Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Shutting down logging in many areas has done more damage than one can imagine, because it leads to these massive fires as fuel just piles up. And most wildlife does not like all the thick, brushy woods they can hardly move through...
Extremes are rarely good, but that's what we have. Extremes. Now the extreme anti-logging environmentalists have control in many areas, and it's perhaps worse than if loggers came through unhindered and clear cut every tree (less destructive than fires doing the same thing and the forest eventually recovers...).
Given how logging has become highly mechanized. They can take down hundreds of trees per day! However, given the soft economy... there has been less desire for wood for construction. Given that wood, if properly managed forests with FSC certification policies are done there is less likely to be wasted product. We are entering a renissance for wood heating products. To properly maintain our forests they have to be thinned. This is done with a controlled burn. A means to erradicated undergrowth that if allowed to pile up becomes a greater danger than even a controlled burn is. In addition the forest has to be diversified, (what? you thought that only applied to your stock portfolio?). That means all types of trees must be planted to be a productive forest.
Interesting article which brings up some good points. Unfortunately the OP had to resort to an unrealistic statement, most likely to try to draw responses.
Environmentalists causing the destruction of forests.
Seriously, Moderator cut: No flaming . It's this type of anti eco-wh*ring that makes the reporting of the problems pointed out by the referenced article a non-issue. Making a charge such as this does nothing more than trivialize the real problem. Most people who are truly concerned will likely skip reading the article (and this thread) because of the inflammatory, misleading "headline". It reminds me of the media in general. Everything is sensationalism, no level headedness required.
While I agree that protecting species seems to be out of control (after all, if they are threatened by brush clearing, what, exactly happens to them when the brush is burned to a cinder?) placing direct blame for the fires on the environmentalists that are pushing for their protection is hogwash. Lightning maybe, a careless smoker, an arsonist perhaps, an environmentalist, very unlikely.
Something to keep in mind when passing laws to prevent brush clearing: The species this is designed to protect have lived in the area far longer than man., If they have survived the fires that (supposedly) wipe out the environment they live in I doubt brush clearing will cause them to become extinct.
Man moving in and stopping the natural fires that clear and renew the forests is the real culprit. If these smaller fires were allowed to run their course the major fires that scare the bejeezus out of everyone would not be so prevalent.
Of course the balanced way to view all this is simple: If you would stop building houses in these fire-prone areas you wouldn't have to whine about those big, bad fires that come so close. Or you could simply cut down all those pesky trees and then b*tch because the beauty of the area you paid so much to live in has been destroyed. You would also have the pleasure of the runoff from those big storms that are mitigated by the trees and forests you destroy in the process. Enjoy the yearly mudslides!
Interesting article which brings up some good points. Unfortunately the OP had to resort to an unrealistic statement, most likely to try to draw responses.
Environmentalists causing the destruction of forests.
Seriously, this is an asinine statement meant only to get a rise out of others and has no basis in fact. It's this type of anti eco-wh*ring that makes the reporting of the problems pointed out by the referenced article a non-issue. Making a charge such as this does nothing more than trivialize the real problem. Most people who are truly concerned will likely skip reading the article (and this thread) because of the inflammatory, misleading "headline". It reminds me of the media in general. Everything is sensationalism, no level headedness required.
While I agree that protecting species seems to be out of control (after all, if they are threatened by brush clearing, what, exactly happens to them when the brush is burned to a cinder?) placing direct blame for the fires on the environmentalists that are pushing for their protection is hogwash. Lightning maybe, a careless smoker, an arsonist perhaps, an environmentalist, very unlikely.
Something to keep in mind when passing laws to prevent brush clearing: The species this is designed to protect have lived in the area far longer than man., If they have survived the fires that (supposedly) wipe out the environment they live in I doubt brush clearing will cause them to become extinct.
Man moving in and stopping the natural fires that clear and renew the forests is the real culprit. If these smaller fires were allowed to run their course the major fires that scare the bejeezus out of everyone would not be so prevalent.
Of course the balanced way to view all this is simple: If you would stop building houses in these fire-prone areas you wouldn't have to whine about those big, bad fires that come so close. Or you could simply cut down all those pesky trees and then b*tch because the beauty of the area you paid so much to live in has been destroyed. You would also have the pleasure of the runoff from those big storms that are mitigated by the trees and forests you destroy in the process. Enjoy the yearly mudslides!
Decent article ruined by over reaction.
If their policies they have forced on the area has lead to the massive fires (and they have), then they are to blame. Obviously not all "environmentalists" but the ones who pursue these policies...the issue with environmentalism is the movement has been hijacked by people with various motives other than actually protecting the environment based on sound science. They include profits, selfish desires and more. But that's another topic...
Properly done logging can replace the role the fires have, and not cause mudslides/etc.. And "properly done" varies by location, type of forest, etc. Even clear cutting, which most environmentalists despise, is sometimes beneficial to an area.
Clearing the hills out there entirely for housing, OTOH, has caused the landslide issues...even standard clearcutting leaves behind some stumps to help hold the soil down...lawns and such just don't work so well for holding the soil. Parts of CA are simply way too overdeveloped.
If their policies they have forced on the area has lead to the massive fires (and they have), then they are to blame. Obviously not all "environmentalists" but the ones who pursue these policies...the issue with environmentalism is the movement has been hijacked by people with various motives other than actually protecting the environment based on sound science. They include profits, selfish desires and more. But that's another topic...
Properly done logging can replace the role the fires have, and not cause mudslides/etc.. And "properly done" varies by location, type of forest, etc. Even clear cutting, which most environmentalists despise, is sometimes beneficial to an area.
Clearing the hills out there entirely for housing, OTOH, has caused the landslide issues...even standard clearcutting leaves behind some stumps to help hold the soil down...lawns and such just don't work so well for holding the soil. Parts of CA are simply way too overdeveloped.
I assume "they" are the environmentalists. The policies they have enforced are not the reason for the forest fires. Are you serious? Not clearing brush is causing the fires? If you truly believe that then any discussion on the subject is a waste of my time.
The US has been quite effective at preventing natural forest fires over the last century. The consequences of this are now being felt. Fires have always been a part of nature that help forests when left to do their thing. In the past a fire would quickly move though a forest burning up the fuel. This was beneficial and only killed the smaller trees and plants. The burning of this fuel is actually beneficial in the long run as it leaves the ground quite fertile.
Fast forward one century after mans intervention, you now have large swaths of forest with 100 years of fuel sitting on the ground. These fires burn much hotter and much longer. They kill everything in their path leaving the forest sterile. The larger trees that would not be permanently damaged in the past cannot tolerate these conditions. End result is the forest dies and takes decades to recover instead of immediately beginning recovery.
I assume "they" are the environmentalists. The policies they have enforced are not the reason for the forest fires. Are you serious? Not clearing brush is causing the fires? If you truly believe that then any discussion on the subject is a waste of my time.
Not cleaning brush doesn't cause the fires. They are caused by any number of sources.
However, having massive amounts of dead, dry brush on the forest floor causes the fires to rage out of control.
True, but, and I reiterate, before man came on the scene there was no one to clear the brush and the creatures that live there have been doing just fine for a very long time, so apparently the brush was not much of a factor until man stuck his nose into the equation.
If we followed sensible policies concerning forest fires instead of putting out every little blaze that came along there wouldn't be massive amounts of dead, dry brush to be ignited.
We are a very homocentric [sic] bunch.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you truly believe that then any discussion on the subject is a waste of my time.
