Kiss the fresh air good bye
 

Bush aproves bill to "Selectively" cut forests to help prevent wild fires.

The fact that the fires are a natural accurance doesn't seem to factor into the logic of the bill. Since when are we trying to regulate god? Also the fact that actively trying to prevent fires will slowly kill the forrests. Fires are necessary for some speicies to propogate themselves.

correct. Fires are a necessary part of any forest. Well, naturally occuring fires are. Maybe we should prevent idiotic humans from starting non-natural fires before cutting down on the things that produce our oxygen...

The real crap is that there could be help done to clear out underbrush that used to be taken care of by the animals that the loggers chased off. However, this stuff isn't high in profit.

Another complaint of mine is Bush does nothing on the concern of urban fires,which is where the real problems lie. As one being involved in the Oakland Hills fire in 1991, I have yet to see any improvement done to prevent such things again. The only actions to really make sure a fire does not start up again were the actions of the residents there. The city did nothing till many years later, and even then it does little.

You're AGAINST forrest managment?

did you SEE the California Wildfires?

yeah, fires are natural (yes dynomite, that means that not even furry little creatures prevent them. indeed, i doubt the California forrests have been logged in a looong time). but well maintained land does not need to burn.


JAD: we ALWAYS try to regulate nature. Floods are natural. Fires are natural. we take steps to try to prevent their destruciton reaching us.

No, not against forest management, but rather the mismanagement of forests by business. Yes, natural forest fires happen. Lightning strikes, spreads, the lot. However there are enough problems when some hippie drops his bong and sets the forest ablaze, or if some idiot doesn't put out his campfire. Why add to the headache by allowing in logging companies who don't care about preservation, and pay them $900 million to do the right thing? Why not spend markedly less than that and have the forests cleared out properly? This is a payoff, pure and simple.

Did I see them? Yes. Am I against management? No. I was saying that fires are a natural part of the ecosystem. Its humans that are intruding on nature, not it on us. Im all for controlled burns when it becomes necessary. Just make sure you do it often enough to prevent large scale wild fires like the one you posted above. Just clear-cutting isnt the answer though.

well, the measure in particular is:

"The new law reduces environmental reviews, limits lawsuits that delay some logging projects and authorizes $900 million for thinning of smaller trees, which is less profitable for timber companies.

The legislation requires that at least 50 percent of the clearing of potential fuel and forest treatment be done within 1.5 miles of communities that may be vulnerable to forest fires."

according to the article.

so.. uhh. they are trying to protect communities that could be burnt to the ground like those 3,640 homes in California this year. The practice in question is not very profitable for timber companies, so they are paying for this Service to the community.

This is NOT clear cutting forests.

I’m not seeing much of a problem here. except for cries of "pay-offs" which are not based on any actual research by any of you.


I’m no forest manager, but if what this article says is true, and if this particular method is effective at stopping wild fires, then there's not really a problem with it to me

We... take steps to stop floods from reaching us? Erm... I mean, we do the sandbagging and all, but there really isn't any way to PREVENT a flood. Making laws against natural forces seems quite silly. *shrugs*

damns help regulate flooding. dykes. levies. irrigation.