It's a constant fight there......managing the forest to mitigate fire possibility, and allowing the forests to be "natural" including forest fires. I rather doubt the feds could afford to manage the forests like some would like them too.....there is a lot of land involved. Like here....if it's a populated area then the residents manage their own neighborhoods with fire mitigation.......it's once again the same old story.....if you choose to live in the forest then you choose to accept the possibility of fire.....ditto a flood plain....ditto.....a hurricane. The feds can't make everything safe for everyone.
archer wrote: It's a constant fight there......managing the forest to mitigate fire possibility, and allowing the forests to be "natural" including forest fires. I rather doubt the feds could afford to manage the forests like some would like them too.....there is a lot of land involved. Like here....if it's a populated area then the residents manage their own neighborhoods with fire mitigation.......it's once again the same old story.....if you choose to live in the forest then you choose to accept the possibility of fire.....ditto a flood plain....ditto.....a hurricane. The feds can't make everything safe for everyone.
rofllol rofllol Did you just say they can't afford it? We just gave them over $3 trillion dollars. Hundreds of billions which are still not used and people sitting out of work in every state that would give anything to have a job mitigating the forests. It is all the regulations and red tape that our POS government has created that is stopping them and then they wonder why we are having all of these huge catostrophic fires all over the country.
We need a REAL President and a congress that won't give into special interest groups and will start using common sense again like the great founders of this nation did.
archer wrote: excuse me....are you saying you want the feds to mitigate all our forests to protect the homes there? Got a price tag for that?
Actually I bet you could find responsible logging companies that would pay the US to "mitigate" our forests. A system where they would cut down a different section every year for a 20 year lease would do a lot to decrease fire danger.
And they could even stay out of the wilderness areas because they usually have low home densities.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Oh come on SS, you know we couldn't possibly let anyone but the government thin the forests, they do such a great job with everything else. Besides, there's probably some special endangered rodents that may get displaced.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
archer wrote: excuse me....are you saying you want the feds to mitigate all our forests to protect the homes there? Got a price tag for that?
Actually I bet you could find responsible logging companies that would pay the US to "mitigate" our forests. A system where they would cut down a different section every year for a 20 year lease would do a lot to decrease fire danger.
And they could even stay out of the wilderness areas because they usually have low home densities.
Not a chance! Liberal logic: Logging companies = evil, forest fire = serves them right for living there and disturbiing a mouse or an owl!