For those not familiar with current forestry practices, modern logging uses newfangled equipment to take out exactly the trees desired,

Yes, its called "get the oldest most profitable trees"

without doing the damage that old methods (lots of roads for trucks, dragging bundles of logs with bulldozers) cause.

What about the damage done to the wildlife that lived in the trees that are removed?

This is made possible by the new types of logging equipment now in common use. Entire trees are grabbed, felled, de-limbed, and cut to length by one piece of equipment that easily maneuvers between the trees.

How romantic, Im sure Paul Bunion will be looking for a job soon. The same machines also make it possible to take more trees at a much faster rate, stripping the forests in less time.

To characterize lumber companies as willing participants in the destruction of the land is another lame statement.

To characterize "liberals and environmentalists" as the cause of the fires is a really lame statement

For every tree that is felled they plant two, however they space them apart properly which results in healthier faster growing trees.

Faster growing for what purpose? So that they can harvest them (the logging companies)sooner? The trees they plant are not natural types indigenous with the area. Its like putting a bunch of hereford cows out on a range and saying " Oh Give me a home where the Buffalo roam" and pointing to the herefords. Spacing apart trees properly? Hmmmm like nature doesnt already do that by itself

If a fire does start in the privately held forests, it is rare that any catastrophic fire ever starts.

Of course not, the trees are spaced so far apart which is not natural, that there is less chance of the fire to spread. These tree farms are not natural.

Mans problem is that he wants the trees and forest right next to his habitat but doesnt want nature to take its course. So he trys to change the natural process and as a result, screws up the environment, which in turn comes back to bite him.

[This message has been edited by Erik (edited 10-28-2003).]

Bush is owned by logging companies...
Gore invented the internet...
The cow jumped over the moon...

These and other sayings tonight on:
UNFOUNDED COMMENTS
6:00PM on Channel 7

Do a little research on President Clinton selling off old-growth forest saying that there is "about 375 board feet of salable lumber in every thousand year old Douglas Fir. That's worth up to nearly $5,000, at today's prices." (Dec 95)

What about his much publicized timber summit in Portland in 1994. He had made campaign promises so he had to do something. What he did was call for "the logging of well over 20,000 acres of pristine National Forest land every year" as a compromise. This compromise pleased no one.

I'm not standing on either side here. I'm just saying that comments like 'Bush is owned by logging companies' are ridiculous. Last week he was owned by someone else. Next week it will be someone else yet again...

Ya'll give it a break. Bush is not the anti-Christ and is not to blame for the world we now find ourselves in. Neither is the Sierra Club responsible for these fires. There is good and bad in thinning forests. If done correctly, it can be very helpful in a lot of ways.

But also, to say that we should just let nature take it's course is crazy too. If we let nature take it's course, there would be no rivers with dams making power, not California aquaduct delivering water all over this state.. Lots of our daily things that we have become used to would exist. So let's stop reaching to both extremes just to argue on a forum.

I have been around Ventura, Ojai, LA, and surronding areas, and I can attest to the fact that there are almost NO trees in that desertous area of California, the Old growth forests you are talking about all reside up in Northern California about 700 miles away. This area is sandy dirt, rock, brush and an occasional oasis of trees. The shore has trees but even 1 mile inland starts to become desertous.

[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 10-28-2003).]

quote Originally posted by Erik: Good for them. Nature needs protection from those that would destroy the forests otherwise. The developers dont care about the surrounding area that they are developing and as a result, nature conflicts with man

Demonizing developers is a cop-out. The real problem isn't being addressed - the human population explosion. Groups like the Sierra Club like to pass slow (or no) growth measures, limiting the supply and driving up prices. Then, noone can afford a home. Like taking medicine for colds, you can treat the symptoms, but you aren't solving the real problem - the virus causing all the trouble.

You live in the midwest. What is the average price for a home in your town? Here in Hayward, it's around $350,000. That's for a small, 50+ year old POS in a blue collar neighborhood. The shortage of housing, and the high prices, are brought to you by...wait for it...the enviros!

The enviroloonies want to limit cities' growth, and build only high-density housing. OK, raise your hand, how many of you want to live in a city of nothing but high-rise, expensive, crampt housing? No garage to work on your car, no yard, virtually no peace or privacy? Hmmm, don't see many hands raised.

Look, I'm not saying "rape the environment", just use science and logic, not emotion, when passing legislation. Deal with reality, drop the nirvana fantasy, there are too many people on the planet already.

quote Bush is owned by the logging companies so tell me , who is on the high ground of morality here? Oh yeah I can predict that answer [This message has been edited by Erik (edited 10-28-2003).]

People's attitude toward money is amazing. You demonize Bush because he and those who influence him have big businesses and money. But, when someone hands you your paycheck, do you wad it up and burn it? Why not? Hmmmm, money suddenly isn't so evil. Is it only evil if someone has more than you? Is that your high moral ground? F**k everyone with more money than me?

Environmentalists wackos are causing a lot of these problems. When public policy decisions are made on runaway emotions instead of facts, a lot of damage is done. Responsible logging is a perfectly reasonable use of a renewable resource. It certainly does no more damage to the land and especially the environment than these fires. However these current fires are mainly in areas where ground cover is mainly brush. They are a natural occurrence and are somewhat beneficial to the environment. They are not, however beneficial to the humans living there. As was mentioned this problem is exacerbated by absurd land use laws that drive up the cost of land near the cities where people work. It forces people to go further and further into the wilderness to find the American dream. Then there's the problem of too many people. Nobody wants to address this problem-and it is a problem. Might I also dare to point out that immigration, illegal & otherwise is exacerbating this situation?
This planet, and the human race, is doomed unless we find some way control human population growth. Ironically, the only country on this shrinking planet that is making a credible attempt at solving this problem is Communist China. In the process they have committed some of the worst human rights abuses in history. I wish I had some real answers.

It's obvious the sited artical has a pro logging agenda. I don't have a problem with logging as long as it's regulated. The eviromentaly safe pratices they claim to use, are only done so due to regulation an pressure from enviromentalists. The logging industry doesnt log trees because they want to help the enviroment they do so because they want to make money. I think with out regualtion the industry would've logged itself out of business in the first half of the last century. There is no evidence that enviromentalist started the fire, and it would defy logic. I've even heard rumors that terrorists are behind it. The articval fails to provide any evidence for it's allegations. Beside the point. Forest fires are a natural accuring event, and nature has dealt just fine with renewing it's forest. Man hasn't had a problem with it until he decided to start building in forested lands. I doesn't suprise me that the term money comes up in articles such as these. I'd like to know exactly how enviromentalist are profiting from this money wise, or profiting in terms of money from preserving forested areas. Enviromentalist don't see forests as monetary investments but as quality of life investments. Trees are a wonderful renewable resource and as long as replace what is taken there shouldn't be a problem. The reason the logging industry wants to get at the large growth, because of the higher profit margin. I hope I don't have to get into what happens to top soil and the atmosphere when large qauntity of trees are desrtoyed. Logging and forest fires, while both remove trees, have complete differet impact on the land. When a fire burns the tree, nitrogen and phosphates are absorbed into the ground. Do you know what these elements are found in, that's right fertalizer! Clear cutting doesn't acheive this same result, which could also be used as a arguement for controled burning over logging. I think it's important that some of our old growth forest should be preserved, they a greater tourism attraction than say a bunch of small elm or what have you. Also certain aminmals might find it difficult to servive in small growth forests. Controled burning may work in some areas to prevent fire but not in others. Same with thinning. It's a viable option in may cases.
I would agree there are some enviromentalist that are over zealous I would create over restrictive regualations. But I think it would be better to err on the side of caution. Look at England they pretty much wiped out all the forests on the island. How is enviromental protection don't infringe on you civil liberties, well I guess they do because I can get in trouble dumping my used oil in the the river. An Indusrty or Corperation is not a person and is not privy to rights gauranted under the Constitution.

I don't advocate letting big companies run rampant. I don't advocate getting rid of environmentalists. Both serve their purpose. When either goes too far, it is a problem.

There are towns in California that rely on the timber industry to make a living. Places like Portola, Quincy, Ukiah and Eureka. The people there need the jobs. Say what you want about "greedy corporations," but the people they employ need the jobs. What's that you say, just tell them to move to the big city? Where there is already a shortage of jobs and houses? Wow, we've come full circle, and haven't solved the problem.
Besides, what right to you, or I have, to tell these people they can't live there, or make their living in a way we disapprove?

quote Originally posted by Songman: I wish the people who are talking about this could see how few trees there are in these fire areas! This is California folks, not Oregon. Down around San Diego there may be some forest fires.. but in Central CA, these are brush fires... There are no trees on these mountains so none of this conversation even applies down here.

I agree Songman,
That is what I said in the original post. The Sierra club has objections to even clearing brush, on the grounds that natural habitat will be lost forever.

Hmmmm

Bush?

Trees?

Does anyone else smell a conspiracy here?

The SHRUBS WILL RISE!

Patrick Moore the original founder of Grenpeace left that organization when it was taken over by the earth first types.
http://greenspirit.com/index.cfm

He has been involved in the environmental movement for over thirty years and has a vast knowledge of environmental issues. Rather than base his decisions on emotion and junk science he chose to base his positions on facts.
Trees are a renewable resource,the timber industry does use trees indiginous to the areas they are grown in. Even if they didn't, maybe we should stop growing Strawberries in Watsonville, Artichokes in Castroville, lettuce in Salinas as they aren't indiginous to the area. Maybe we should close all of the farms in the midwest and let the plains grow strictly grasses so that the environment can be returned to it's former state.
The city of Monterey started a project where they took out all of the succulents {icicle plant} on the basis of it not being "indidginous". They planted wildflowers, and the coastline started eroding rapidly. They now put the icicle plants back.

Back on track...
Did some of the lumber companies do harm in the past?
Sure they did, part of it was greed, part ignorance. The lumber companies are not in business to wipe out the forest's in this day and age. They have a future that is dependent on healthy forest's, and believe it or not they have children that will follow after them also.
Regarding the website "pushback" being lumber friendly.. you could say yes it is.
But if Dr. Wattenburg's intentions were self serving he would be pro-fire.
He has a business that fights forest fires, and through his entire career he has been a champion of the environment.
After all, he lives in the forest.
To clarify an earlier point..
The Sierra club has put practices in place that has led to the dangerous situation we are now in... a casual read of this thread would lead someone to believe that I said that they are starting the fires, and that is not the case..

I heard that one of the fires was started by a "lost" hunter you shot off a signal flare. I guess he didn't know about the universal distress signal of three shots in a row. I wonder why he was carrying signal flares anyway. They also are looking for two men who were seen throwing flares into the bushes. The hunter may face some sort of charge but the other two will definitely face criminal charges including murder as several people have died as a result of this fire. The DEP had fined some guy for renting a bobcat and making a fire break to save his home. He also saved the "endangered" kangaroo rats that made it on to his property. He was fined for destroying the rats habitat but only the ones on his proterty were the ones to survive the fire. I don't know when this happened only that it was from a previous fire.

Excessively long posts make my head hurt.

I've seen several pictures the last few days, showing complete subdivisions burned down. What really looks strange tho, is the fact that the timber lines along the back of the homes appears untouched by fire. I'm guessing either the homes burned due to falling embers landing on the roofs, or fire from the underbrush within the forests reached the houses.
I imagine S Calif is similar to the area I live in. We have trees, but most of the areas that contain trees also have unbelievably thick underbrush. Chaparral. The brush grows wildly when it rains, then dries out quickly during the drier months. The trees have deep roots and keep green and continue to grow without dying off as the brush does. But, once a brush fire starts, the heat rises, quickly drying out the green tree tops, and they now begin to burn too, but at a less incendiary level. The key to preventing these types of fires, or at least to controlling them, is to irradicate the underbrush, and leave the trees.

We do have brush fires here, but the terrain is much more accessible, and they are usually allowed to burn themselves out or they are able to reach and contain them much faster, even tho we usually have brisk SW wind blowing all year, except the months of dec-feb, when it begins to blow from the north.

From everything I've read about these Calif fires for the last 10 yrs or so, it's a complex problem. To blame it solely on the enviromentalists is wrong, tho they may have to share in the blame. Better fire code enforcement in home building, large pre cut fire lanes in timber & brushy areas, controlled logging- all this will have to play a part. Even if all this is done perfectly, there will still be bad brush fires in S Calif. It's been so for centuries, long before the developers moved in. It's nature's way.

Quote:
I'd like to know exactly how enviromentalist are profiting from this money wise, or profiting in terms of money from preserving forested areas. Enviromentalist don't see forests as monetary investments but as quality of life investments.

Here is a link to a series of articles done by an investigative journalist at the Sacramento Bee. That paper is definitely not a bastion of conservatism.
http://www.envirotruth.org/sacbeeApril2001.cfm
Salaries for environmental leaders have never been higher. In 1999 -- the most recent year for which comparable figures are available -- chief executives at nine of the nation's 10 largest environmental groups earned $200,000 and up, and one topped $300,000. In 1997, one group fired its president and awarded him a severance payment of $760,335.
Money is flowing to conservation in unprecedented amounts, reaching $3.5 billion in 1999, up 94 percent from 1992. But much of it is not actually used to protect the environment. Instead, it is siphoned off to pay for bureaucratic overhead and fund raising, including expensive direct-mail and telemarketing consultants.
Subsidized by federal tax dollars, environmental groups are filing a blizzard of lawsuits that no longer yield significant gain for the environment and sometimes infuriate federal judges and the Justice Department. During the 1990s, the U.S. Treasury paid $31.6 million in legal fees for environmental cases filed against the government.
Those who know the environment best -- the scientists who devote their careers to it -- say environmental groups often twist fact into fantasy to serve their agendas. That is especially true in the debate over one of America's most majestic landscapes: its Western evergreen forests. A 1999 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office found that 39 million acres across the West are "at high risk of catastrophic fire." Yet many groups use science selectively to oppose thinning efforts that could reduce fire risk.
"A lot of environmental messages are simply not accurate," said Jerry Franklin, a professor of forest ecology and ecosystem science at the University of Washington. "But that's the way we sell messages in this society. We use hype. And we use those pieces of information that sustain our position. I guess all large organizations do that."
Make sure that you scroll down to part three of the link.
There is a lot of money in “environmentalism”

quote Originally posted by Dslice: An Indusrty or Corperation is not a person and is not privy to rights gauranted under the Constitution.

Kindly explain this dumb statement in reference to the Constitution. Where does it say that? Corporations are groups of people. Why should they have fewer rights than anyone else? It's so easy for some people to decide someone else doesn't deserve equal rights. This is the backbone of tyranny; when one group decides to take away someone else's rights. How little we learn from history. It seems as if each generation must relearn the most basic lessons. What a shame.

quote Originally posted by larryemory: away someone else's rights. How little we learn from history. It seems as if each generation must relearn the most basic lessons. What a shame.

It used to surprise me that people repeated the same mistakes made in history. Then I realized that many people make decisions based on emotion. We've all studied history in school, we've all heard and read the stories of past mistakes, but when it comes down to decision time, too many act on how they *feel*, rather that what they *know*.

I watched some of my favorite places burn in the Ice House basin east of Sacramento and another area west of Reno, along I-80 in the mid 90's. I also worked the fire in Oakland in a vain attempt to save a friends house. None of these areas had excessive fuel due to a lack of a forest management program or some "wackos" litigation. They were areas that are hard to access. Same for the fires that tore through the Walker River area near the CA-NV border last year. Steep areas with a combination of brush and trees.
As it is, the Forestry Dept is grossly underfunded and routinely funds it's other needs from it's fire fighting fund. It is likely a dead forest, lit by an arsonist during a windy season, near an area where owners of high density housing didn't maintain proper fire blocks would burn like a gasoline station.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: Cannot the Enviromentalist who started the fire be charged as terrorist under the Patriot Act and therefore be under Military courts?

....

[This message has been edited by Slater_334 (edited 10-30-2003).]

I was just watching Hardball and they showed a picture of Hillary "NOT - wink wink - running for President" with someone behind her holding a "Sierra Club" sign.

That pretty much sums it up now doesn't it!?