Stump Dumb EnviroWhackos Blamed for AZ Wildfires

[teapartysamurai]

raging wildfire that could become the largest in Arizona history is rekindling the blame game surrounding ponderosa pine forests that have become dangerously overgrown after a century of fire suppression.

Some critics put the responsibility on environmentalists for lawsuits that have cut back on logging.

Others blame overzealous firefighters for altering the natural cycle of lightning-sparked fires that once cleared the forest floor.

Either way, forests across the West that once had 50 trees per acre (half-hectare) now have hundreds, sometimes thousands, and much of the landscape is choked with tinder-dry brush.

The density of the growth has fueled immense conflagrations in recent years like the 525-square-mile blaze now burning in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest northeast of Phoenix.

"I think what is happening proves the debate," said state Sen. Sylvia Allen, a Republican from rural Snowflake.

In the past, a 30-square-mile fire was considered huge. "And it used to be the loggers got right on it. Never in the past have you had these huge fires."

Today, it's not uncommon for fires to exceed 150 square miles.

Read more: Environmentalists Blamed for AZ Wildfires - Arizona Wildfire - Fox Nation

Remember Bush tried to do something about this? Letting people cut down the dry brush that causes fires?

Well, guess what dumbasses stopped that?

It's just common sense. Dry brush, especially underbrush is sooner or later going to catch fire.

 

[flacaltenn]

Let's see. We're graduating a lot of "Forest Management" majors. What good are they if the eco-left believes that MANAGEMENT is the same thing as neglect.

Also the debate over management tactics only really applies to BLM/Forestry held lands. Because the Indians know better. Private forestry companies know better. The Nature Conservancy knows better. But apparently this is another example of science and politics becoming a combustible mixture..

 

[Old Rocks]

What a bunch of dumb *****! Give the Forest Service the money to thin and manage the forests, and they will. Right now, they are spending most of their money just trying to keep the fires confined to areas that are not inhabited.

What you fellow are pimping for are the companies that would clearcut the whole works.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

What a bunch of dumb *****! Give the Forest Service the money to thin and manage the forests, and they will.

Why should a broke nation with a $14 trillion debt subsidize something the private sector can do at no cost to the taxpayers?

What you fellow are pimping for are the companies that would clearcut the whole works.

Wouldn't they put themselves out of business if they did that? Sounds counterintuitive.

 

[HUGGY]

raging wildfire that could become the largest in Arizona history is rekindling the blame game surrounding ponderosa pine forests that have become dangerously overgrown after a century of fire suppression.

Some critics put the responsibility on environmentalists for lawsuits that have cut back on logging.

Others blame overzealous firefighters for altering the natural cycle of lightning-sparked fires that once cleared the forest floor.

Either way, forests across the West that once had 50 trees per acre (half-hectare) now have hundreds, sometimes thousands, and much of the landscape is choked with tinder-dry brush.

The density of the growth has fueled immense conflagrations in recent years like the 525-square-mile blaze now burning in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest northeast of Phoenix.

"I think what is happening proves the debate," said state Sen. Sylvia Allen, a Republican from rural Snowflake.

In the past, a 30-square-mile fire was considered huge. "And it used to be the loggers got right on it. Never in the past have you had these huge fires."

Today, it's not uncommon for fires to exceed 150 square miles.

Read more: Environmentalists Blamed for AZ Wildfires - Arizona Wildfire - Fox Nation

Remember Bush tried to do something about this? Letting people cut down the dry brush that causes fires?

Well, guess what dumbasses stopped that?

It's just common sense. Dry brush, especially underbrush is sooner or later going to catch fire.

Who exactly was going to clear 500 sq miles of brush?

You are an idiot.

Thanks for playing.

 

[uscitizen]

How much will private industry pay for brush?

 

[flacaltenn]

USCitizen:

How much will private industry pay for brush?

Just call it biomass instead.. NOW -- it's valuable. If you can burn corn and garbage for "alternatives" , why not brush?

Who am I shilling for Old Rocks? I'm shilling for Bambi and Thumper and the gang.

Huggy:

Who exactly was going to clear 500 sq miles of brush?
You are an idiot.

You clear it with controlled burns several sq miles at time. On days when that is relatively safe. Or you allow citizens to come in and PAY FOR the rights to take downed and diseased timber on public land.. A policy that just drives the eco-nuts wild. You clear it by allowing natural fires to take theiir course and lay off the extraordinary measures to extinguish natural fires.

Let the "idiots" with the degrees in forest management decide. NOT the NYC primadonnas who want the forests neglected and "pristine".

The forests on Indian land, the forests in Nature Conservancy hands, the forests in Private logging hands, don't have these "accidents". THey have consistent, politically neutral POLICIES that work..

Ask Bambi and Thumper whether they prefer to be managed by the Nature Conservancy or the BLM..

 

[RWatt]

fire

 

[HUGGY]

USCitizen:

How much will private industry pay for brush?

Just call it biomass instead.. NOW -- it's valuable. If you can burn corn and garbage for "alternatives" , why not brush?

Who am I shilling for Old Rocks? I'm shilling for Bambi and Thumper and the gang.

Huggy:

Who exactly was going to clear 500 sq miles of brush?
You are an idiot.

You clear it with controlled burns several sq miles at time. On days when that is relatively safe. Or you allow citizens to come in and PAY FOR the rights to take downed and diseased timber on public land.. A policy that just drives the eco-nuts wild. You clear it by allowing natural fires to take theiir course and lay off the extraordinary measures to extinguish natural fires.

Let the "idiots" with the degrees in forest management decide. NOT the NYC primadonnas who want the forests neglected and "pristine".

The forests on Indian land, the forests in Nature Conservancy hands, the forests in Private logging hands, don't have these "accidents". THey have consistent, politically neutral POLICIES that work..

Ask Bambi and Thumper whether they prefer to be managed by the Nature Conservancy or the BLM..

You don't need to tell me about how a forest should be managed. My dads brother, my uncle was the head forester for the State of Washington back in the 60's and 70's. We have one of the best managed State forests in the whole country. We allow logging companies to go in and thin the forests and in doing so they cut much needed access roads into remote areas, remove much of the unwanted undergrowth, and the timber sales goes to help pay for our public schools. The advantage a place like Washington has is there is enough harvest able timber to make it economically viable for a private company to pay the state and still make a good profit.

 

[Toronado3800]

raging wildfire that could become the largest in Arizona history is rekindling the blame game surrounding ponderosa pine forests that have become dangerously overgrown after a century of fire suppression.

Some critics put the responsibility on environmentalists for lawsuits that have cut back on logging.

Others blame overzealous firefighters for altering the natural cycle of lightning-sparked fires that once cleared the forest floor.

Either way, forests across the West that once had 50 trees per acre (half-hectare) now have hundreds, sometimes thousands, and much of the landscape is choked with tinder-dry brush.

The density of the growth has fueled immense conflagrations in recent years like the 525-square-mile blaze now burning in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest northeast of Phoenix.

"I think what is happening proves the debate," said state Sen. Sylvia Allen, a Republican from rural Snowflake.

In the past, a 30-square-mile fire was considered huge. "And it used to be the loggers got right on it. Never in the past have you had these huge fires."

Today, it's not uncommon for fires to exceed 150 square miles.

Read more: Environmentalists Blamed for AZ Wildfires - Arizona Wildfire - Fox Nation

Remember Bush tried to do something about this? Letting people cut down the dry brush that causes fires?

Well, guess what dumbasses stopped that?

It's just common sense. Dry brush, especially underbrush is sooner or later going to catch fire.

Ok......so a natural fire is burning which will clear out the dead brush and you want smaller fires to burn more often to clear out the brush....

Sounds like a fine hair of policy.

Can we have a few small fires mixed with a bit of responsible logging?

I will have to do some reading to come up with suggested fire sizes.

 

[flacaltenn]

Huggy:

You don't need to tell me about how a forest should be managed. My dads brother, my uncle was the head forester for the State of Washington back in the 60's and 70's. We have one of the best managed State forests in the whole country. We allow logging companies to go in and thin the forests and in doing so they cut much needed access roads into remote areas, remove much of the unwanted undergrowth, and the timber sales goes to help pay for our public schools. The advantage a place like Washington has is there is enough harvest able timber to make it economically viable for a private company to pay the state and still make a good profit.

So Huggy isn't hugging ALL the trees eh? All my college roomates were in forestry or wildlife management. I traveled with them into the Snake/Salmon river valleys for a summer and learned TONS of good stuff. We KNOW how to either ignore or neglect a forest OR manage a forest. And what the consequences are. Public lands should be multi-purpose and multi-use. Therefore the management paradigm wins. Like your experience in Washington. This political intervention and ping-ponging between strategies is gonna KILL Bambi and Thumper for sure. Even the Nature Conservancy adopts the multi-use paradigm and ASKS for liens and access to private lands to supplement it's private holdings. It's NOT into intimidation and TAKING. (That's a blatant plug for a (usually) GREAT enviromental org! Except for some of their AGWarming stuff)

 

[HUGGY]

Huggy:

You don't need to tell me about how a forest should be managed. My dads brother, my uncle was the head forester for the State of Washington back in the 60's and 70's. We have one of the best managed State forests in the whole country. We allow logging companies to go in and thin the forests and in doing so they cut much needed access roads into remote areas, remove much of the unwanted undergrowth, and the timber sales goes to help pay for our public schools. The advantage a place like Washington has is there is enough harvest able timber to make it economically viable for a private company to pay the state and still make a good profit.

So Huggy isn't hugging ALL the trees eh? All my college roomates were in forestry or wildlife management. I traveled with them into the Snake/Salmon river valleys for a summer and learned TONS of good stuff. We KNOW how to either ignore or neglect a forest OR manage a forest. And what the consequences are. Public lands should be multi-purpose and multi-use. Therefore the management paradigm wins. Like your experience in Washington. This political intervention and ping-ponging between strategies is gonna KILL Bambi and Thumper for sure. Even the Nature Conservancy adopts the multi-use paradigm and ASKS for liens and access to private lands to supplement it's private holdings. It's NOT into intimidation and TAKING. (That's a blatant plug for a (usually) GREAT enviromental org! Except for some of their AGWarming stuff)

When I was a kid up on Orcas Island we didn't have electricity for a couple of years. I cut down hundreds of trees...mostly Alders..and we cooked on a big cast Iron stove and heated the house with a wood heater in the living room. For light we used oil lamps...but mostly just hung it up at nightfall. Early to bed...early to rise...

I do believe in saving some of the old growth. Ever been to one of the Sequoya forests in Northern California? MAJESTIC! Cutting those trees down would be a national tragedy. There is plenty of useable wood/timber to manage and consume. It is not an all or nothing proposition. Those that think cutting down ANY trees is a sacrilege are ******* idiots.

 

[Toronado3800]

Huggy:

You don't need to tell me about how a forest should be managed. My dads brother, my uncle was the head forester for the State of Washington back in the 60's and 70's. We have one of the best managed State forests in the whole country. We allow logging companies to go in and thin the forests and in doing so they cut much needed access roads into remote areas, remove much of the unwanted undergrowth, and the timber sales goes to help pay for our public schools. The advantage a place like Washington has is there is enough harvest able timber to make it economically viable for a private company to pay the state and still make a good profit.

So Huggy isn't hugging ALL the trees eh? All my college roomates were in forestry or wildlife management. I traveled with them into the Snake/Salmon river valleys for a summer and learned TONS of good stuff. We KNOW how to either ignore or neglect a forest OR manage a forest. And what the consequences are. Public lands should be multi-purpose and multi-use. Therefore the management paradigm wins. Like your experience in Washington. This political intervention and ping-ponging between strategies is gonna KILL Bambi and Thumper for sure. Even the Nature Conservancy adopts the multi-use paradigm and ASKS for liens and access to private lands to supplement it's private holdings. It's NOT into intimidation and TAKING. (That's a blatant plug for a (usually) GREAT enviromental org! Except for some of their AGWarming stuff)

When I was a kid up on Orcas Island we didn't have electricity for a couple of years. I cut down hundreds of trees...mostly Alders..and we cooked on a big cast Iron stove and heated the house with a wood heater in the living room. For light we used oil lamps...but mostly just hung it up at nightfall. Early to bed...early to rise...

I do believe in saving some of the old growth. Ever been to one of the Sequoya forests in Northern California? MAJESTIC! Cutting those trees down would be a national tragedy. There is plenty of useable wood/timber to manage and consume. It is not an all or nothing proposition. Those that think cutting down ANY trees is a sacrilege are ******* idiots.

Huggy, we have been agreeing today. What is this world coming to!

 

[HUGGY]

Huggy:



So Huggy isn't hugging ALL the trees eh? All my college roomates were in forestry or wildlife management. I traveled with them into the Snake/Salmon river valleys for a summer and learned TONS of good stuff. We KNOW how to either ignore or neglect a forest OR manage a forest. And what the consequences are. Public lands should be multi-purpose and multi-use. Therefore the management paradigm wins. Like your experience in Washington. This political intervention and ping-ponging between strategies is gonna KILL Bambi and Thumper for sure. Even the Nature Conservancy adopts the multi-use paradigm and ASKS for liens and access to private lands to supplement it's private holdings. It's NOT into intimidation and TAKING. (That's a blatant plug for a (usually) GREAT enviromental org! Except for some of their AGWarming stuff)

When I was a kid up on Orcas Island we didn't have electricity for a couple of years. I cut down hundreds of trees...mostly Alders..and we cooked on a big cast Iron stove and heated the house with a wood heater in the living room. For light we used oil lamps...but mostly just hung it up at nightfall. Early to bed...early to rise...

I do believe in saving some of the old growth. Ever been to one of the Sequoya forests in Northern California? MAJESTIC! Cutting those trees down would be a national tragedy. There is plenty of useable wood/timber to manage and consume. It is not an all or nothing proposition. Those that think cutting down ANY trees is a sacrilege are ******* idiots.

Huggy, we have been agreeing today. What is this world coming to!

Dunno. It's pretty messed up though..



Hating the Christian Fascist Fundamentalist Republicans strain of the GOP doesn't make me a liberal. Nobody is going to take our guns... I don't give a rats ass what queers do...and God is for suckers.. Other than differing with many on those points...I'm pretty conservative. The kind of people that are in the leadership of the house right now could be actually doing some things to improve the economy for the middle class.. They don't give a **** about the middle class ... all they want to do is make Obama look bad. They are evil traitorous assholes holding America hostage over their petty crap. They are vile pieces of shit that should be lined up against a wall and executed after being convicted of high treason. I don't worship the top 1% ..they are doing just fine...they don't need my help. It was some of the super rich bankers that did this to the economy..not Obama.. They don't need tax beaks...they need long prison sentences.

 

[Old Rocks]

USCitizen:

How much will private industry pay for brush?

Just call it biomass instead.. NOW -- it's valuable. If you can burn corn and garbage for "alternatives" , why not brush?

Who am I shilling for Old Rocks? I'm shilling for Bambi and Thumper and the gang.

Huggy:

Who exactly was going to clear 500 sq miles of brush?
You are an idiot.

You clear it with controlled burns several sq miles at time. On days when that is relatively safe. Or you allow citizens to come in and PAY FOR the rights to take downed and diseased timber on public land.. A policy that just drives the eco-nuts wild. You clear it by allowing natural fires to take theiir course and lay off the extraordinary measures to extinguish natural fires.

Let the "idiots" with the degrees in forest management decide. NOT the NYC primadonnas who want the forests neglected and "pristine".

The forests on Indian land, the forests in Nature Conservancy hands, the forests in Private logging hands, don't have these "accidents". THey have consistent, politically neutral POLICIES that work..

Ask Bambi and Thumper whether they prefer to be managed by the Nature Conservancy or the BLM..

You don't need to tell me about how a forest should be managed. My dads brother, my uncle was the head forester for the State of Washington back in the 60's and 70's. We have one of the best managed State forests in the whole country. We allow logging companies to go in and thin the forests and in doing so they cut much needed access roads into remote areas, remove much of the unwanted undergrowth, and the timber sales goes to help pay for our public schools. The advantage a place like Washington has is there is enough harvest able timber to make it economically viable for a private company to pay the state and still make a good profit.

Even with good management, we had the Wenatchee fires not that long ago. When there is a long enough dry spell, and you get a lightning storm, with high winds afterwards, the forest burns, no matter how well cared for. If you are getting more dry spells, and higher winds than has been the norm for the past, you will get more crown fires.

There are some forests that can be thinned at a profit. There are many others that cannot. The forest that I know best and worked on for a couple of years many years ago, cannot be thinned at a profit. In fact, it has been selective logged about every ten years in the Ponderosa stands. Much of the lodgepole stands cannot be logged at a profit, period. And many of those burned in the last decade. Simply because the forests, especially in the higher altitudes, have been drier than the past norm.

Are there policies that would help alleviate the spread of the fires? Yes, but they would cost money, money which neither the BLM or Forest Service will get. And in Europe, the past decade has seen many of their forests burn, also. In Northen Canada, the fires there have been increasing, as they have been in Siberia.

As for people removing dying and diseased trees for their own use. Yes, when I lived in that area, I cut dead and dying Tamarack for firewood. As well as dead Juniper. However, there are not enough people in the rural areas of this nation to even begin to make a dent in the trees that need to be removed. Ever flown over the stands of Lodgepole in Montana?

 

[skookerasbil]

LMAO..........I figured the k00ks started those fires. Like Ive been saying..........the science doesnt matter anymore so they are forced to manufacture a fcukking illusion to perpetuate a level of phoney. They know the dulls of the world see all the natural events going on 24/7 and airing on the boob........buy off a few of the hysterics out there.

In the world of the k00ks, theres no such thing as lightning striking the gound in the middle of an isolated forest Never happens!!!

Its all shit caused by man made global warming.

 

[tkarint]

Completely true, man made global warming is worsening things and what's ironical is some deliberately behave ignorant.

 

[Zona]

Fools, mccain said it was the illegals! Go John....now get off my lawn.