[ink]

Originally posted by ringo:
Sorry, but 70% as much is less, not more.

I think the idea is that there are more trees in places that didn't used to have trees (like the "desert" that I currently live in).

Less than 40% of woodlands thinned of excess vegetation have been in areas where homes meet the woods, what is known in the lexicon of fire policy as the ''wildland-urban interface.'' Much of the work has been done in remote forests, activity that ''may be inefficient and ineffective,'' Jack Cohen, a U.S. Forest Service research scientist, writes in a technical report for the agency.

Am I the only one that has zero sympathy for people who build their homes right on the border of forests?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by ink:

Am I the only one that has zero sympathy for people who build their homes right on the border of forests?

You certainly are not. Count me in. I feel the same about people who build on cliffs in Malibu and then cry when erosion claims their home.

Assume responsibility. If you didn't insure yourself, TS. Don't come looking for a Gov't handout.

Of course, i'm just a crazy so-called liberal. What do i know?

[ink]

[QB]
The USA today article someone linked to mentioned that the companies hired to clear dead trees were opting to take the larger, more profitable trees and leave behind smaller ones that were more likely to pose a fire hazard. That's what really gets my goat, is that serious problems like this are being controlled by profit rather than actually being aimed at fixing the problem. [/B]

What is "the problem" anyway? Fires? No, forests need them occasionally (unless we're gonna start clearing out all the underbrush; an impossible task). Containment? Perhaps -- and Bush's idea is hopefully aimed at attacking this problem. Profiteering? Probably not the main problem here. Does it "profit" the logging companies to destroy their future crops? No.

I notice that you're from Houston, and I can understand how someone from that place would think that humans are a blight upon the land (I spent a week there a couple years ago). But believe me, most of the people who live next to the forests and use them on a weekly basis are all in favor harmony. We like responsible logging. We like "old-growth trees" (although most of the trees in Idaho don't live for centuries on end), we know loggers -- and we know that they don't want to destroy the land any more than the rest of us (and they don't). We also hate uncontrolled fires that could have been controlled if the Forest Service hadn't torn up the old logging roads. We need controlled burns for the forests as well, to clear the underbrush and fertilize the land.

I hope the president addresses all of this.

[bewebste]

Originally posted by ink:


What is "the problem" anyway? Fires? No, forests need them occasionally (unless we're gonna start clearing out all the underbrush; an impossible task). Containment? Perhaps -- and Bush's idea is hopefully aimed at attacking this problem. Profiteering? Probably not the main problem here. Does it "profit" the logging companies to destroy their future crops? No.

Fires in and of themselves aren't a problem, of course. The problem, as I understand it, has been the policy of squelching all fires for the past few decades, which has left the forests in a delicate state where these huge firestorms that consume thousands of acres can get started. Then you're talking about a fairly long term displacement (or death) of plants, animals, and people who live in that area.

As far as profit goes, of course it won't benefit the logging companies in the long term if all the forests burn down, but many companies seem to be more driven by short term profit that by long term prospects. I'm also pretty sure that the people who do the actual work or live by the woods are more in touch with the situation that the higher-ups who rake in the cash.

I notice that you're from Houston, and I can understand how someone from that place would think that humans are a blight upon the land (I spent a week there a couple years ago).

LOL! I'm not from Houston originally, but I agree in many ways (except for the restaurants ). I moved here and it was like "where'd all the stars go?"

But believe me, most of the people who live next to the forests and use them on a weekly basis are all in favor harmony. We like responsible logging. We like "old-growth trees" (although most of the trees in Idaho don't live for centuries on end), we know loggers -- and we know that they don't want to destroy the land any more than the rest of us (and they don't). We also hate uncontrolled fires that could have been controlled if the Forest Service hadn't torn up the old logging roads. We need controlled burns for the forests as well, to clear the underbrush and fertilize the land.

I hope the president addresses all of this.

I hope he does too, but I'm not getting my hopes up, having seen his actions as president thus far. Controlled burns are definitely the most effective method of control, although this is of course more difficult now that the forests are in the state they're in. Responsible logging can also be helpful, but I'm wary about the "responsible" part of that equation actually working out.

[TNproud2b]

I don't think the problem started in the last 18 months - so that rules out blaming Bush.

The previous 8 years might have more to do with the problem...remember, back when we had a tree-hugger and a draft-dodger in office?

[undotwa]

I completely agree with bush chopping down trees to prevent forest fires. Just don't go overboard... It's a win, win situation.

[Beewee]

Bush needs to realize that he can't make every place on earth like Texas. (Smog filled air, polluted waters, and minimum wage that's less than $5/per hour.)

[maxelson]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
I don't think the problem started in the last 18 months - so that rules out blaming Bush.

The previous 8 years might have more to do with the problem...remember, back when we had a tree-hugger and a draft-dodger in office?

Jeezus what an assbag you can be.
Admitted troll, indeed. Should you not see someone for that issue? Assinine remarks like that have to be nothing but trolling.
Ok, smartass. So let's do this. Blame him for not doing enough. Hows that. Blame him for his psuedo environmental policy. Why is it that whenever anyone has to say anything YOU don't care for about the Bush, you feel the need to harp on Clinton? As if that windbag was even brought into the conversation? Is that how you defend him? By comparing him to the last buttmunch? Does not show favorably on your guy.
And shouldn't you be bullying some child over on some other forum somewhere? How bout the last 75 years of misguided forest management and mismanagement? Let's seem how can we blame Clinton for that? Hmmmm...

Jeezus. When did you become this innane? That offends me more that your specious remark.