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.
Nowhere did Obama use threat of death and distruction as leverage. Simply put, it was mismanaged. From what I read in the link, it seems a lot the blame lies on the part of the ambiguous request by Perry and Texas, and also the Feds should have recognized what was going on, and overlooked Perry's incompetence, and just taken care of people on the ground. Shared blame. (not the same as "I have you over a barrel, and I'll use it for leverage" that you are seeing today.)
Corey Gardner just stated on the Meet the Press, when asked about Trump's threat to withhold funds, he said "the senate controls the funds--of course there is funding for fires." Is Gardner lying, covering for the president, or does Trump think he has the unlimited power of a dictator?
Threatening a state in the process of fighting a disaster like this goes beyond inappropriate into the realm of idiotic and irresponsible behavior. And if we have more fires, thank the Trump administration and it's draconian beliefs about science for helping the country to burn.
"...Science played a vital role in this success story by helping develop the best ways to battle wildfires. But the Trump administration wants to slash federal funding for wildfire science, at a time when forest and brush fires are getting bigger, happening year-round and becoming increasingly erratic..."
"...California Professional Firefighters responded, calling the president's assertion that forest management is to blame is "dangerously wrong."
...Instead, they blamed the federal government for mismanagement..."Moreover, nearly 60 percent of California forests are under federal management, and another two-thirds under private control. It is the federal government that has chosen to divert resources away from forest management, not California." "...Governor-elect Gavin Newsom also responded..."Lives have been lost. Entire towns have been burned to the ground. Cars abandoned on the side of the road. People are being forced to flee their homes. This is not a time for partisanship. This is a time for coordinating relief and response and lifting those in need up."
"...It's the first comment by the president on any of California's major wildfires since the Camp Fire sparked, which has become the state's most destructive wildfire since record-keeping began. That fire has charred more than 105,000 acres, killed 23 people and injured at least three firefighters.The town of Paradise has been virtually wiped off the map, leaving about 80 percent of the town lost, according to firefighters.
The man is afraid of the rain and cannot run his own crises-ridden white house and he has the nerve to criticize a state doing it's level best in a serious natural disaster.
California's tree huggers are creating their own catastrophic forest fire conditions by mismanaging public forest land (federal land is the state's responsibility as of the 2014 Farm Bill Obama signed) and placing onerous legal restrictions regarding controlled burns, prescribed fires, creating firebreaks, etc., on private land owners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Which is under state management as of at the latest the 2014 Farm Bill Obama signed into law. Hence, Trump's comment about no more federal funding given to California for such purposes as California state gov is mismanaging forest land in their state both in practice and by onerously restrictive laws placed on forest management techniques used to prevent fires and the spread of such.
The tragic loss of lives, and of less importance, homes, could be avoided if the state of California managed forest land more appropriately. Tree huggers aren't always right. Sometimes their convictions lead to loss of lives and utter destruction of property.
These posts show IC is off on another of her absurd mis-readings of laws.
That Act merely allows the Feds to negotiate contracts with states to work on or manage Federal lands. It requires states to do nothing and in no way changes the Feds obligation to see to the care of Fed lands.
They really do need to look into thinning the forests that are prone to fire, which would create lots of tangible lumber jobs.
With the shortage of lumber that business and construction firms had to deal, it would be a good time for the federal government look into thinning fire-prone forests.
This is going on far to long and it's partly because of the radical left and it's environmentalist agenda.
He was so insulting and demeaning to those suffering because of the fires and to the firefighters doing their best under extremely difficult circumstances.
He was so insulting and demeaning to those suffering because of the fires and to the firefighters doing their best under extremely difficult circumstances.
Alot of these places are where many of his supporters live.
He’s basically telling them to suck it.
There is a general agreement to make other agreements.
There is one agreement in place to construct one fire break.
There is another agreement being negotiated to do a series of projects in the Sierra.
That is it. Again it is the Feds responsibility to maintain the Fed forests. That CA may help particularly in areas where non Federal properties are involved does not change this role.
I see nothing about Plumas National Forest. And you also misunderstand what this arrangement sets up. It doesn't mean that the National Forest is no longer responsible for land management.
Are you actually suggesting that CA is now solely responsible for managing the many millions of acres owned by the federal government?
Which is under state management as of at the latest the 2014 Farm Bill Obama signed into law. Hence, Trump's comment about no more federal funding given to California for such purposes as California state gov is mismanaging forest land in their state both in practice and by onerously restrictive laws placed on forest management techniques used to prevent fires and the spread of such.
The tragic loss of lives, and of less importance, homes, could be avoided if the state of California managed forest land more appropriately. Tree huggers aren't always right. Sometimes their convictions lead to loss of lives and utter destruction of property.
Land management does happen in CA. Controlled burns do happen (I just drove through multiple a few weeks ago on my way back from Shasta and Lassen). Realistically, you are never going to fully manage millions of forest - but it is done.
And realistically, you're never going to be able to stop fires during intense/high wind and sub <10% humidity events like we see in late Autumn.
Mix in multiple hot summers, multiple years of drought (with a couple of very wet winters, growing the vegetation up, and then drying right out), and wet seasons that are starting later than historical averages - and you have a recipe for fire that is hard to control, even if you were spending the amount of money that should be spent.
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.
