|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Oct 31st, 2007 04:43 PM | ||
| derrida |
Quote:
You are tedious, but I'll try to clarify some terms here. The flora that serves as fuel is new growth. Old trees usually survive fire due the the extreme thickness of their bark and lack of accumulated fuel around their bases due to the shade they provide. Stands of new growth, the stuff that fuels canopy fires, grow in when clearcutting is used. This is why clearcutting is no longer common practice. Nowadays logging companies simply pick and choose the oldest, most valuable trees in an area. This is on national land. They are indeed being compensated, not only by the market for their products, but by the government's (dubious, if you consider they are removing only the most fire-resistant trees) rationale, for the service they provide in reducing the severity of fires. This isn't even what your original post was about, but I guess I felt drunkenly compelled to address the straw-man you erected. Honestly, don't just make up some ghost hippies and paint them with your broad-ass brush. Show me some real ones we can point and laugh at. Yeah, those safe haven communities work, they cost about 10,000 more per home, but these costs are happily absorbed by the home buyers. One good idea besides changing building materials, landscaping, was instead of building the houses around a golf course that serves as a huge fire alley, they build the course around the homes, making an isolated island. |
|
| Oct 29th, 2007 02:40 PM | ||
| Perndog | Chojin, I love you. | |
| Oct 29th, 2007 02:34 PM | ||
| Chojin |
I know I'd be pretty mad if you irrigated me. Just sayin'. |
|
| Oct 29th, 2007 10:34 AM | ||
| Kulturkampf |
I have. However, I have not heard "do not irrigate the land that feeds you." |
|
| Oct 29th, 2007 10:24 AM | ||
| Emu |
Quote:
|
|
| Oct 28th, 2007 11:13 PM | ||
| Chojin |
Also what do you mean draining all the oceans is a more drastic solution? It still RAINS, doesn't it? DUH. |
|
| Oct 28th, 2007 10:30 PM | ||
| Kulturkampf | Naturally, many fires burn themselves out much to the detriment of humanity. Now that we have been fruitful and multiplied we need to manage the Earth that we live on (it is our domain, our possession, ours to rape). | |
| Oct 28th, 2007 08:47 PM | ||
| Chojin |
It's a miracle our entire planet wasn't consumed in a ball of fire before we could invent the chainsaw. I hear that's how the sun was formed. |
|
| Oct 28th, 2007 06:51 PM | ||
| Kulturkampf |
So they would only be performing it on land they held? Well, certainly that makes sense and rather than socialism that is mere a security code for a business to fulfill and so really is not socialism. What would be socialism is if we did not compensate a private company for performing the task in Yellowstone National Forest. How can you support socialism or are you perhaps not an American? |
|
| Oct 28th, 2007 02:53 PM | ||
| AChimp | Natural burn cycles were stupid anyways, and totally inconvenient since they happen whenever they want to. If the forest's gotta burn, might as well be us doing it when we need to. | |
| Oct 28th, 2007 12:48 PM | ||
| derrida |
what's so unreasonable about expecting a timber company to perform preventative maintenance on stocks of land so as to prevent loss of those resources? the government spending money to do things which should be done by the private sector? sounds like socialism to me. forest thinning is necessary as it stands but only because natural burn cycles have been disrupted. |
|
| Oct 28th, 2007 11:41 AM | ||
| Kulturkampf |
So forest companies, private entities meant to make profit for their shareholders... Must do official government bidding? Sounds like socialism if I ever heard it. Canada has officially adopted a policy of forest thinning because it does prevent extreme forest fires. You can argue a lot but you are arguing against lawmakers in Canada and the US which have adopted such policies -- and in this circumstance, policies which saved lives. |
|
| Oct 28th, 2007 10:14 AM | ||
| derrida | the problem with most logging is that it results in dense stands of young growth, which are the most susceptible to fires. fire breaks do work, and we need to make roads safe for people, so i can't take issue with the letter of what you are saying. (and anyone who disagrees probably doesnt shower regularly. why would you waste time addressing people who arent even in the mainstream of thought on environmentalism? is it easier to paint a movement by picking and choosing the negative qualities of its least thoughtful members?) the problem is that this is going to be used to justify public money subsidizing what timber companies should be doing in the first place: forest management. | |
| Oct 28th, 2007 07:43 AM | ||
| Kulturkampf |
But we are thinning forests... Trees are a very renewable resource, my friend, and sometimes they burn a little too much and threaten houses, Chojin. You are strawmanning me... I propose thinning of forests and you pretend I take a more extreme stance. This is simply ERRONEOUS. |
|
| Oct 28th, 2007 05:17 AM | ||
| Chojin | Did you know that if we dry up all the oceans, we can save a lot of people from drowning too? | |
| Oct 28th, 2007 01:45 AM | ||
| Kulturkampf | I think it makes sense for people to practice forest thinning as it saves property an dlives, and frankly, I do not think all of these homes are merely resorts of the wealthy. And even if they were, what gives you the power to say that another man's property ought to be destroyed? | |
| Oct 27th, 2007 12:09 PM | ||
| Preechr | So then you are in favor of fighting fire with fire? | |
| Oct 27th, 2007 03:58 AM | ||
| derrida | Look it up. 85 percent of fires in wilderness areas are suppressed. How much fuel buildup does this result in? Billions of public dollars and far too many lives are spent every year, particularly when it is time to defend the second homes and resorts of the wealthy, who apparently expect the federal government to assume the position of local fire department. Fires are a natural part of a forest ecosystem, as are the pests and pathogens that provide the same "thinning" services you applaud. Does the active management of wilderness strike you as absurd? Would the earth be a charred wasteland if not for the intervention of mankind? | |
| Oct 25th, 2007 10:45 PM | ||
| Kulturkampf |
Forest Thinning Saves Lives Many on the far left believe cutting down trees is always wrong but this controversial policy's fruit is coming to light in California: LAKE ARROWHEAD -- As flames ravage surrounding communities, this resort town high in the San Bernardino Mountains emerged largely unscathed, an island in a sea of destruction.LA Times That is quite something -- literally a policy of cutting down trees having been strategically employed to save lives. I wonder how environmentalists feel about that one? Sometimes cutting trees is a good thing. |
|
