Discussion in 'Environment' started by Toro, Feb 13, 2009.
Fined for illegal clearing, family now feel vindicated | smh.com.au
If one wishes to save the trees, then zone that area forest, and do not allow people to live there. If people are allowed to live in an area like that, it only makes sense to have a reasonable firebreak arround the house.
Near Bend, Oregon, they were having some fires, by no means as intense as the ones in Austalia, and some houses were endangered. The firefighters would not attempt to save the houses where the trees were right up against the house. It endangered them and their equipment too much. Time for a reality check, people. If you wish to live in the middle of a forest in an area prone to fires, be prepared to lose your home.
Didn't you mean to say "it's Bush's fault" ? ......
that high pitched whistling sound was the point sailing over your head...
In all fairness he DOES have to keep one eye on the melting glaciers at all times too.
silly me-i take it all back.
I love nature but you know the worlds messed up when trees are more valuable then people and their property.
I think this earth movement thing has gone way too far. Sadly and obviously the renewable trees have been sided with by illogical whack jobs.
The point is that if you wish to save the forest, you don't allow people to live in the forest. If you wish to have a community, then you do the things appropriate to the survival of the community. That means cutting a reasonable firebreak for the protection of homes. Of course, if the case is that you don't own the land that the forest is on, then that also presents a problem.
Um ... duh?
One can look at the result of the SoCal wildfires to see the result of environmentalists restricting personal property rights.
Separate names with a comma.