California Governor Jerry Brown admits Trump was right about the cause of the fires

[Aba Incieni]

You've been telling someone that we can't just thin once, that we have to do it continuously?

I don't believe you ever told anyone that, let alone for two days.

Negative! If you search back, I said that thinning is only a temporary fix, and that it could make the fire danger even greater after a short period of time. You will have to go back, but I definitely put that in there. But the bottom line, thinning is no cure all. It opens the forest floor up to annual grasses in the first year of successional growth, leading to the second and third year of weeds and small brush. A prime ignitor for a possible high fire danger category 5 day, if the weather conditions permit.

That's why you have to keep doing it.
Put in more logging roads too, pull out the dead trees.

You can't thin all the time. That is a horrible forest management tactic. Timber management involves and manages for higher yields of pulp or lumber. There is a specific plan for that. You first remove the culls or the overcrowded timber to gain more volume for the healthier trees. That initial cutting is timber stand improvement. Which does not take fire control into consideration. To obtain quality lumber, you must manage the stems to get the tallest and straightest. Position of the trees, slope, competition, cat faces, etc. decide which one's are removed initially. Has nothing to do with fire protection.

You can't thin all the time. That is a horrible forest management tactic.

We've tried never thinning, how'd that work out?

To obtain quality lumber, you must manage the stems to get the tallest and straightest.

Yup, harvest that quality lumber.

Has nothing to do with fire protection.

Every tree you take out is one less tree that can burn.

Get it straight. Thinning serves very little good as a fire management tool. There is a little thing called "succession" that destroys any notion that thinning is nothing more than a short term tactic. Does anyone here understand what succession is? You must know this, then understand the types of vegetation that come into the picture after a thinning. If not, an intelligent debate is not possible.

At the end of the day, the timber companies care about volume of wood, and what revenue it brings. A very small percentage of the forestry industry other than the government concerns itself with fire protection. Lumber companies are not in the business of fire control. Their interest is volume/money.

At the end of the day, not thinning in national forests, or thinning on lumber company lands, changes very little of the fire danger potential of each area. Nature recovers extremely rapidly in fresh cut areas as it's need for succession becomes evident very quickly. Nature is always working towards a climatic forest in the end. But the first three years of that change come the quickest in those years. Therefore, we are back to square one as if nothing ever happened.

So when Moonbeam claims thinning is called for to prevent these wildfires, is he wrong or lying?

 

[BWK]

Why would I beat you down while at least 2 others are doing it...you enjoy humiliation?....but, of course you do.....moron, but so entertaining and easy to TRIGGER!

Lol! If i were being beat down sonny, someone on here would have supplied me with documentation from reliable sources pointing out how wrong I am. None of these cowards have done that yet.

Child you now have 3 (Three) people telling you, you are an asswipe...LOLOLOL..keep going!

Three people telling me I am an "asswipe", just proves that they are cowardly children, who cannot play this game with a fist of counter information that debunks mine. I've given those three children their lesson plans. What they do with them, is up to them. And if "asswipe" is their counter argument, then that just proves to this forum, who is right, and whom is wrong. Now you cowardly children, you are free to go.

Why go when you are like the mulatto, a narcissist, and believe you know it all....so much entertsinment!..ROTFLMFAO,...Let's see how long you can continue to make yourself look like the asshole we all know you are!

I don't know it all. But I know fire science and worked in fire control for thirty years. I know Timber management. I know species, their tolerances, and intolerances to certain fire weather conditions and how they will respond. These are the basic tools one needs and has to know, to draw accurate conclusions about what is best for us and our forest ecosystem. And I can tell you right now, this country would and will never come close to satisfying our forest fire protection needs. We need and have to understand, that if we are to live in these areas, many of us are on temporary borrowed time. That is the reality. Will we still have woodland fire fighters? Yes! Will we still have urban fire departments? Yes! But it will never be enough. The evidence is there for all to see.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You've been telling someone that we can't just thin once, that we have to do it continuously?

I don't believe you ever told anyone that, let alone for two days.

Negative! If you search back, I said that thinning is only a temporary fix, and that it could make the fire danger even greater after a short period of time. You will have to go back, but I definitely put that in there. But the bottom line, thinning is no cure all. It opens the forest floor up to annual grasses in the first year of successional growth, leading to the second and third year of weeds and small brush. A prime ignitor for a possible high fire danger category 5 day, if the weather conditions permit.

That's why you have to keep doing it.
Put in more logging roads too, pull out the dead trees.

You can't thin all the time. That is a horrible forest management tactic. Timber management involves and manages for higher yields of pulp or lumber. There is a specific plan for that. You first remove the culls or the overcrowded timber to gain more volume for the healthier trees. That initial cutting is timber stand improvement. Which does not take fire control into consideration. To obtain quality lumber, you must manage the stems to get the tallest and straightest. Position of the trees, slope, competition, cat faces, etc. decide which one's are removed initially. Has nothing to do with fire protection.

You can't thin all the time. That is a horrible forest management tactic.

We've tried never thinning, how'd that work out?

To obtain quality lumber, you must manage the stems to get the tallest and straightest.

Yup, harvest that quality lumber.

Has nothing to do with fire protection.

Every tree you take out is one less tree that can burn.

Get it straight. Thinning serves very little good as a fire management tool. There is a little thing called "succession" that destroys any notion that thinning is nothing more than a short term tactic. Does anyone here understand what succession is? You must know this, then understand the types of vegetation that come into the picture after a thinning. If not, an intelligent debate is not possible.

At the end of the day, the timber companies care about volume of wood, and what revenue it brings. A very small percentage of the forestry industry other than the government concerns itself with fire protection. Lumber companies are not in the business of fire control. Their interest is volume/money.

At the end of the day, not thinning in national forests, or thinning on lumber company lands, changes very little of the fire danger potential of each area. Nature recovers extremely rapidly in fresh cut areas as it's need for succession becomes evident very quickly. Nature is always working towards a climatic forest in the end. But the first three years of that change come the quickest in those years. Therefore, we are back to square one as if nothing ever happened.

At the end of the day, the timber companies care about volume of wood, and what revenue it brings.

Timber companies have discovered that the volume of wood they can harvest is much, much lower after all the trees burn down.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Why would I beat you down while at least 2 others are doing it...you enjoy humiliation?....but, of course you do.....moron, but so entertaining and easy to TRIGGER!

Lol! If i were being beat down sonny, someone on here would have supplied me with documentation from reliable sources pointing out how wrong I am. None of these cowards have done that yet.

Child you now have 3 (Three) people telling you, you are an asswipe...LOLOLOL..keep going!

Three people telling me I am an "asswipe", just proves that they are cowardly children, who cannot play this game with a fist of counter information that debunks mine. I've given those three children their lesson plans. What they do with them, is up to them. And if "asswipe" is their counter argument, then that just proves to this forum, who is right, and whom is wrong. Now you cowardly children, you are free to go.

Why go when you are like the mulatto, a narcissist, and believe you know it all....so much entertsinment!..ROTFLMFAO,...Let's see how long you can continue to make yourself look like the asshole we all know you are!

I don't know it all. But I know fire science and worked in fire control for thirty years. I know Timber management. I know species, their tolerances, and intolerances to certain fire weather conditions and how they will respond. These are the basic tools one needs and has to know, to draw accurate conclusions about what is best for us and our forest ecosystem. And I can tell you right now, this country would and will never come close to satisfying our forest fire protection needs. We need and have to understand, that if we are to live in these areas, many of us are on temporary borrowed time. That is the reality. Will we still have woodland fire fighters? Yes! Will we still have urban fire departments? Yes! But it will never be enough. The evidence is there for all to see.

So Moonbeam's a liar. What a surprise.

 

[BWK]

Negative! If you search back, I said that thinning is only a temporary fix, and that it could make the fire danger even greater after a short period of time. You will have to go back, but I definitely put that in there. But the bottom line, thinning is no cure all. It opens the forest floor up to annual grasses in the first year of successional growth, leading to the second and third year of weeds and small brush. A prime ignitor for a possible high fire danger category 5 day, if the weather conditions permit.

That's why you have to keep doing it.
Put in more logging roads too, pull out the dead trees.

You can't thin all the time. That is a horrible forest management tactic. Timber management involves and manages for higher yields of pulp or lumber. There is a specific plan for that. You first remove the culls or the overcrowded timber to gain more volume for the healthier trees. That initial cutting is timber stand improvement. Which does not take fire control into consideration. To obtain quality lumber, you must manage the stems to get the tallest and straightest. Position of the trees, slope, competition, cat faces, etc. decide which one's are removed initially. Has nothing to do with fire protection.

You can't thin all the time. That is a horrible forest management tactic.

We've tried never thinning, how'd that work out?

To obtain quality lumber, you must manage the stems to get the tallest and straightest.

Yup, harvest that quality lumber.

Has nothing to do with fire protection.

Every tree you take out is one less tree that can burn.

Get it straight. Thinning serves very little good as a fire management tool. There is a little thing called "succession" that destroys any notion that thinning is nothing more than a short term tactic. Does anyone here understand what succession is? You must know this, then understand the types of vegetation that come into the picture after a thinning. If not, an intelligent debate is not possible.

At the end of the day, the timber companies care about volume of wood, and what revenue it brings. A very small percentage of the forestry industry other than the government concerns itself with fire protection. Lumber companies are not in the business of fire control. Their interest is volume/money.

At the end of the day, not thinning in national forests, or thinning on lumber company lands, changes very little of the fire danger potential of each area. Nature recovers extremely rapidly in fresh cut areas as it's need for succession becomes evident very quickly. Nature is always working towards a climatic forest in the end. But the first three years of that change come the quickest in those years. Therefore, we are back to square one as if nothing ever happened.

At the end of the day, the timber companies care about volume of wood, and what revenue it brings.

Timber companies have discovered that the volume of wood they can harvest is much, much lower after all the trees burn down.

They have no control over that. Next!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's why you have to keep doing it.
Put in more logging roads too, pull out the dead trees.

You can't thin all the time. That is a horrible forest management tactic. Timber management involves and manages for higher yields of pulp or lumber. There is a specific plan for that. You first remove the culls or the overcrowded timber to gain more volume for the healthier trees. That initial cutting is timber stand improvement. Which does not take fire control into consideration. To obtain quality lumber, you must manage the stems to get the tallest and straightest. Position of the trees, slope, competition, cat faces, etc. decide which one's are removed initially. Has nothing to do with fire protection.

You can't thin all the time. That is a horrible forest management tactic.

We've tried never thinning, how'd that work out?

To obtain quality lumber, you must manage the stems to get the tallest and straightest.

Yup, harvest that quality lumber.

Has nothing to do with fire protection.

Every tree you take out is one less tree that can burn.

Get it straight. Thinning serves very little good as a fire management tool. There is a little thing called "succession" that destroys any notion that thinning is nothing more than a short term tactic. Does anyone here understand what succession is? You must know this, then understand the types of vegetation that come into the picture after a thinning. If not, an intelligent debate is not possible.

At the end of the day, the timber companies care about volume of wood, and what revenue it brings. A very small percentage of the forestry industry other than the government concerns itself with fire protection. Lumber companies are not in the business of fire control. Their interest is volume/money.

At the end of the day, not thinning in national forests, or thinning on lumber company lands, changes very little of the fire danger potential of each area. Nature recovers extremely rapidly in fresh cut areas as it's need for succession becomes evident very quickly. Nature is always working towards a climatic forest in the end. But the first three years of that change come the quickest in those years. Therefore, we are back to square one as if nothing ever happened.

At the end of the day, the timber companies care about volume of wood, and what revenue it brings.

Timber companies have discovered that the volume of wood they can harvest is much, much lower after all the trees burn down.

They have no control over that. Next!

Lumber companies lose as much lumber to fire as state and national forests?
I don't believe it.

 

[BWK]

You can't thin all the time. That is a horrible forest management tactic. Timber management involves and manages for higher yields of pulp or lumber. There is a specific plan for that. You first remove the culls or the overcrowded timber to gain more volume for the healthier trees. That initial cutting is timber stand improvement. Which does not take fire control into consideration. To obtain quality lumber, you must manage the stems to get the tallest and straightest. Position of the trees, slope, competition, cat faces, etc. decide which one's are removed initially. Has nothing to do with fire protection.

You can't thin all the time. That is a horrible forest management tactic.

We've tried never thinning, how'd that work out?

To obtain quality lumber, you must manage the stems to get the tallest and straightest.

Yup, harvest that quality lumber.

Has nothing to do with fire protection.

Every tree you take out is one less tree that can burn.

Get it straight. Thinning serves very little good as a fire management tool. There is a little thing called "succession" that destroys any notion that thinning is nothing more than a short term tactic. Does anyone here understand what succession is? You must know this, then understand the types of vegetation that come into the picture after a thinning. If not, an intelligent debate is not possible.

At the end of the day, the timber companies care about volume of wood, and what revenue it brings. A very small percentage of the forestry industry other than the government concerns itself with fire protection. Lumber companies are not in the business of fire control. Their interest is volume/money.

At the end of the day, not thinning in national forests, or thinning on lumber company lands, changes very little of the fire danger potential of each area. Nature recovers extremely rapidly in fresh cut areas as it's need for succession becomes evident very quickly. Nature is always working towards a climatic forest in the end. But the first three years of that change come the quickest in those years. Therefore, we are back to square one as if nothing ever happened.

At the end of the day, the timber companies care about volume of wood, and what revenue it brings.

Timber companies have discovered that the volume of wood they can harvest is much, much lower after all the trees burn down.

They have no control over that. Next!

Lumber companies lose as much lumber to fire as state and national forests?
I don't believe it.

Either way, they were not/are not in the business of fire control.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can't thin all the time. That is a horrible forest management tactic.

We've tried never thinning, how'd that work out?

To obtain quality lumber, you must manage the stems to get the tallest and straightest.

Yup, harvest that quality lumber.

Has nothing to do with fire protection.

Every tree you take out is one less tree that can burn.

Get it straight. Thinning serves very little good as a fire management tool. There is a little thing called "succession" that destroys any notion that thinning is nothing more than a short term tactic. Does anyone here understand what succession is? You must know this, then understand the types of vegetation that come into the picture after a thinning. If not, an intelligent debate is not possible.

At the end of the day, the timber companies care about volume of wood, and what revenue it brings. A very small percentage of the forestry industry other than the government concerns itself with fire protection. Lumber companies are not in the business of fire control. Their interest is volume/money.

At the end of the day, not thinning in national forests, or thinning on lumber company lands, changes very little of the fire danger potential of each area. Nature recovers extremely rapidly in fresh cut areas as it's need for succession becomes evident very quickly. Nature is always working towards a climatic forest in the end. But the first three years of that change come the quickest in those years. Therefore, we are back to square one as if nothing ever happened.

At the end of the day, the timber companies care about volume of wood, and what revenue it brings.

Timber companies have discovered that the volume of wood they can harvest is much, much lower after all the trees burn down.

They have no control over that. Next!

Lumber companies lose as much lumber to fire as state and national forests?
I don't believe it.

Either way, they were not/are not in the business of fire control.

Lumber companies are in the business of harvesting lumber, not letting it burn.

 

[BWK]

Get it straight. Thinning serves very little good as a fire management tool. There is a little thing called "succession" that destroys any notion that thinning is nothing more than a short term tactic. Does anyone here understand what succession is? You must know this, then understand the types of vegetation that come into the picture after a thinning. If not, an intelligent debate is not possible.

At the end of the day, the timber companies care about volume of wood, and what revenue it brings. A very small percentage of the forestry industry other than the government concerns itself with fire protection. Lumber companies are not in the business of fire control. Their interest is volume/money.

At the end of the day, not thinning in national forests, or thinning on lumber company lands, changes very little of the fire danger potential of each area. Nature recovers extremely rapidly in fresh cut areas as it's need for succession becomes evident very quickly. Nature is always working towards a climatic forest in the end. But the first three years of that change come the quickest in those years. Therefore, we are back to square one as if nothing ever happened.

At the end of the day, the timber companies care about volume of wood, and what revenue it brings.

Timber companies have discovered that the volume of wood they can harvest is much, much lower after all the trees burn down.

They have no control over that. Next!

Lumber companies lose as much lumber to fire as state and national forests?
I don't believe it.

Either way, they were not/are not in the business of fire control.

Lumber companies are in the business of harvesting lumber, not letting it burn.

Damn you're dense. And they wouldn't be in business if they invested in fire control costs. It would run them out of business. They understand their own limitations. Obviously you do not. Do you understand what a lumber company is? it's generally a logging operation that invests in logging equipment and man power. In the west, loggers generally do not invest in land ownership. Are you starting to see this picture now?

And another thing, logging companies do not harvest a lot from National forests. They are mostly salvage operations. ttps://headwaterseconomics.org/dataviz/national-forests-timber-cut-sold/

 

[kiwiman127]

Of course Trump is right, but go and challenge them to undo the regulations and then watch judges jump into action to deny them the right of re-writing them!

California Gov. Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown, after denouncing the president as an environmental doofus, has, in recent days, quietly pushed state lawmakers to loosen restrictions on logging regulations that were put in place to satisfy raging environmentalists — “a move that appears to have confirmed that President Trump’s recent critiques of state logging practices” and lousy forest management “was correct.”

In August, The Santa Cruz Sentinel reported that Brown, one of the most environmental wacko governors currently in office, proposed that lawmakers change current rules to allow for some thinning of state-controlled forest lands...

Read more at dcdirtylaundry.com ...

Jerry Brown has been a cancer on California since before I moved there in the 70s. He and his father, whom I met once.
He will never admit that Trump was right.
And currently Jerry Brown is in deep trouble because of all of the deaths his regulations have caused.
Voters are holding him personally responsible.

How many people will die prematurely, with Trump's deregulation on coal pollution (air/water) and his upcoming rolling back emissions from cars and trucks?
According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), "Emissions from cars and trucks were the most significant contributor, causing 53,000 premature deaths, closely followed by coal-fired power plants, with 52,000 deaths." These are numbers any pre-deregulation.
Study: Air pollution causes 200,000 early deaths each year in the U.S.
US plan for coal power deregulation could cause more deaths
Study: Air pollution causes 200,000 early deaths each year in the U.S.

Funny, we're breathing the same air the Chinese are breathing, and theirs is 10 times as dirty as ours. Our air is cleaner now than it was in the 1800s.
And I noticed that your links say "Could Cause More Deaths".....as if they're not so sure that it will happen. In fact....they don't know. And they can't say if it's auto exhaust or coal fired generators doing it....UNLESS YOU FIGURED OUT A WAY TO KEEP THEM ISOLATED FROM EACH OTHER. BUT THAT WOULD TAKE KEEPING EVERY SOURCE IN A SEPARATE GLASS BUBBLE.
But we're sure that wildfires can and will AND HAVE caused more deaths....thanks to California's ridiculous regulations.

So, you do nothing about debunking one of the world's top universities, MIT.
Just your usual constant BS without facts. Oh well, that is your M.O..

 

[The Purge]

Why would I beat you down while at least 2 others are doing it...you enjoy humiliation?....but, of course you do.....moron, but so entertaining and easy to TRIGGER!

Lol! If i were being beat down sonny, someone on here would have supplied me with documentation from reliable sources pointing out how wrong I am. None of these cowards have done that yet.

Child you now have 3 (Three) people telling you, you are an asswipe...LOLOLOL..keep going!

Three people telling me I am an "asswipe", just proves that they are cowardly children, who cannot play this game with a fist of counter information that debunks mine. I've given those three children their lesson plans. What they do with them, is up to them. And if "asswipe" is their counter argument, then that just proves to this forum, who is right, and whom is wrong. Now you cowardly children, you are free to go.

Why go when you are like the mulatto, a narcissist, and believe you know it all....so much entertsinment!..ROTFLMFAO,...Let's see how long you can continue to make yourself look like the asshole we all know you are!

I don't know it all. But I know fire science and worked in fire control for thirty years. I know Timber management. I know species, their tolerances, and intolerances to certain fire weather conditions and how they will respond. These are the basic tools one needs and has to know, to draw accurate conclusions about what is best for us and our forest ecosystem. And I can tell you right now, this country would and will never come close to satisfying our forest fire protection needs. We need and have to understand, that if we are to live in these areas, many of us are on temporary borrowed time. That is the reality. Will we still have woodland fire fighters? Yes! Will we still have urban fire departments? Yes! But it will never be enough. The evidence is there for all to see.

See, if you responded that way, instead of looking like what you looked like, you would have gotten a decent response.....It would seem the West Coast needs a PERMANENT FIRE RESPONSE Team perhaps 1000-1500 humans to battle these fires that seem to occur like clockwork in the fall of each year!...other times they could also respond to fires and emergencies as needed....the COST would be nothing compared to the cost in lives and property that just the Camp fire did!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

At the end of the day, the timber companies care about volume of wood, and what revenue it brings.

Timber companies have discovered that the volume of wood they can harvest is much, much lower after all the trees burn down.

They have no control over that. Next!

Lumber companies lose as much lumber to fire as state and national forests?
I don't believe it.

Either way, they were not/are not in the business of fire control.

Lumber companies are in the business of harvesting lumber, not letting it burn.

Damn you're dense. And they wouldn't be in business if they invested in fire control costs. It would run them out of business. They understand their own limitations. Obviously you do not. Do you understand what a lumber company is? it's generally a logging operation that invests in logging equipment and man power. In the west, loggers generally do not invest in land ownership. Are you starting to see this picture now?

And another thing, logging companies do not harvest a lot from National forests. They are mostly salvage operations. ttps://headwaterseconomics.org/dataviz/national-forests-timber-cut-sold/

And they wouldn't be in business if they invested in fire control costs.

They have a better record than the state. Admit it.

Do you understand what a lumber company is?

Is it an organization that insists forests remain untouched and then watches them burn, with dozens of causalities? Oh, right, that's the State of California.

They are mostly salvage operations.

Except when morons prevent salvage operations......because Nature!

 

[BWK]

Lol! If i were being beat down sonny, someone on here would have supplied me with documentation from reliable sources pointing out how wrong I am. None of these cowards have done that yet.

Child you now have 3 (Three) people telling you, you are an asswipe...LOLOLOL..keep going!

Three people telling me I am an "asswipe", just proves that they are cowardly children, who cannot play this game with a fist of counter information that debunks mine. I've given those three children their lesson plans. What they do with them, is up to them. And if "asswipe" is their counter argument, then that just proves to this forum, who is right, and whom is wrong. Now you cowardly children, you are free to go.

Why go when you are like the mulatto, a narcissist, and believe you know it all....so much entertsinment!..ROTFLMFAO,...Let's see how long you can continue to make yourself look like the asshole we all know you are!

I don't know it all. But I know fire science and worked in fire control for thirty years. I know Timber management. I know species, their tolerances, and intolerances to certain fire weather conditions and how they will respond. These are the basic tools one needs and has to know, to draw accurate conclusions about what is best for us and our forest ecosystem. And I can tell you right now, this country would and will never come close to satisfying our forest fire protection needs. We need and have to understand, that if we are to live in these areas, many of us are on temporary borrowed time. That is the reality. Will we still have woodland fire fighters? Yes! Will we still have urban fire departments? Yes! But it will never be enough. The evidence is there for all to see.

See, if you responded that way, instead of looking like what you looked like, you would have gotten a decent response.....It would seem the West Coast needs a PERMANENT FIRE RESPONSE Team perhaps 1000-1500 humans to battle these fires that seem to occur like clockwork in the fall of each year!...other times they could also respond to fires and emergencies as needed....the COST would be nothing compared to the cost in lives and property that just the Camp fire did!

But it is just like I have been desperately trying to make you understand. 10,000 humans isn't enough. It's never been about numbers of people or thinning the forest or clearing the brush. It's about understanding fire science. We inhabit an area in southern California where nothing is truly going to stop fire. Why? Because nature is always in control. We are not. When we try and do one thing, it counter balances the other. If every household in southern California invested hundreds of millions of dollars, probably billions, in fire control, through constant clearing, they would only create other problems, like erosion and mudslides. We just have to understand, that living in these areas, we are in a virtual cycle of vulnerability. Because nature owns those hills and the vegetation that goes with it. That is the harsh reality. You can live there short term as long as you understand that. But that is about as good as that area can provide. Nature wants that place worse than the residents who live there. And nature is going to have it.

 

[BWK]

They have no control over that. Next!

Lumber companies lose as much lumber to fire as state and national forests?
I don't believe it.

Either way, they were not/are not in the business of fire control.

Lumber companies are in the business of harvesting lumber, not letting it burn.

Damn you're dense. And they wouldn't be in business if they invested in fire control costs. It would run them out of business. They understand their own limitations. Obviously you do not. Do you understand what a lumber company is? it's generally a logging operation that invests in logging equipment and man power. In the west, loggers generally do not invest in land ownership. Are you starting to see this picture now?

And another thing, logging companies do not harvest a lot from National forests. They are mostly salvage operations. ttps://headwaterseconomics.org/dataviz/national-forests-timber-cut-sold/

And they wouldn't be in business if they invested in fire control costs.

They have a better record than the state. Admit it.

Do you understand what a lumber company is?

Is it an organization that insists forests remain untouched and then watches them burn, with dozens of causalities? Oh, right, that's the State of California.

They are mostly salvage operations.

Except when morons prevent salvage operations......because Nature!

Logging companies have no record. Fire control is delegated to state and federal agencies. You are really lost with this debate.

A lumber company is not an organization. It is a business that has no skin in the game when it comes to fire control.

And your last comment has zero bearing on the topic.

 

[The Purge]

Child you now have 3 (Three) people telling you, you are an asswipe...LOLOLOL..keep going!

Three people telling me I am an "asswipe", just proves that they are cowardly children, who cannot play this game with a fist of counter information that debunks mine. I've given those three children their lesson plans. What they do with them, is up to them. And if "asswipe" is their counter argument, then that just proves to this forum, who is right, and whom is wrong. Now you cowardly children, you are free to go.

Why go when you are like the mulatto, a narcissist, and believe you know it all....so much entertsinment!..ROTFLMFAO,...Let's see how long you can continue to make yourself look like the asshole we all know you are!

I don't know it all. But I know fire science and worked in fire control for thirty years. I know Timber management. I know species, their tolerances, and intolerances to certain fire weather conditions and how they will respond. These are the basic tools one needs and has to know, to draw accurate conclusions about what is best for us and our forest ecosystem. And I can tell you right now, this country would and will never come close to satisfying our forest fire protection needs. We need and have to understand, that if we are to live in these areas, many of us are on temporary borrowed time. That is the reality. Will we still have woodland fire fighters? Yes! Will we still have urban fire departments? Yes! But it will never be enough. The evidence is there for all to see.

See, if you responded that way, instead of looking like what you looked like, you would have gotten a decent response.....It would seem the West Coast needs a PERMANENT FIRE RESPONSE Team perhaps 1000-1500 humans to battle these fires that seem to occur like clockwork in the fall of each year!...other times they could also respond to fires and emergencies as needed....the COST would be nothing compared to the cost in lives and property that just the Camp fire did!

But it is just like I have been desperately trying to make you understand. 10,000 humans isn't enough. It's never been about numbers of people or thinning the forest or clearing the brush. It's about understanding fire science. We inhabit an area in southern California where nothing is truly going to stop fire. Why? Because nature is always in control. We are not. When we try and do one thing, it counter balances the other. If every household in southern California invested hundreds of millions of dollars, probably billions, in fire control, through constant clearing, they would only create other problems, like erosion and mudslides. We just have to understand, that living in these areas, we are in a virtual cycle of vulnerability. Because nature owns those hills and the vegetation that goes with it. That is the harsh reality. You can live there short term as long as you understand that. But that is about as good as that area can provide. Nature wants that place worse than the residents who live there. And nature is going to have it.

Perhaps I was wrong, you SOUND LIKE one of the enviroNAZI headjobs!.... Humans have been able to live just about everywhere in this world overcoming harsher conditions that Southern Kalipornia fires, all it takes is the WILL to do it!

 

[BWK]

Three people telling me I am an "asswipe", just proves that they are cowardly children, who cannot play this game with a fist of counter information that debunks mine. I've given those three children their lesson plans. What they do with them, is up to them. And if "asswipe" is their counter argument, then that just proves to this forum, who is right, and whom is wrong. Now you cowardly children, you are free to go.

Why go when you are like the mulatto, a narcissist, and believe you know it all....so much entertsinment!..ROTFLMFAO,...Let's see how long you can continue to make yourself look like the asshole we all know you are!

I don't know it all. But I know fire science and worked in fire control for thirty years. I know Timber management. I know species, their tolerances, and intolerances to certain fire weather conditions and how they will respond. These are the basic tools one needs and has to know, to draw accurate conclusions about what is best for us and our forest ecosystem. And I can tell you right now, this country would and will never come close to satisfying our forest fire protection needs. We need and have to understand, that if we are to live in these areas, many of us are on temporary borrowed time. That is the reality. Will we still have woodland fire fighters? Yes! Will we still have urban fire departments? Yes! But it will never be enough. The evidence is there for all to see.

See, if you responded that way, instead of looking like what you looked like, you would have gotten a decent response.....It would seem the West Coast needs a PERMANENT FIRE RESPONSE Team perhaps 1000-1500 humans to battle these fires that seem to occur like clockwork in the fall of each year!...other times they could also respond to fires and emergencies as needed....the COST would be nothing compared to the cost in lives and property that just the Camp fire did!

But it is just like I have been desperately trying to make you understand. 10,000 humans isn't enough. It's never been about numbers of people or thinning the forest or clearing the brush. It's about understanding fire science. We inhabit an area in southern California where nothing is truly going to stop fire. Why? Because nature is always in control. We are not. When we try and do one thing, it counter balances the other. If every household in southern California invested hundreds of millions of dollars, probably billions, in fire control, through constant clearing, they would only create other problems, like erosion and mudslides. We just have to understand, that living in these areas, we are in a virtual cycle of vulnerability. Because nature owns those hills and the vegetation that goes with it. That is the harsh reality. You can live there short term as long as you understand that. But that is about as good as that area can provide. Nature wants that place worse than the residents who live there. And nature is going to have it.

Perhaps I was wrong, you SOUND LIKE one of the enviroNAZI headjobs!.... Humans have been able to live just about everywhere in this world overcoming harsher conditions that Southern Kalipornia fires, all it takes is the WILL to do it!

You're right, they still live there. But with a lot of heartache and expense. Good luck to all of them.

 

[mudwhistle]

Of course Trump is right, but go and challenge them to undo the regulations and then watch judges jump into action to deny them the right of re-writing them!

California Gov. Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown, after denouncing the president as an environmental doofus, has, in recent days, quietly pushed state lawmakers to loosen restrictions on logging regulations that were put in place to satisfy raging environmentalists — “a move that appears to have confirmed that President Trump’s recent critiques of state logging practices” and lousy forest management “was correct.”

In August, The Santa Cruz Sentinel reported that Brown, one of the most environmental wacko governors currently in office, proposed that lawmakers change current rules to allow for some thinning of state-controlled forest lands...

Read more at dcdirtylaundry.com ...

Jerry Brown has been a cancer on California since before I moved there in the 70s. He and his father, whom I met once.
He will never admit that Trump was right.
And currently Jerry Brown is in deep trouble because of all of the deaths his regulations have caused.
Voters are holding him personally responsible.

How many people will die prematurely, with Trump's deregulation on coal pollution (air/water) and his upcoming rolling back emissions from cars and trucks?
According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), "Emissions from cars and trucks were the most significant contributor, causing 53,000 premature deaths, closely followed by coal-fired power plants, with 52,000 deaths." These are numbers any pre-deregulation.
Study: Air pollution causes 200,000 early deaths each year in the U.S.
US plan for coal power deregulation could cause more deaths
Study: Air pollution causes 200,000 early deaths each year in the U.S.

Funny, we're breathing the same air the Chinese are breathing, and theirs is 10 times as dirty as ours. Our air is cleaner now than it was in the 1800s.
And I noticed that your links say "Could Cause More Deaths".....as if they're not so sure that it will happen. In fact....they don't know. And they can't say if it's auto exhaust or coal fired generators doing it....UNLESS YOU FIGURED OUT A WAY TO KEEP THEM ISOLATED FROM EACH OTHER. BUT THAT WOULD TAKE KEEPING EVERY SOURCE IN A SEPARATE GLASS BUBBLE.
But we're sure that wildfires can and will AND HAVE caused more deaths....thanks to California's ridiculous regulations.

So, you do nothing about debunking one of the world's top universities, MIT.
Just your usual constant BS without facts. Oh well, that is your M.O..

Moral Relativism is no defense.
I debunked it because of the way it was worded.
You seem to think the word "Could" means "Does".
Maybe you need to crack a fucking dictionary.

 

[danielpalos]

Not in track housing.

Notice the houses are gone but the forest in the background is still green?

10,000 buildings at least.

Thank you Gov. Brown and the Environment Wackos!

It's not about being proud. It's about your proof. Where is it?

Oh, and by the way. Gotta love your diversion from the topic. I think you and the other ignoramus's have had enough schooling, so you go off into your coward mode of blaming Brown. Gotta love it.

---------------------------------------------------------- 'Goveror jerry brown' killed a lot of people , its his fault for leaving the forest so flammable . Forests should be cleaned , raked up manually by workers hired for that purpose . Dry fuel on the ground blows around when ignited and causes more fires in the area . its only common sense BWK . And by the way , you aren't a very good defender of 'jerry brown' the nasty Governor of 'kalifornia' BWK .

And you continue to say nothing, by presenting retarded solutions to problems. You don't clean up forests with rakes. Why are people so damn stupid?

In Finland, they use vacuum cleaners.

modern women helping to clear out the new camp site?