California burning, ****!ng hypocrits!

skibreeze · Aug 29, 2009

California burning, ****ing hypocrits!

They are the ones pushing all the emissions crap and their state is the one that is constantly on fire! 10 major fires burning now. God forbid, we burn a little gas while snowmobiling. Do you think they will add that to their carbon footprint?

MARCUSO · Aug 30, 2009

And why are they hypocrites?

You make it sound as if they want fires or something...

Mooseknuckle · Aug 30, 2009

skibreeze said:
They are the ones pushing all the emissions crap and their state is the one that is constantly on fire! 10 major fires burning now. God forbid, we burn a little gas while snowmobiling. Do you think they will add that to their carbon footprint?

A fire really doesn't "add" to a foot print because it is a release of previously sequestered carbon.

Air quality issues are important everywhere. But where my state really screws the pooch is they way they go about it. Like predicating emission levels in the future with a base number from the past. The biggest chunk of the program reduction levels will come about from the use of technology that doesn't exist outside of theory right now.

Ollie · Aug 30, 2009

MARCUSO said:
And why are they hypocrites?

You make it sound as if they want fires or something...

Their the green state.
They refuse to allow BLM, Forest service or private home owners to clear dead or deseased shrubs and trees.
They refuse to allow the Forest service or BLM to fight bug and desease infestations because they don't want those icky chemicals. It's better to just let mother nature burn it all and blame global warming.
They won't allow the forest service, blm or the fire department to cut fire breaks or access roads into some of the areas with the highest fire danger.
Their policies contribute to the very problem they claim to be against. the fires buring now release more Co2 into the atmoshpere than all the cars in california in a 5 year period.

The fires are so bad as a direct result of their policies and practices and yet they claim to have the moral directive to tell the rest of the country what to do and how to do it.

Wheel House Motorsports · Aug 30, 2009

^^^ saved me having to type it up... fire is a very natural process.. but they in refusing to manage there forests allow the fires to burn much more often, and over larger areas.

oh well, gives hard working forest fire guys some $$.

skibreeze · Aug 30, 2009

Ollie said:
Their the green state.
They refuse to allow BLM, Forest service or private home owners to clear dead or deseased shrubs and trees.
They refuse to allow the Forest service or BLM to fight bug and desease infestations because they don't want those icky chemicals. It's better to just let mother nature burn it all and blame global warming.
They won't allow the forest service, blm or the fire department to cut fire breaks or access roads into some of the areas with the highest fire danger.
Their policies contribute to the very problem they claim to be against. the fires buring now release more Co2 into the atmoshpere than all the cars in california in a 5 year period.

The fires are so bad as a direct result of their policies and practices and yet they claim to have the moral directive to tell the rest of the country what to do and how to do it.

Thanks for stating it so simply.

tech a · Aug 30, 2009

Ollie said:
Their the green state.
They refuse to allow BLM, Forest service or private home owners to clear dead or deseased shrubs and trees.
They refuse to allow the Forest service or BLM to fight bug and desease infestations because they don't want those icky chemicals. It's better to just let mother nature burn it all and blame global warming.
They won't allow the forest service, blm or the fire department to cut fire breaks or access roads into some of the areas with the highest fire danger.
Their policies contribute to the very problem they claim to be against. the fires buring now release more Co2 into the atmoshpere than all the cars in california in a 5 year period.

The fires are so bad as a direct result of their policies and practices and yet they claim to have the moral directive to tell the rest of the country what to do and how to do it.

Saved me from typing it!

I find it ironic that there are 8 lanes of traffic, bumper-to-bumper, on I-5
between LA and SD 24/7....yet it is a few hundred snowmobiles a day that
are ruining the environment...

sledin · Aug 30, 2009

Ollie said:
Their the green state.
They refuse to allow BLM, Forest service or private home owners to clear dead or deseased shrubs and trees.
They refuse to allow the Forest service or BLM to fight bug and desease infestations because they don't want those icky chemicals. It's better to just let mother nature burn it all and blame global warming.
They won't allow the forest service, blm or the fire department to cut fire breaks or access roads into some of the areas with the highest fire danger.
Their policies contribute to the very problem they claim to be against. the fires buring now release more Co2 into the atmoshpere than all the cars in california in a 5 year period.

The fires are so bad as a direct result of their policies and practices and yet they claim to have the moral directive to tell the rest of the country what to do and how to do it.

Actually homeowners and property owners in the national forest at least Toulumne county/Stanislaus Forest,are encouraged to keep a defensible area by cutting branches up to six feet from the ground,remove dead brush etc.There are timber sale areas every year to thin out areas and the forest service and BLM are initiating controled burns every year.When building,YOU MUST have a turn around area for the fire trucks.

Ollie · Aug 30, 2009

sledinwfo said:
Actually homeowners and property owners in the national forest at least Toulumne county/Stanislaus Forest,are encouraged to keep a defensible area by cutting branches up to six feet from the ground,remove dead brush etc.There are timber sale areas every year to thin out areas and the forest service and BLM are initiating controled burns every year.When building,YOU MUST have a turn around area for the fire trucks.

And yet it is reported that the forest service and fire fighters are saying the fires are as bad as they are as a direct result of overgrowth, dead and deceased trees, lack of access and state and local ordances that won't allow them to clear areas of the deadfall.

ALL state and federal land has rules concerning clearing and maintanence, too bad they don't follow or aren't allow to follow them.

Stuck · Aug 30, 2009

The culprit behind our forest fire problem is......fire fighting! Our forest service policy is to extinguish forest fires as quickly as possible. They do some thinning and prescribed burns and logging, but these things are no where near enough control for forest fires. Preventing fires from taking their natural course causes our forest to become loaded with fuel. It makes the fires more intense and destructive. Forest fire is also the only thing that can control forest pests and diseases. For those who are skeptical about this, take a look at yellowstone national park. The policy in the park used to be stop fires at all cost. Then in(cant remember when, late 70's I think), they changed their policy to the current policy, which is to let it burn and just protect buildings from fire. When it finally burned in the late 80's, It was massively destructive due to the fuel loading of dead fall and underbrush, that would have been naturaly removed by much less intense ground fires.

I did a research project in my forest management class a few years back. Did loads of research.

And global warming doesn't have a thing to do with it. Global warming =
cough(bullsh!t)cough.

Ollie · Aug 30, 2009

Stuck said:
The culprit behind our forest fire problem is......fire fighting! Our forest service policy is to extinguish forest fires as quickly as possible. They do some thinning and prescribed burns and logging, but these things are no where near enough control for forest fires. Preventing fires from taking their natural course causes our forest to become loaded with fuel. It makes the fires more intense and destructive. Forest fire is also the only thing that can control forest pests and diseases. For those who are skeptical about this, take a look at yellowstone national park. The policy in the park used to be stop fires at all cost. Then in(cant remember when, late 70's I think), they changed their policy to the current policy, which is to let it burn and just protect buildings from fire. When it finally burned in the late 80's, It was massively destructive due to the fuel loading of dead fall and underbrush, that would have been naturaly removed by much less intense ground fires.

I did a research project in my forest management class a few years back. Did loads of research.

And global warming doesn't have a thing to do with it. Global warming =
cough(bullsh!t)cough.

That is a good point.
Let nature takes it natural cource sounds nice and all, but as has been seen (such as Yellowstone) it isn't the best way to actually manage a forest.
that's the problem with "green" policies concerning forest/land management.
Enviro's (and ignorant people) love the look of a "wild" forest. They like to think that is the way a forest is supposed to look without man's interference.
They would be correct, that is the way a forest looks without man's interference, it is also the way to destroy a forest.
If fire doesn't kill the forest, overgrowth will choke it out.

A well managed forest system includes cutting timber, clearing underbrush, pest control (chemical and fire), prescribed burns and road access.
Unfortunetly, the forest service has become afraid of the enviro movement because they sue at the drop of a hat. So they don't do what is really needed to control fires and pestilence.
It's too bad really.

Stuck · Aug 30, 2009

Ollie said:
That is a good point.
Let nature takes it natural cource sounds nice and all, but as has been seen (such as Yellowstone) it isn't the best way to actually manage a forest.
that's the problem with "green" policies concerning forest/land management.
Enviro's (and ignorant people) love the look of a "wild" forest. They like to think that is the way a forest is supposed to look without man's interference.
They would be correct, that is the way a forest looks without man's interference, it is also the way to destroy a forest.
If fire doesn't kill the forest, overgrowth will choke it out.

A well managed forest system includes cutting timber, clearing underbrush, pest control (chemical and fire), prescribed burns and road access.
Unfortunetly, the forest service has become afraid of the enviro movement because they sue at the drop of a hat. So they don't do what is really needed to control fires and pestilence.
It's too bad really.

Well what should have been done in the first place is use the current policy that is now used in Yellowstone, but unfortunately we can't go back in time and cant undo what has been done. Even if the forest service were allowed to do what is needed, they don't have the funding or the manpower to do it. There isn't even access to much of the forest that needs the attention of the forest service.

The origional "green" policies were no thinning or logging, and don't let anything burn. Stupid! Talk about ignorant!

If you have taken a drive through stanley lately, you would have probably noticed that bout two thirds of the visible forest is dead and brown. These trees have been killed by pine beetles. The only thing that can control pine beetle is fire. If you look at the trees along the roads in this are you may notice that there are little black plastic containers nailed some of the trees. They kind of look like those little ant poison things. They are there to poison the pine beetles, but they are not too affective.

When that area burns, it is gona be very destructive. Get the Marshmallows!

sledhead699 · Aug 30, 2009

i wish i was there fighting those fires. and getting a big check from there goverement.

Ollie · Aug 30, 2009

Stuck said:
Even if the forest service were allowed to do what is needed, they don't have the funding or the manpower to do it.

But they don't NEED the budget. They would get the funding needed by selling logging contracts. The loggers would cut the roads into the logging areas that could then be used by fire fighters to access areas to fight fires.

Same with manpower. They don't need the manpower, loggers would provide the manpower. They could put in the contracts to clean up the areas after the logging is done and have the loggers do the clean up as part of their contract. Now the more work the forest service demands in their contract the less money they would make (or break even).

It is a misconception that the forest service has to do all the clean up and logging, there are private companies all over the country that would jump at the chance to get some of those contracts.

Stuck · Aug 30, 2009

Ollie said:
But they don't NEED the budget. They would get the funding needed by selling logging contracts. The loggers would cut the roads into the logging areas that could then be used by fire fighters to access areas to fight fires.

Same with manpower. They don't need the manpower, loggers would provide the manpower. They could put in the contracts to clean up the areas after the logging is done and have the loggers do the clean up as part of their contract. Now the more work the forest service demands in their contract the less money they would make (or break even).

It is a misconception that the forest service has to do all the clean up and logging, there are private companies all over the country that would jump at the chance to get some of those contracts.

very true! Now if we could get everyone to see it that way we would have a system that would work much better! That's where our friendly neighborhood greenies take over a F it all up for the rest of us.

Raff_9001M · Aug 30, 2009

Ollie said:
But they don't NEED the budget. They would get the funding needed by selling logging contracts. The loggers would cut the roads into the logging areas that could then be used by fire fighters to access areas to fight fires.

Same with manpower. They don't need the manpower, loggers would provide the manpower. They could put in the contracts to clean up the areas after the logging is done and have the loggers do the clean up as part of their contract. Now the more work the forest service demands in their contract the less money they would make (or break even).

It is a misconception that the forest service has to do all the clean up and logging, there are private companies all over the country that would jump at the chance to get some of those contracts.

This might work a little better when lumber prices begin to rise. Currently, timber only sells for base rates which means far less money goes back to Forest Service for sale area improvements or back to the loggers for stewardship - depending on the type of contract.
Cutting the commercial size timber is only half the battle. It takes quite a few dollars to thin the precommercial size trees, spraying weeds, controlled burns, etc.

MARCUSO · Aug 30, 2009

Stuck said:
Well what should have been done in the first place is use the current policy that is now used in Yellowstone, but unfortunately we can't go back in time and cant undo what has been done. Even if the forest service were allowed to do what is needed, they don't have the funding or the manpower to do it. There isn't even access to much of the forest that needs the attention of the forest service.

The origional "green" policies were no thinning or logging, and don't let anything burn. Stupid! Talk about ignorant!

If you have taken a drive through stanley lately, you would have probably noticed that bout two thirds of the visible forest is dead and brown. These trees have been killed by pine beetles. The only thing that can control pine beetle is fire. If you look at the trees along the roads in this are you may notice that there are little black plastic containers nailed some of the trees. They kind of look like those little ant poison things. They are there to poison the pine beetles, but they are not too affective.

When that area burns, it is gona be very destructive. Get the Marshmallows!

Thanks Ollie for your answer.

Pine beetle is a problem, Those plastic units on the trees probably are an attractant to the beetle. we have them here also. It attracts the beetle in a big way perhaps by scent of the queen, then they burn the tree, and surrounding trees to control the population. It has been somewhat successful.

Stuck · Aug 30, 2009

MARCUSO said:
Thanks Ollie for your answer.

Pine beetle is a problem, Those plastic units on the trees probably are an attractant to the beetle. we have them here also. It attracts the beetle in a big way perhaps by scent of the queen, then they burn the tree, and surrounding trees to control the population. It has been somewhat successful.

Im afraid its just too little too late. They are putting them up in campgrounds and in areas around private establishments such as camp perkins and smiley creek. I can't imagine they would be prescribing a burn in some of these areas. Do they cut these trees and burn them elsewhere?

H2SNOW · Aug 31, 2009

heres how it goes ..year one ..you don't notice anything ..year 2 ..the sh1t is getting red ..year 4 shes all but the crying ..all gray a ready for the stove

by the time you figure on doing something it is already too late

RMSHA109 · Aug 31, 2009

Tell you what let the hole piece of sh$! state burn to the ground and do the rest of the world some good. That state is the start of all things bad anyway. Sorry to be blunt for the fellow snowesters from there but it is true. You snowesters are to good to be evan in that state so move out while you can.

California burning, ****!ng hypocrits!

Well-known member

ACCOUNT CLOSED

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

ACCOUNT CLOSED

Well-known member

ACCOUNT CLOSED

Well-known member

Member

ACCOUNT CLOSED

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

ACCOUNT CLOSED

Similar threads