California Wildfires - San Diego Area
#71
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: SBDO Forest Fire,Bark Beetles and Jeep Trail Closures
Clear cutting has not been in the logging business for a long time. They
also clear out the under brush, dead trees and thin while working the area.
I can show you areas in AZ that have been logged years ago next to areas
that have not been logged for a long time if ever. The logged area will look
more like old growth then the older growth. You are correct in that the
fires used to clear an area and leave the big trees and thin the forest. To
me if we can log it and help our economy and the results are pretty much the
same I would rather see logging then smoke.
The anti-recreationists have called for nothing over a 13" log to be
cut. Did you even wonder why? This is the point where logging makes zero
money. If they hold the line at 13" it about guarantees no cutting will
happen as the Forest Service and Tax payers usually do not want to pay for
the clearing. JMHO Jim F.
--
"I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a member" Groucho
Marx
Member of the original dirty half dozen.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/
"Bill Price" <bprice@volcano.net> wrote in message
news:vq7v43i6kmik77@corp.supernews.com...
> I am not an apologist for any extremist, be he environmentalist or
> anything else. You make some good points, and I will accept your
> assertions as facts. In fairness, though, I think you have to include
> century-old policy of stopping every fire in its tracks, no matter how
> remote from human habitation (Were the Smokejumpers ultimately a good
> idea, romantic as they are?). Then, homebuilders have kept encroaching
> on wildlands, bringing their powerlines, cigarettes, lawnmowers, and
> carelessness. Folks who live in forested rural areas have wanted their
> beautiful settings preserved, no matter what.
> I would like to hear your thoughts about the President's forest
> protection plan. The criticism I keep hearing is that it really just
> means letting the logging companies loose to take what they want. And,
> the argument goes, the loggers will only want the biggest, best and
> healthiest that the forest has to offer. Undergrowth and immature trees
> have no commercial value, so will not be a priority; their only removal
> would occur as a result of clear-cutting to get at the "good" trees. If
> Bush's plan somehow provides some guarantees against that general
> scenario, I would appreciate hearing them, because I haven't studied the
> plan.
>
> Robert Bills wrote:
>
> > The San Bernardino mountain fires have not only wiped out nearly a
thousand
> > homes and killed four people, the burn area impacts nearly 50% of the
jeep
> > trails in the San Bernardino National Forest. These trails will soon be
> > officially closed for several years while the forest regenerates, just
like the
> > recently reopened White Mountain trail was closed after the fire there
several
> > years ago.
> >
> > Responsibility for the overgrowth and the infestation of the bark beetle
which
> > exacerbated this inferno lies at the feet of the environmentalists, not
any
> > perceived delay in obtaining federal funds for clearing dead trees.
> >
> > It is well documented that at the early stages of the bark beetle
infestation,
> > which began near Lake Arrowhead (where enviromentalist generated
restrictions
> > on tree cutting increased the forest density from the normal 30-40
trees/acre
> > to 250-300 trees/acre),treatment with insecticides would have been
tremendously
> > effective. However, outside pressure from the Sierra Club, Center for
> > Biological Diversity and other eco-groups, and inside pressure from
enviro-
> > indoctrinated career foresters during the Clinton years, resulted in a
Forest
> > Service prohibition of the use of those insecticides.
> > The environmentalists will never take responsibility for their part in
creating
> > a bark beetle infestation that nearly killed an entire forest and
created so
> > much fuel for the fire. Instead, they will be the ones blaming
President Bush
> > for not providing enoungh money fast enough to cut down the dead trees
before
> > they caught fire.
> >
> > Wongheaded enviromentalism is ultimately the cause of the California
wildfires
> > and a $2 billion loss to the local economy. We simply cannot afford the
> > greenies anymore
> >
> > It is time for every one of us to support the Bush administration's
Healthy
> > Forest Initiative in any way we can. Write to your senators and
representatives
> > in Congress. Enlist the support of your friends and everyone you meet on
the
> > trail. Donate money to the legal defense funds at the Blue Ribbon
Coalition,
> > California Association of 4WD Clubs and CORVA. The survival of the
forests
> > depends upon it, and so does our sport.
> >
> > Robert Bills
> > Orange County CA
> >
> > Jerry Bransford wrote:
> >
> >>It's ridiculous... truly ridiculous... to think California could have
> >>cleaned out those millions of dead trees in the couple of months it was
> >>since the request for funding to do so was sent to Washington. The
outcome
> >>would have been the same had it been approved because of the short time
> >>involved.
> >
> >
> >
>
also clear out the under brush, dead trees and thin while working the area.
I can show you areas in AZ that have been logged years ago next to areas
that have not been logged for a long time if ever. The logged area will look
more like old growth then the older growth. You are correct in that the
fires used to clear an area and leave the big trees and thin the forest. To
me if we can log it and help our economy and the results are pretty much the
same I would rather see logging then smoke.
The anti-recreationists have called for nothing over a 13" log to be
cut. Did you even wonder why? This is the point where logging makes zero
money. If they hold the line at 13" it about guarantees no cutting will
happen as the Forest Service and Tax payers usually do not want to pay for
the clearing. JMHO Jim F.
--
"I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a member" Groucho
Marx
Member of the original dirty half dozen.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/
"Bill Price" <bprice@volcano.net> wrote in message
news:vq7v43i6kmik77@corp.supernews.com...
> I am not an apologist for any extremist, be he environmentalist or
> anything else. You make some good points, and I will accept your
> assertions as facts. In fairness, though, I think you have to include
> century-old policy of stopping every fire in its tracks, no matter how
> remote from human habitation (Were the Smokejumpers ultimately a good
> idea, romantic as they are?). Then, homebuilders have kept encroaching
> on wildlands, bringing their powerlines, cigarettes, lawnmowers, and
> carelessness. Folks who live in forested rural areas have wanted their
> beautiful settings preserved, no matter what.
> I would like to hear your thoughts about the President's forest
> protection plan. The criticism I keep hearing is that it really just
> means letting the logging companies loose to take what they want. And,
> the argument goes, the loggers will only want the biggest, best and
> healthiest that the forest has to offer. Undergrowth and immature trees
> have no commercial value, so will not be a priority; their only removal
> would occur as a result of clear-cutting to get at the "good" trees. If
> Bush's plan somehow provides some guarantees against that general
> scenario, I would appreciate hearing them, because I haven't studied the
> plan.
>
> Robert Bills wrote:
>
> > The San Bernardino mountain fires have not only wiped out nearly a
thousand
> > homes and killed four people, the burn area impacts nearly 50% of the
jeep
> > trails in the San Bernardino National Forest. These trails will soon be
> > officially closed for several years while the forest regenerates, just
like the
> > recently reopened White Mountain trail was closed after the fire there
several
> > years ago.
> >
> > Responsibility for the overgrowth and the infestation of the bark beetle
which
> > exacerbated this inferno lies at the feet of the environmentalists, not
any
> > perceived delay in obtaining federal funds for clearing dead trees.
> >
> > It is well documented that at the early stages of the bark beetle
infestation,
> > which began near Lake Arrowhead (where enviromentalist generated
restrictions
> > on tree cutting increased the forest density from the normal 30-40
trees/acre
> > to 250-300 trees/acre),treatment with insecticides would have been
tremendously
> > effective. However, outside pressure from the Sierra Club, Center for
> > Biological Diversity and other eco-groups, and inside pressure from
enviro-
> > indoctrinated career foresters during the Clinton years, resulted in a
Forest
> > Service prohibition of the use of those insecticides.
> > The environmentalists will never take responsibility for their part in
creating
> > a bark beetle infestation that nearly killed an entire forest and
created so
> > much fuel for the fire. Instead, they will be the ones blaming
President Bush
> > for not providing enoungh money fast enough to cut down the dead trees
before
> > they caught fire.
> >
> > Wongheaded enviromentalism is ultimately the cause of the California
wildfires
> > and a $2 billion loss to the local economy. We simply cannot afford the
> > greenies anymore
> >
> > It is time for every one of us to support the Bush administration's
Healthy
> > Forest Initiative in any way we can. Write to your senators and
representatives
> > in Congress. Enlist the support of your friends and everyone you meet on
the
> > trail. Donate money to the legal defense funds at the Blue Ribbon
Coalition,
> > California Association of 4WD Clubs and CORVA. The survival of the
forests
> > depends upon it, and so does our sport.
> >
> > Robert Bills
> > Orange County CA
> >
> > Jerry Bransford wrote:
> >
> >>It's ridiculous... truly ridiculous... to think California could have
> >>cleaned out those millions of dead trees in the couple of months it was
> >>since the request for funding to do so was sent to Washington. The
outcome
> >>would have been the same had it been approved because of the short time
> >>involved.
> >
> >
> >
>
#72
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: SBDO Forest Fire,Bark Beetles and Jeep Trail Closures
Clear cutting has not been in the logging business for a long time. They
also clear out the under brush, dead trees and thin while working the area.
I can show you areas in AZ that have been logged years ago next to areas
that have not been logged for a long time if ever. The logged area will look
more like old growth then the older growth. You are correct in that the
fires used to clear an area and leave the big trees and thin the forest. To
me if we can log it and help our economy and the results are pretty much the
same I would rather see logging then smoke.
The anti-recreationists have called for nothing over a 13" log to be
cut. Did you even wonder why? This is the point where logging makes zero
money. If they hold the line at 13" it about guarantees no cutting will
happen as the Forest Service and Tax payers usually do not want to pay for
the clearing. JMHO Jim F.
--
"I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a member" Groucho
Marx
Member of the original dirty half dozen.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/
"Bill Price" <bprice@volcano.net> wrote in message
news:vq7v43i6kmik77@corp.supernews.com...
> I am not an apologist for any extremist, be he environmentalist or
> anything else. You make some good points, and I will accept your
> assertions as facts. In fairness, though, I think you have to include
> century-old policy of stopping every fire in its tracks, no matter how
> remote from human habitation (Were the Smokejumpers ultimately a good
> idea, romantic as they are?). Then, homebuilders have kept encroaching
> on wildlands, bringing their powerlines, cigarettes, lawnmowers, and
> carelessness. Folks who live in forested rural areas have wanted their
> beautiful settings preserved, no matter what.
> I would like to hear your thoughts about the President's forest
> protection plan. The criticism I keep hearing is that it really just
> means letting the logging companies loose to take what they want. And,
> the argument goes, the loggers will only want the biggest, best and
> healthiest that the forest has to offer. Undergrowth and immature trees
> have no commercial value, so will not be a priority; their only removal
> would occur as a result of clear-cutting to get at the "good" trees. If
> Bush's plan somehow provides some guarantees against that general
> scenario, I would appreciate hearing them, because I haven't studied the
> plan.
>
> Robert Bills wrote:
>
> > The San Bernardino mountain fires have not only wiped out nearly a
thousand
> > homes and killed four people, the burn area impacts nearly 50% of the
jeep
> > trails in the San Bernardino National Forest. These trails will soon be
> > officially closed for several years while the forest regenerates, just
like the
> > recently reopened White Mountain trail was closed after the fire there
several
> > years ago.
> >
> > Responsibility for the overgrowth and the infestation of the bark beetle
which
> > exacerbated this inferno lies at the feet of the environmentalists, not
any
> > perceived delay in obtaining federal funds for clearing dead trees.
> >
> > It is well documented that at the early stages of the bark beetle
infestation,
> > which began near Lake Arrowhead (where enviromentalist generated
restrictions
> > on tree cutting increased the forest density from the normal 30-40
trees/acre
> > to 250-300 trees/acre),treatment with insecticides would have been
tremendously
> > effective. However, outside pressure from the Sierra Club, Center for
> > Biological Diversity and other eco-groups, and inside pressure from
enviro-
> > indoctrinated career foresters during the Clinton years, resulted in a
Forest
> > Service prohibition of the use of those insecticides.
> > The environmentalists will never take responsibility for their part in
creating
> > a bark beetle infestation that nearly killed an entire forest and
created so
> > much fuel for the fire. Instead, they will be the ones blaming
President Bush
> > for not providing enoungh money fast enough to cut down the dead trees
before
> > they caught fire.
> >
> > Wongheaded enviromentalism is ultimately the cause of the California
wildfires
> > and a $2 billion loss to the local economy. We simply cannot afford the
> > greenies anymore
> >
> > It is time for every one of us to support the Bush administration's
Healthy
> > Forest Initiative in any way we can. Write to your senators and
representatives
> > in Congress. Enlist the support of your friends and everyone you meet on
the
> > trail. Donate money to the legal defense funds at the Blue Ribbon
Coalition,
> > California Association of 4WD Clubs and CORVA. The survival of the
forests
> > depends upon it, and so does our sport.
> >
> > Robert Bills
> > Orange County CA
> >
> > Jerry Bransford wrote:
> >
> >>It's ridiculous... truly ridiculous... to think California could have
> >>cleaned out those millions of dead trees in the couple of months it was
> >>since the request for funding to do so was sent to Washington. The
outcome
> >>would have been the same had it been approved because of the short time
> >>involved.
> >
> >
> >
>
also clear out the under brush, dead trees and thin while working the area.
I can show you areas in AZ that have been logged years ago next to areas
that have not been logged for a long time if ever. The logged area will look
more like old growth then the older growth. You are correct in that the
fires used to clear an area and leave the big trees and thin the forest. To
me if we can log it and help our economy and the results are pretty much the
same I would rather see logging then smoke.
The anti-recreationists have called for nothing over a 13" log to be
cut. Did you even wonder why? This is the point where logging makes zero
money. If they hold the line at 13" it about guarantees no cutting will
happen as the Forest Service and Tax payers usually do not want to pay for
the clearing. JMHO Jim F.
--
"I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a member" Groucho
Marx
Member of the original dirty half dozen.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/
"Bill Price" <bprice@volcano.net> wrote in message
news:vq7v43i6kmik77@corp.supernews.com...
> I am not an apologist for any extremist, be he environmentalist or
> anything else. You make some good points, and I will accept your
> assertions as facts. In fairness, though, I think you have to include
> century-old policy of stopping every fire in its tracks, no matter how
> remote from human habitation (Were the Smokejumpers ultimately a good
> idea, romantic as they are?). Then, homebuilders have kept encroaching
> on wildlands, bringing their powerlines, cigarettes, lawnmowers, and
> carelessness. Folks who live in forested rural areas have wanted their
> beautiful settings preserved, no matter what.
> I would like to hear your thoughts about the President's forest
> protection plan. The criticism I keep hearing is that it really just
> means letting the logging companies loose to take what they want. And,
> the argument goes, the loggers will only want the biggest, best and
> healthiest that the forest has to offer. Undergrowth and immature trees
> have no commercial value, so will not be a priority; their only removal
> would occur as a result of clear-cutting to get at the "good" trees. If
> Bush's plan somehow provides some guarantees against that general
> scenario, I would appreciate hearing them, because I haven't studied the
> plan.
>
> Robert Bills wrote:
>
> > The San Bernardino mountain fires have not only wiped out nearly a
thousand
> > homes and killed four people, the burn area impacts nearly 50% of the
jeep
> > trails in the San Bernardino National Forest. These trails will soon be
> > officially closed for several years while the forest regenerates, just
like the
> > recently reopened White Mountain trail was closed after the fire there
several
> > years ago.
> >
> > Responsibility for the overgrowth and the infestation of the bark beetle
which
> > exacerbated this inferno lies at the feet of the environmentalists, not
any
> > perceived delay in obtaining federal funds for clearing dead trees.
> >
> > It is well documented that at the early stages of the bark beetle
infestation,
> > which began near Lake Arrowhead (where enviromentalist generated
restrictions
> > on tree cutting increased the forest density from the normal 30-40
trees/acre
> > to 250-300 trees/acre),treatment with insecticides would have been
tremendously
> > effective. However, outside pressure from the Sierra Club, Center for
> > Biological Diversity and other eco-groups, and inside pressure from
enviro-
> > indoctrinated career foresters during the Clinton years, resulted in a
Forest
> > Service prohibition of the use of those insecticides.
> > The environmentalists will never take responsibility for their part in
creating
> > a bark beetle infestation that nearly killed an entire forest and
created so
> > much fuel for the fire. Instead, they will be the ones blaming
President Bush
> > for not providing enoungh money fast enough to cut down the dead trees
before
> > they caught fire.
> >
> > Wongheaded enviromentalism is ultimately the cause of the California
wildfires
> > and a $2 billion loss to the local economy. We simply cannot afford the
> > greenies anymore
> >
> > It is time for every one of us to support the Bush administration's
Healthy
> > Forest Initiative in any way we can. Write to your senators and
representatives
> > in Congress. Enlist the support of your friends and everyone you meet on
the
> > trail. Donate money to the legal defense funds at the Blue Ribbon
Coalition,
> > California Association of 4WD Clubs and CORVA. The survival of the
forests
> > depends upon it, and so does our sport.
> >
> > Robert Bills
> > Orange County CA
> >
> > Jerry Bransford wrote:
> >
> >>It's ridiculous... truly ridiculous... to think California could have
> >>cleaned out those millions of dead trees in the couple of months it was
> >>since the request for funding to do so was sent to Washington. The
outcome
> >>would have been the same had it been approved because of the short time
> >>involved.
> >
> >
> >
>
#73
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: SBDO Forest Fire,Bark Beetles and Jeep Trail Closures
Clear cutting has not been in the logging business for a long time. They
also clear out the under brush, dead trees and thin while working the area.
I can show you areas in AZ that have been logged years ago next to areas
that have not been logged for a long time if ever. The logged area will look
more like old growth then the older growth. You are correct in that the
fires used to clear an area and leave the big trees and thin the forest. To
me if we can log it and help our economy and the results are pretty much the
same I would rather see logging then smoke.
The anti-recreationists have called for nothing over a 13" log to be
cut. Did you even wonder why? This is the point where logging makes zero
money. If they hold the line at 13" it about guarantees no cutting will
happen as the Forest Service and Tax payers usually do not want to pay for
the clearing. JMHO Jim F.
--
"I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a member" Groucho
Marx
Member of the original dirty half dozen.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/
"Bill Price" <bprice@volcano.net> wrote in message
news:vq7v43i6kmik77@corp.supernews.com...
> I am not an apologist for any extremist, be he environmentalist or
> anything else. You make some good points, and I will accept your
> assertions as facts. In fairness, though, I think you have to include
> century-old policy of stopping every fire in its tracks, no matter how
> remote from human habitation (Were the Smokejumpers ultimately a good
> idea, romantic as they are?). Then, homebuilders have kept encroaching
> on wildlands, bringing their powerlines, cigarettes, lawnmowers, and
> carelessness. Folks who live in forested rural areas have wanted their
> beautiful settings preserved, no matter what.
> I would like to hear your thoughts about the President's forest
> protection plan. The criticism I keep hearing is that it really just
> means letting the logging companies loose to take what they want. And,
> the argument goes, the loggers will only want the biggest, best and
> healthiest that the forest has to offer. Undergrowth and immature trees
> have no commercial value, so will not be a priority; their only removal
> would occur as a result of clear-cutting to get at the "good" trees. If
> Bush's plan somehow provides some guarantees against that general
> scenario, I would appreciate hearing them, because I haven't studied the
> plan.
>
> Robert Bills wrote:
>
> > The San Bernardino mountain fires have not only wiped out nearly a
thousand
> > homes and killed four people, the burn area impacts nearly 50% of the
jeep
> > trails in the San Bernardino National Forest. These trails will soon be
> > officially closed for several years while the forest regenerates, just
like the
> > recently reopened White Mountain trail was closed after the fire there
several
> > years ago.
> >
> > Responsibility for the overgrowth and the infestation of the bark beetle
which
> > exacerbated this inferno lies at the feet of the environmentalists, not
any
> > perceived delay in obtaining federal funds for clearing dead trees.
> >
> > It is well documented that at the early stages of the bark beetle
infestation,
> > which began near Lake Arrowhead (where enviromentalist generated
restrictions
> > on tree cutting increased the forest density from the normal 30-40
trees/acre
> > to 250-300 trees/acre),treatment with insecticides would have been
tremendously
> > effective. However, outside pressure from the Sierra Club, Center for
> > Biological Diversity and other eco-groups, and inside pressure from
enviro-
> > indoctrinated career foresters during the Clinton years, resulted in a
Forest
> > Service prohibition of the use of those insecticides.
> > The environmentalists will never take responsibility for their part in
creating
> > a bark beetle infestation that nearly killed an entire forest and
created so
> > much fuel for the fire. Instead, they will be the ones blaming
President Bush
> > for not providing enoungh money fast enough to cut down the dead trees
before
> > they caught fire.
> >
> > Wongheaded enviromentalism is ultimately the cause of the California
wildfires
> > and a $2 billion loss to the local economy. We simply cannot afford the
> > greenies anymore
> >
> > It is time for every one of us to support the Bush administration's
Healthy
> > Forest Initiative in any way we can. Write to your senators and
representatives
> > in Congress. Enlist the support of your friends and everyone you meet on
the
> > trail. Donate money to the legal defense funds at the Blue Ribbon
Coalition,
> > California Association of 4WD Clubs and CORVA. The survival of the
forests
> > depends upon it, and so does our sport.
> >
> > Robert Bills
> > Orange County CA
> >
> > Jerry Bransford wrote:
> >
> >>It's ridiculous... truly ridiculous... to think California could have
> >>cleaned out those millions of dead trees in the couple of months it was
> >>since the request for funding to do so was sent to Washington. The
outcome
> >>would have been the same had it been approved because of the short time
> >>involved.
> >
> >
> >
>
also clear out the under brush, dead trees and thin while working the area.
I can show you areas in AZ that have been logged years ago next to areas
that have not been logged for a long time if ever. The logged area will look
more like old growth then the older growth. You are correct in that the
fires used to clear an area and leave the big trees and thin the forest. To
me if we can log it and help our economy and the results are pretty much the
same I would rather see logging then smoke.
The anti-recreationists have called for nothing over a 13" log to be
cut. Did you even wonder why? This is the point where logging makes zero
money. If they hold the line at 13" it about guarantees no cutting will
happen as the Forest Service and Tax payers usually do not want to pay for
the clearing. JMHO Jim F.
--
"I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a member" Groucho
Marx
Member of the original dirty half dozen.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/
"Bill Price" <bprice@volcano.net> wrote in message
news:vq7v43i6kmik77@corp.supernews.com...
> I am not an apologist for any extremist, be he environmentalist or
> anything else. You make some good points, and I will accept your
> assertions as facts. In fairness, though, I think you have to include
> century-old policy of stopping every fire in its tracks, no matter how
> remote from human habitation (Were the Smokejumpers ultimately a good
> idea, romantic as they are?). Then, homebuilders have kept encroaching
> on wildlands, bringing their powerlines, cigarettes, lawnmowers, and
> carelessness. Folks who live in forested rural areas have wanted their
> beautiful settings preserved, no matter what.
> I would like to hear your thoughts about the President's forest
> protection plan. The criticism I keep hearing is that it really just
> means letting the logging companies loose to take what they want. And,
> the argument goes, the loggers will only want the biggest, best and
> healthiest that the forest has to offer. Undergrowth and immature trees
> have no commercial value, so will not be a priority; their only removal
> would occur as a result of clear-cutting to get at the "good" trees. If
> Bush's plan somehow provides some guarantees against that general
> scenario, I would appreciate hearing them, because I haven't studied the
> plan.
>
> Robert Bills wrote:
>
> > The San Bernardino mountain fires have not only wiped out nearly a
thousand
> > homes and killed four people, the burn area impacts nearly 50% of the
jeep
> > trails in the San Bernardino National Forest. These trails will soon be
> > officially closed for several years while the forest regenerates, just
like the
> > recently reopened White Mountain trail was closed after the fire there
several
> > years ago.
> >
> > Responsibility for the overgrowth and the infestation of the bark beetle
which
> > exacerbated this inferno lies at the feet of the environmentalists, not
any
> > perceived delay in obtaining federal funds for clearing dead trees.
> >
> > It is well documented that at the early stages of the bark beetle
infestation,
> > which began near Lake Arrowhead (where enviromentalist generated
restrictions
> > on tree cutting increased the forest density from the normal 30-40
trees/acre
> > to 250-300 trees/acre),treatment with insecticides would have been
tremendously
> > effective. However, outside pressure from the Sierra Club, Center for
> > Biological Diversity and other eco-groups, and inside pressure from
enviro-
> > indoctrinated career foresters during the Clinton years, resulted in a
Forest
> > Service prohibition of the use of those insecticides.
> > The environmentalists will never take responsibility for their part in
creating
> > a bark beetle infestation that nearly killed an entire forest and
created so
> > much fuel for the fire. Instead, they will be the ones blaming
President Bush
> > for not providing enoungh money fast enough to cut down the dead trees
before
> > they caught fire.
> >
> > Wongheaded enviromentalism is ultimately the cause of the California
wildfires
> > and a $2 billion loss to the local economy. We simply cannot afford the
> > greenies anymore
> >
> > It is time for every one of us to support the Bush administration's
Healthy
> > Forest Initiative in any way we can. Write to your senators and
representatives
> > in Congress. Enlist the support of your friends and everyone you meet on
the
> > trail. Donate money to the legal defense funds at the Blue Ribbon
Coalition,
> > California Association of 4WD Clubs and CORVA. The survival of the
forests
> > depends upon it, and so does our sport.
> >
> > Robert Bills
> > Orange County CA
> >
> > Jerry Bransford wrote:
> >
> >>It's ridiculous... truly ridiculous... to think California could have
> >>cleaned out those millions of dead trees in the couple of months it was
> >>since the request for funding to do so was sent to Washington. The
outcome
> >>would have been the same had it been approved because of the short time
> >>involved.
> >
> >
> >
>
#74
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: California Wildfires - San Diego Area
Hi Will,
Another story is that San Diego County had failed to renew their
lease to the private helicopter especially designed to fight forest
fires, the day before. So it travel north for their money. And the
Governor hid all day Sunday so he couldn't release the C-130s. Our local
Sheriff Department's pilots in their small, but water bucket qualified,
wanted to fly, but were ordered not to. Very questionable as they
witnessed the fire at 4:30 PM, hours before the dark curfew. The
Military chopper that were fire trained, but not certified by California
Department of Forestry, needed an act of congressional act, or some
silly thing that still hasn't been worked out. Oh well we did have a
National Forest here in San Diego.
That's bummer we can't harvest that dead wood, but I can see the
litigious reasons for closing it now.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Will Honea wrote:
>
> I just read a story on one of the news pages where someone was raising
> hell about the lack of response by air tankers. According to the
> story, a police chopper spotted the Cedar fire when it was still a
> small outbreak. He called for an air drop but the drop was refused
> because the tankers had just been grounded due to winds. The
> implication was that the rules should have been ignored and the drop
> made anyway. People who think like that should have to fly with those
> guys on the drop runs!
>
> Watch the videos of some of those tanker runs and see if you think
> those jockeys would be scared off by 'just a little wind" or poor
> visibility. The air tanker crews are the "real jeepers" among pilots
> - talk about off-road challenges! Anytime you see accidents where the
> pilots pull the wings off you know they have modified the cockpits
> with extra room for the ***** they sport. Asking them to fly when
> conditions are beyond what THEY consider safe would border on
> criminal.
>
> OK, you can have the soap box back - rant over.
Another story is that San Diego County had failed to renew their
lease to the private helicopter especially designed to fight forest
fires, the day before. So it travel north for their money. And the
Governor hid all day Sunday so he couldn't release the C-130s. Our local
Sheriff Department's pilots in their small, but water bucket qualified,
wanted to fly, but were ordered not to. Very questionable as they
witnessed the fire at 4:30 PM, hours before the dark curfew. The
Military chopper that were fire trained, but not certified by California
Department of Forestry, needed an act of congressional act, or some
silly thing that still hasn't been worked out. Oh well we did have a
National Forest here in San Diego.
That's bummer we can't harvest that dead wood, but I can see the
litigious reasons for closing it now.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Will Honea wrote:
>
> I just read a story on one of the news pages where someone was raising
> hell about the lack of response by air tankers. According to the
> story, a police chopper spotted the Cedar fire when it was still a
> small outbreak. He called for an air drop but the drop was refused
> because the tankers had just been grounded due to winds. The
> implication was that the rules should have been ignored and the drop
> made anyway. People who think like that should have to fly with those
> guys on the drop runs!
>
> Watch the videos of some of those tanker runs and see if you think
> those jockeys would be scared off by 'just a little wind" or poor
> visibility. The air tanker crews are the "real jeepers" among pilots
> - talk about off-road challenges! Anytime you see accidents where the
> pilots pull the wings off you know they have modified the cockpits
> with extra room for the ***** they sport. Asking them to fly when
> conditions are beyond what THEY consider safe would border on
> criminal.
>
> OK, you can have the soap box back - rant over.
#75
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: California Wildfires - San Diego Area
Hi Will,
Another story is that San Diego County had failed to renew their
lease to the private helicopter especially designed to fight forest
fires, the day before. So it travel north for their money. And the
Governor hid all day Sunday so he couldn't release the C-130s. Our local
Sheriff Department's pilots in their small, but water bucket qualified,
wanted to fly, but were ordered not to. Very questionable as they
witnessed the fire at 4:30 PM, hours before the dark curfew. The
Military chopper that were fire trained, but not certified by California
Department of Forestry, needed an act of congressional act, or some
silly thing that still hasn't been worked out. Oh well we did have a
National Forest here in San Diego.
That's bummer we can't harvest that dead wood, but I can see the
litigious reasons for closing it now.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Will Honea wrote:
>
> I just read a story on one of the news pages where someone was raising
> hell about the lack of response by air tankers. According to the
> story, a police chopper spotted the Cedar fire when it was still a
> small outbreak. He called for an air drop but the drop was refused
> because the tankers had just been grounded due to winds. The
> implication was that the rules should have been ignored and the drop
> made anyway. People who think like that should have to fly with those
> guys on the drop runs!
>
> Watch the videos of some of those tanker runs and see if you think
> those jockeys would be scared off by 'just a little wind" or poor
> visibility. The air tanker crews are the "real jeepers" among pilots
> - talk about off-road challenges! Anytime you see accidents where the
> pilots pull the wings off you know they have modified the cockpits
> with extra room for the ***** they sport. Asking them to fly when
> conditions are beyond what THEY consider safe would border on
> criminal.
>
> OK, you can have the soap box back - rant over.
Another story is that San Diego County had failed to renew their
lease to the private helicopter especially designed to fight forest
fires, the day before. So it travel north for their money. And the
Governor hid all day Sunday so he couldn't release the C-130s. Our local
Sheriff Department's pilots in their small, but water bucket qualified,
wanted to fly, but were ordered not to. Very questionable as they
witnessed the fire at 4:30 PM, hours before the dark curfew. The
Military chopper that were fire trained, but not certified by California
Department of Forestry, needed an act of congressional act, or some
silly thing that still hasn't been worked out. Oh well we did have a
National Forest here in San Diego.
That's bummer we can't harvest that dead wood, but I can see the
litigious reasons for closing it now.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Will Honea wrote:
>
> I just read a story on one of the news pages where someone was raising
> hell about the lack of response by air tankers. According to the
> story, a police chopper spotted the Cedar fire when it was still a
> small outbreak. He called for an air drop but the drop was refused
> because the tankers had just been grounded due to winds. The
> implication was that the rules should have been ignored and the drop
> made anyway. People who think like that should have to fly with those
> guys on the drop runs!
>
> Watch the videos of some of those tanker runs and see if you think
> those jockeys would be scared off by 'just a little wind" or poor
> visibility. The air tanker crews are the "real jeepers" among pilots
> - talk about off-road challenges! Anytime you see accidents where the
> pilots pull the wings off you know they have modified the cockpits
> with extra room for the ***** they sport. Asking them to fly when
> conditions are beyond what THEY consider safe would border on
> criminal.
>
> OK, you can have the soap box back - rant over.
#76
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: California Wildfires - San Diego Area
Hi Will,
Another story is that San Diego County had failed to renew their
lease to the private helicopter especially designed to fight forest
fires, the day before. So it travel north for their money. And the
Governor hid all day Sunday so he couldn't release the C-130s. Our local
Sheriff Department's pilots in their small, but water bucket qualified,
wanted to fly, but were ordered not to. Very questionable as they
witnessed the fire at 4:30 PM, hours before the dark curfew. The
Military chopper that were fire trained, but not certified by California
Department of Forestry, needed an act of congressional act, or some
silly thing that still hasn't been worked out. Oh well we did have a
National Forest here in San Diego.
That's bummer we can't harvest that dead wood, but I can see the
litigious reasons for closing it now.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Will Honea wrote:
>
> I just read a story on one of the news pages where someone was raising
> hell about the lack of response by air tankers. According to the
> story, a police chopper spotted the Cedar fire when it was still a
> small outbreak. He called for an air drop but the drop was refused
> because the tankers had just been grounded due to winds. The
> implication was that the rules should have been ignored and the drop
> made anyway. People who think like that should have to fly with those
> guys on the drop runs!
>
> Watch the videos of some of those tanker runs and see if you think
> those jockeys would be scared off by 'just a little wind" or poor
> visibility. The air tanker crews are the "real jeepers" among pilots
> - talk about off-road challenges! Anytime you see accidents where the
> pilots pull the wings off you know they have modified the cockpits
> with extra room for the ***** they sport. Asking them to fly when
> conditions are beyond what THEY consider safe would border on
> criminal.
>
> OK, you can have the soap box back - rant over.
Another story is that San Diego County had failed to renew their
lease to the private helicopter especially designed to fight forest
fires, the day before. So it travel north for their money. And the
Governor hid all day Sunday so he couldn't release the C-130s. Our local
Sheriff Department's pilots in their small, but water bucket qualified,
wanted to fly, but were ordered not to. Very questionable as they
witnessed the fire at 4:30 PM, hours before the dark curfew. The
Military chopper that were fire trained, but not certified by California
Department of Forestry, needed an act of congressional act, or some
silly thing that still hasn't been worked out. Oh well we did have a
National Forest here in San Diego.
That's bummer we can't harvest that dead wood, but I can see the
litigious reasons for closing it now.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Will Honea wrote:
>
> I just read a story on one of the news pages where someone was raising
> hell about the lack of response by air tankers. According to the
> story, a police chopper spotted the Cedar fire when it was still a
> small outbreak. He called for an air drop but the drop was refused
> because the tankers had just been grounded due to winds. The
> implication was that the rules should have been ignored and the drop
> made anyway. People who think like that should have to fly with those
> guys on the drop runs!
>
> Watch the videos of some of those tanker runs and see if you think
> those jockeys would be scared off by 'just a little wind" or poor
> visibility. The air tanker crews are the "real jeepers" among pilots
> - talk about off-road challenges! Anytime you see accidents where the
> pilots pull the wings off you know they have modified the cockpits
> with extra room for the ***** they sport. Asking them to fly when
> conditions are beyond what THEY consider safe would border on
> criminal.
>
> OK, you can have the soap box back - rant over.
#77
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: SBDO Forest Fire,Bark Beetles and Jeep Trail Closures
Sorry to butt in here. Robert's post was very eloquent and nails the heart
of the issue. Her in Southwest Colorado we're experiencing all of the same
issues that have affected Southern California and have led to this
catastrophe. We had our disaster last year, the 70,000 acre Missionary Ridge
fire north & east of Durango. While our fire certainly was exacerbated by
the recent drought, the areas that burned were so overgrown as to be
impenetrable. Hunters will tell you that even the game animals are not found
there because the thicket provides no passage or forage.
Indeed, wildland interface issues, the policy of rapid suppression of any
and all fires over the past 100 years, and as were beetle-killed trees,
etc. are all factors, but, the fact remains these are not natural forests
and the conditions under which we currently live require a solution above &
beyond the environmentalists "you may not log, let it burn" mantra. Here in
our area most of the forests where catastrophic fires have run wild were at
one time heavily harvested, and then excessively replanted. The result is a
dense canopy of skinny, unhealthy trees. Removing the little bastards to a
much smaller density will permit the remaining trees to grow rapidly and
will reduce the risk of massive crown fires.
To do this we have to cut the damn trees down, the enviros have used every
legal maneuver they can to prevent this and many of us thus put the problem
squarely at their fanciful, idealist feet.
"Bill Price" <bprice@volcano.net> wrote in message
news:vq7v43i6kmik77@corp.supernews.com...
> I am not an apologist for any extremist, be he environmentalist or
> anything else. You make some good points, and I will accept your
> assertions as facts. In fairness, though, I think you have to include
> century-old policy of stopping every fire in its tracks, no matter how
> remote from human habitation (Were the Smokejumpers ultimately a good
> idea, romantic as they are?). Then, homebuilders have kept encroaching
> on wildlands, bringing their powerlines, cigarettes, lawnmowers, and
> carelessness. Folks who live in forested rural areas have wanted their
> beautiful settings preserved, no matter what.
> I would like to hear your thoughts about the President's forest
> protection plan. The criticism I keep hearing is that it really just
> means letting the logging companies loose to take what they want. And,
> the argument goes, the loggers will only want the biggest, best and
> healthiest that the forest has to offer. Undergrowth and immature trees
> have no commercial value, so will not be a priority; their only removal
> would occur as a result of clear-cutting to get at the "good" trees. If
> Bush's plan somehow provides some guarantees against that general
> scenario, I would appreciate hearing them, because I haven't studied the
> plan.
>
> Robert Bills wrote:
>
> > The San Bernardino mountain fires have not only wiped out nearly a
thousand
> > homes and killed four people, the burn area impacts nearly 50% of the
jeep
> > trails in the San Bernardino National Forest. These trails will soon be
> > officially closed for several years while the forest regenerates, just
like the
> > recently reopened White Mountain trail was closed after the fire there
several
> > years ago.
> >
> > Responsibility for the overgrowth and the infestation of the bark beetle
which
> > exacerbated this inferno lies at the feet of the environmentalists, not
any
> > perceived delay in obtaining federal funds for clearing dead trees.
> >
> > It is well documented that at the early stages of the bark beetle
infestation,
> > which began near Lake Arrowhead (where enviromentalist generated
restrictions
> > on tree cutting increased the forest density from the normal 30-40
trees/acre
> > to 250-300 trees/acre),treatment with insecticides would have been
tremendously
> > effective. However, outside pressure from the Sierra Club, Center for
> > Biological Diversity and other eco-groups, and inside pressure from
enviro-
> > indoctrinated career foresters during the Clinton years, resulted in a
Forest
> > Service prohibition of the use of those insecticides.
> > The environmentalists will never take responsibility for their part in
creating
> > a bark beetle infestation that nearly killed an entire forest and
created so
> > much fuel for the fire. Instead, they will be the ones blaming
President Bush
> > for not providing enoungh money fast enough to cut down the dead trees
before
> > they caught fire.
> >
> > Wongheaded enviromentalism is ultimately the cause of the California
wildfires
> > and a $2 billion loss to the local economy. We simply cannot afford the
> > greenies anymore
> >
> > It is time for every one of us to support the Bush administration's
Healthy
> > Forest Initiative in any way we can. Write to your senators and
representatives
> > in Congress. Enlist the support of your friends and everyone you meet on
the
> > trail. Donate money to the legal defense funds at the Blue Ribbon
Coalition,
> > California Association of 4WD Clubs and CORVA. The survival of the
forests
> > depends upon it, and so does our sport.
> >
> > Robert Bills
> > Orange County CA
> >
> > Jerry Bransford wrote:
> >
> >>It's ridiculous... truly ridiculous... to think California could have
> >>cleaned out those millions of dead trees in the couple of months it was
> >>since the request for funding to do so was sent to Washington. The
outcome
> >>would have been the same had it been approved because of the short time
> >>involved.
> >
> >
> >
>
of the issue. Her in Southwest Colorado we're experiencing all of the same
issues that have affected Southern California and have led to this
catastrophe. We had our disaster last year, the 70,000 acre Missionary Ridge
fire north & east of Durango. While our fire certainly was exacerbated by
the recent drought, the areas that burned were so overgrown as to be
impenetrable. Hunters will tell you that even the game animals are not found
there because the thicket provides no passage or forage.
Indeed, wildland interface issues, the policy of rapid suppression of any
and all fires over the past 100 years, and as were beetle-killed trees,
etc. are all factors, but, the fact remains these are not natural forests
and the conditions under which we currently live require a solution above &
beyond the environmentalists "you may not log, let it burn" mantra. Here in
our area most of the forests where catastrophic fires have run wild were at
one time heavily harvested, and then excessively replanted. The result is a
dense canopy of skinny, unhealthy trees. Removing the little bastards to a
much smaller density will permit the remaining trees to grow rapidly and
will reduce the risk of massive crown fires.
To do this we have to cut the damn trees down, the enviros have used every
legal maneuver they can to prevent this and many of us thus put the problem
squarely at their fanciful, idealist feet.
"Bill Price" <bprice@volcano.net> wrote in message
news:vq7v43i6kmik77@corp.supernews.com...
> I am not an apologist for any extremist, be he environmentalist or
> anything else. You make some good points, and I will accept your
> assertions as facts. In fairness, though, I think you have to include
> century-old policy of stopping every fire in its tracks, no matter how
> remote from human habitation (Were the Smokejumpers ultimately a good
> idea, romantic as they are?). Then, homebuilders have kept encroaching
> on wildlands, bringing their powerlines, cigarettes, lawnmowers, and
> carelessness. Folks who live in forested rural areas have wanted their
> beautiful settings preserved, no matter what.
> I would like to hear your thoughts about the President's forest
> protection plan. The criticism I keep hearing is that it really just
> means letting the logging companies loose to take what they want. And,
> the argument goes, the loggers will only want the biggest, best and
> healthiest that the forest has to offer. Undergrowth and immature trees
> have no commercial value, so will not be a priority; their only removal
> would occur as a result of clear-cutting to get at the "good" trees. If
> Bush's plan somehow provides some guarantees against that general
> scenario, I would appreciate hearing them, because I haven't studied the
> plan.
>
> Robert Bills wrote:
>
> > The San Bernardino mountain fires have not only wiped out nearly a
thousand
> > homes and killed four people, the burn area impacts nearly 50% of the
jeep
> > trails in the San Bernardino National Forest. These trails will soon be
> > officially closed for several years while the forest regenerates, just
like the
> > recently reopened White Mountain trail was closed after the fire there
several
> > years ago.
> >
> > Responsibility for the overgrowth and the infestation of the bark beetle
which
> > exacerbated this inferno lies at the feet of the environmentalists, not
any
> > perceived delay in obtaining federal funds for clearing dead trees.
> >
> > It is well documented that at the early stages of the bark beetle
infestation,
> > which began near Lake Arrowhead (where enviromentalist generated
restrictions
> > on tree cutting increased the forest density from the normal 30-40
trees/acre
> > to 250-300 trees/acre),treatment with insecticides would have been
tremendously
> > effective. However, outside pressure from the Sierra Club, Center for
> > Biological Diversity and other eco-groups, and inside pressure from
enviro-
> > indoctrinated career foresters during the Clinton years, resulted in a
Forest
> > Service prohibition of the use of those insecticides.
> > The environmentalists will never take responsibility for their part in
creating
> > a bark beetle infestation that nearly killed an entire forest and
created so
> > much fuel for the fire. Instead, they will be the ones blaming
President Bush
> > for not providing enoungh money fast enough to cut down the dead trees
before
> > they caught fire.
> >
> > Wongheaded enviromentalism is ultimately the cause of the California
wildfires
> > and a $2 billion loss to the local economy. We simply cannot afford the
> > greenies anymore
> >
> > It is time for every one of us to support the Bush administration's
Healthy
> > Forest Initiative in any way we can. Write to your senators and
representatives
> > in Congress. Enlist the support of your friends and everyone you meet on
the
> > trail. Donate money to the legal defense funds at the Blue Ribbon
Coalition,
> > California Association of 4WD Clubs and CORVA. The survival of the
forests
> > depends upon it, and so does our sport.
> >
> > Robert Bills
> > Orange County CA
> >
> > Jerry Bransford wrote:
> >
> >>It's ridiculous... truly ridiculous... to think California could have
> >>cleaned out those millions of dead trees in the couple of months it was
> >>since the request for funding to do so was sent to Washington. The
outcome
> >>would have been the same had it been approved because of the short time
> >>involved.
> >
> >
> >
>
#78
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: SBDO Forest Fire,Bark Beetles and Jeep Trail Closures
Sorry to butt in here. Robert's post was very eloquent and nails the heart
of the issue. Her in Southwest Colorado we're experiencing all of the same
issues that have affected Southern California and have led to this
catastrophe. We had our disaster last year, the 70,000 acre Missionary Ridge
fire north & east of Durango. While our fire certainly was exacerbated by
the recent drought, the areas that burned were so overgrown as to be
impenetrable. Hunters will tell you that even the game animals are not found
there because the thicket provides no passage or forage.
Indeed, wildland interface issues, the policy of rapid suppression of any
and all fires over the past 100 years, and as were beetle-killed trees,
etc. are all factors, but, the fact remains these are not natural forests
and the conditions under which we currently live require a solution above &
beyond the environmentalists "you may not log, let it burn" mantra. Here in
our area most of the forests where catastrophic fires have run wild were at
one time heavily harvested, and then excessively replanted. The result is a
dense canopy of skinny, unhealthy trees. Removing the little bastards to a
much smaller density will permit the remaining trees to grow rapidly and
will reduce the risk of massive crown fires.
To do this we have to cut the damn trees down, the enviros have used every
legal maneuver they can to prevent this and many of us thus put the problem
squarely at their fanciful, idealist feet.
"Bill Price" <bprice@volcano.net> wrote in message
news:vq7v43i6kmik77@corp.supernews.com...
> I am not an apologist for any extremist, be he environmentalist or
> anything else. You make some good points, and I will accept your
> assertions as facts. In fairness, though, I think you have to include
> century-old policy of stopping every fire in its tracks, no matter how
> remote from human habitation (Were the Smokejumpers ultimately a good
> idea, romantic as they are?). Then, homebuilders have kept encroaching
> on wildlands, bringing their powerlines, cigarettes, lawnmowers, and
> carelessness. Folks who live in forested rural areas have wanted their
> beautiful settings preserved, no matter what.
> I would like to hear your thoughts about the President's forest
> protection plan. The criticism I keep hearing is that it really just
> means letting the logging companies loose to take what they want. And,
> the argument goes, the loggers will only want the biggest, best and
> healthiest that the forest has to offer. Undergrowth and immature trees
> have no commercial value, so will not be a priority; their only removal
> would occur as a result of clear-cutting to get at the "good" trees. If
> Bush's plan somehow provides some guarantees against that general
> scenario, I would appreciate hearing them, because I haven't studied the
> plan.
>
> Robert Bills wrote:
>
> > The San Bernardino mountain fires have not only wiped out nearly a
thousand
> > homes and killed four people, the burn area impacts nearly 50% of the
jeep
> > trails in the San Bernardino National Forest. These trails will soon be
> > officially closed for several years while the forest regenerates, just
like the
> > recently reopened White Mountain trail was closed after the fire there
several
> > years ago.
> >
> > Responsibility for the overgrowth and the infestation of the bark beetle
which
> > exacerbated this inferno lies at the feet of the environmentalists, not
any
> > perceived delay in obtaining federal funds for clearing dead trees.
> >
> > It is well documented that at the early stages of the bark beetle
infestation,
> > which began near Lake Arrowhead (where enviromentalist generated
restrictions
> > on tree cutting increased the forest density from the normal 30-40
trees/acre
> > to 250-300 trees/acre),treatment with insecticides would have been
tremendously
> > effective. However, outside pressure from the Sierra Club, Center for
> > Biological Diversity and other eco-groups, and inside pressure from
enviro-
> > indoctrinated career foresters during the Clinton years, resulted in a
Forest
> > Service prohibition of the use of those insecticides.
> > The environmentalists will never take responsibility for their part in
creating
> > a bark beetle infestation that nearly killed an entire forest and
created so
> > much fuel for the fire. Instead, they will be the ones blaming
President Bush
> > for not providing enoungh money fast enough to cut down the dead trees
before
> > they caught fire.
> >
> > Wongheaded enviromentalism is ultimately the cause of the California
wildfires
> > and a $2 billion loss to the local economy. We simply cannot afford the
> > greenies anymore
> >
> > It is time for every one of us to support the Bush administration's
Healthy
> > Forest Initiative in any way we can. Write to your senators and
representatives
> > in Congress. Enlist the support of your friends and everyone you meet on
the
> > trail. Donate money to the legal defense funds at the Blue Ribbon
Coalition,
> > California Association of 4WD Clubs and CORVA. The survival of the
forests
> > depends upon it, and so does our sport.
> >
> > Robert Bills
> > Orange County CA
> >
> > Jerry Bransford wrote:
> >
> >>It's ridiculous... truly ridiculous... to think California could have
> >>cleaned out those millions of dead trees in the couple of months it was
> >>since the request for funding to do so was sent to Washington. The
outcome
> >>would have been the same had it been approved because of the short time
> >>involved.
> >
> >
> >
>
of the issue. Her in Southwest Colorado we're experiencing all of the same
issues that have affected Southern California and have led to this
catastrophe. We had our disaster last year, the 70,000 acre Missionary Ridge
fire north & east of Durango. While our fire certainly was exacerbated by
the recent drought, the areas that burned were so overgrown as to be
impenetrable. Hunters will tell you that even the game animals are not found
there because the thicket provides no passage or forage.
Indeed, wildland interface issues, the policy of rapid suppression of any
and all fires over the past 100 years, and as were beetle-killed trees,
etc. are all factors, but, the fact remains these are not natural forests
and the conditions under which we currently live require a solution above &
beyond the environmentalists "you may not log, let it burn" mantra. Here in
our area most of the forests where catastrophic fires have run wild were at
one time heavily harvested, and then excessively replanted. The result is a
dense canopy of skinny, unhealthy trees. Removing the little bastards to a
much smaller density will permit the remaining trees to grow rapidly and
will reduce the risk of massive crown fires.
To do this we have to cut the damn trees down, the enviros have used every
legal maneuver they can to prevent this and many of us thus put the problem
squarely at their fanciful, idealist feet.
"Bill Price" <bprice@volcano.net> wrote in message
news:vq7v43i6kmik77@corp.supernews.com...
> I am not an apologist for any extremist, be he environmentalist or
> anything else. You make some good points, and I will accept your
> assertions as facts. In fairness, though, I think you have to include
> century-old policy of stopping every fire in its tracks, no matter how
> remote from human habitation (Were the Smokejumpers ultimately a good
> idea, romantic as they are?). Then, homebuilders have kept encroaching
> on wildlands, bringing their powerlines, cigarettes, lawnmowers, and
> carelessness. Folks who live in forested rural areas have wanted their
> beautiful settings preserved, no matter what.
> I would like to hear your thoughts about the President's forest
> protection plan. The criticism I keep hearing is that it really just
> means letting the logging companies loose to take what they want. And,
> the argument goes, the loggers will only want the biggest, best and
> healthiest that the forest has to offer. Undergrowth and immature trees
> have no commercial value, so will not be a priority; their only removal
> would occur as a result of clear-cutting to get at the "good" trees. If
> Bush's plan somehow provides some guarantees against that general
> scenario, I would appreciate hearing them, because I haven't studied the
> plan.
>
> Robert Bills wrote:
>
> > The San Bernardino mountain fires have not only wiped out nearly a
thousand
> > homes and killed four people, the burn area impacts nearly 50% of the
jeep
> > trails in the San Bernardino National Forest. These trails will soon be
> > officially closed for several years while the forest regenerates, just
like the
> > recently reopened White Mountain trail was closed after the fire there
several
> > years ago.
> >
> > Responsibility for the overgrowth and the infestation of the bark beetle
which
> > exacerbated this inferno lies at the feet of the environmentalists, not
any
> > perceived delay in obtaining federal funds for clearing dead trees.
> >
> > It is well documented that at the early stages of the bark beetle
infestation,
> > which began near Lake Arrowhead (where enviromentalist generated
restrictions
> > on tree cutting increased the forest density from the normal 30-40
trees/acre
> > to 250-300 trees/acre),treatment with insecticides would have been
tremendously
> > effective. However, outside pressure from the Sierra Club, Center for
> > Biological Diversity and other eco-groups, and inside pressure from
enviro-
> > indoctrinated career foresters during the Clinton years, resulted in a
Forest
> > Service prohibition of the use of those insecticides.
> > The environmentalists will never take responsibility for their part in
creating
> > a bark beetle infestation that nearly killed an entire forest and
created so
> > much fuel for the fire. Instead, they will be the ones blaming
President Bush
> > for not providing enoungh money fast enough to cut down the dead trees
before
> > they caught fire.
> >
> > Wongheaded enviromentalism is ultimately the cause of the California
wildfires
> > and a $2 billion loss to the local economy. We simply cannot afford the
> > greenies anymore
> >
> > It is time for every one of us to support the Bush administration's
Healthy
> > Forest Initiative in any way we can. Write to your senators and
representatives
> > in Congress. Enlist the support of your friends and everyone you meet on
the
> > trail. Donate money to the legal defense funds at the Blue Ribbon
Coalition,
> > California Association of 4WD Clubs and CORVA. The survival of the
forests
> > depends upon it, and so does our sport.
> >
> > Robert Bills
> > Orange County CA
> >
> > Jerry Bransford wrote:
> >
> >>It's ridiculous... truly ridiculous... to think California could have
> >>cleaned out those millions of dead trees in the couple of months it was
> >>since the request for funding to do so was sent to Washington. The
outcome
> >>would have been the same had it been approved because of the short time
> >>involved.
> >
> >
> >
>
#79
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: SBDO Forest Fire,Bark Beetles and Jeep Trail Closures
Sorry to butt in here. Robert's post was very eloquent and nails the heart
of the issue. Her in Southwest Colorado we're experiencing all of the same
issues that have affected Southern California and have led to this
catastrophe. We had our disaster last year, the 70,000 acre Missionary Ridge
fire north & east of Durango. While our fire certainly was exacerbated by
the recent drought, the areas that burned were so overgrown as to be
impenetrable. Hunters will tell you that even the game animals are not found
there because the thicket provides no passage or forage.
Indeed, wildland interface issues, the policy of rapid suppression of any
and all fires over the past 100 years, and as were beetle-killed trees,
etc. are all factors, but, the fact remains these are not natural forests
and the conditions under which we currently live require a solution above &
beyond the environmentalists "you may not log, let it burn" mantra. Here in
our area most of the forests where catastrophic fires have run wild were at
one time heavily harvested, and then excessively replanted. The result is a
dense canopy of skinny, unhealthy trees. Removing the little bastards to a
much smaller density will permit the remaining trees to grow rapidly and
will reduce the risk of massive crown fires.
To do this we have to cut the damn trees down, the enviros have used every
legal maneuver they can to prevent this and many of us thus put the problem
squarely at their fanciful, idealist feet.
"Bill Price" <bprice@volcano.net> wrote in message
news:vq7v43i6kmik77@corp.supernews.com...
> I am not an apologist for any extremist, be he environmentalist or
> anything else. You make some good points, and I will accept your
> assertions as facts. In fairness, though, I think you have to include
> century-old policy of stopping every fire in its tracks, no matter how
> remote from human habitation (Were the Smokejumpers ultimately a good
> idea, romantic as they are?). Then, homebuilders have kept encroaching
> on wildlands, bringing their powerlines, cigarettes, lawnmowers, and
> carelessness. Folks who live in forested rural areas have wanted their
> beautiful settings preserved, no matter what.
> I would like to hear your thoughts about the President's forest
> protection plan. The criticism I keep hearing is that it really just
> means letting the logging companies loose to take what they want. And,
> the argument goes, the loggers will only want the biggest, best and
> healthiest that the forest has to offer. Undergrowth and immature trees
> have no commercial value, so will not be a priority; their only removal
> would occur as a result of clear-cutting to get at the "good" trees. If
> Bush's plan somehow provides some guarantees against that general
> scenario, I would appreciate hearing them, because I haven't studied the
> plan.
>
> Robert Bills wrote:
>
> > The San Bernardino mountain fires have not only wiped out nearly a
thousand
> > homes and killed four people, the burn area impacts nearly 50% of the
jeep
> > trails in the San Bernardino National Forest. These trails will soon be
> > officially closed for several years while the forest regenerates, just
like the
> > recently reopened White Mountain trail was closed after the fire there
several
> > years ago.
> >
> > Responsibility for the overgrowth and the infestation of the bark beetle
which
> > exacerbated this inferno lies at the feet of the environmentalists, not
any
> > perceived delay in obtaining federal funds for clearing dead trees.
> >
> > It is well documented that at the early stages of the bark beetle
infestation,
> > which began near Lake Arrowhead (where enviromentalist generated
restrictions
> > on tree cutting increased the forest density from the normal 30-40
trees/acre
> > to 250-300 trees/acre),treatment with insecticides would have been
tremendously
> > effective. However, outside pressure from the Sierra Club, Center for
> > Biological Diversity and other eco-groups, and inside pressure from
enviro-
> > indoctrinated career foresters during the Clinton years, resulted in a
Forest
> > Service prohibition of the use of those insecticides.
> > The environmentalists will never take responsibility for their part in
creating
> > a bark beetle infestation that nearly killed an entire forest and
created so
> > much fuel for the fire. Instead, they will be the ones blaming
President Bush
> > for not providing enoungh money fast enough to cut down the dead trees
before
> > they caught fire.
> >
> > Wongheaded enviromentalism is ultimately the cause of the California
wildfires
> > and a $2 billion loss to the local economy. We simply cannot afford the
> > greenies anymore
> >
> > It is time for every one of us to support the Bush administration's
Healthy
> > Forest Initiative in any way we can. Write to your senators and
representatives
> > in Congress. Enlist the support of your friends and everyone you meet on
the
> > trail. Donate money to the legal defense funds at the Blue Ribbon
Coalition,
> > California Association of 4WD Clubs and CORVA. The survival of the
forests
> > depends upon it, and so does our sport.
> >
> > Robert Bills
> > Orange County CA
> >
> > Jerry Bransford wrote:
> >
> >>It's ridiculous... truly ridiculous... to think California could have
> >>cleaned out those millions of dead trees in the couple of months it was
> >>since the request for funding to do so was sent to Washington. The
outcome
> >>would have been the same had it been approved because of the short time
> >>involved.
> >
> >
> >
>
of the issue. Her in Southwest Colorado we're experiencing all of the same
issues that have affected Southern California and have led to this
catastrophe. We had our disaster last year, the 70,000 acre Missionary Ridge
fire north & east of Durango. While our fire certainly was exacerbated by
the recent drought, the areas that burned were so overgrown as to be
impenetrable. Hunters will tell you that even the game animals are not found
there because the thicket provides no passage or forage.
Indeed, wildland interface issues, the policy of rapid suppression of any
and all fires over the past 100 years, and as were beetle-killed trees,
etc. are all factors, but, the fact remains these are not natural forests
and the conditions under which we currently live require a solution above &
beyond the environmentalists "you may not log, let it burn" mantra. Here in
our area most of the forests where catastrophic fires have run wild were at
one time heavily harvested, and then excessively replanted. The result is a
dense canopy of skinny, unhealthy trees. Removing the little bastards to a
much smaller density will permit the remaining trees to grow rapidly and
will reduce the risk of massive crown fires.
To do this we have to cut the damn trees down, the enviros have used every
legal maneuver they can to prevent this and many of us thus put the problem
squarely at their fanciful, idealist feet.
"Bill Price" <bprice@volcano.net> wrote in message
news:vq7v43i6kmik77@corp.supernews.com...
> I am not an apologist for any extremist, be he environmentalist or
> anything else. You make some good points, and I will accept your
> assertions as facts. In fairness, though, I think you have to include
> century-old policy of stopping every fire in its tracks, no matter how
> remote from human habitation (Were the Smokejumpers ultimately a good
> idea, romantic as they are?). Then, homebuilders have kept encroaching
> on wildlands, bringing their powerlines, cigarettes, lawnmowers, and
> carelessness. Folks who live in forested rural areas have wanted their
> beautiful settings preserved, no matter what.
> I would like to hear your thoughts about the President's forest
> protection plan. The criticism I keep hearing is that it really just
> means letting the logging companies loose to take what they want. And,
> the argument goes, the loggers will only want the biggest, best and
> healthiest that the forest has to offer. Undergrowth and immature trees
> have no commercial value, so will not be a priority; their only removal
> would occur as a result of clear-cutting to get at the "good" trees. If
> Bush's plan somehow provides some guarantees against that general
> scenario, I would appreciate hearing them, because I haven't studied the
> plan.
>
> Robert Bills wrote:
>
> > The San Bernardino mountain fires have not only wiped out nearly a
thousand
> > homes and killed four people, the burn area impacts nearly 50% of the
jeep
> > trails in the San Bernardino National Forest. These trails will soon be
> > officially closed for several years while the forest regenerates, just
like the
> > recently reopened White Mountain trail was closed after the fire there
several
> > years ago.
> >
> > Responsibility for the overgrowth and the infestation of the bark beetle
which
> > exacerbated this inferno lies at the feet of the environmentalists, not
any
> > perceived delay in obtaining federal funds for clearing dead trees.
> >
> > It is well documented that at the early stages of the bark beetle
infestation,
> > which began near Lake Arrowhead (where enviromentalist generated
restrictions
> > on tree cutting increased the forest density from the normal 30-40
trees/acre
> > to 250-300 trees/acre),treatment with insecticides would have been
tremendously
> > effective. However, outside pressure from the Sierra Club, Center for
> > Biological Diversity and other eco-groups, and inside pressure from
enviro-
> > indoctrinated career foresters during the Clinton years, resulted in a
Forest
> > Service prohibition of the use of those insecticides.
> > The environmentalists will never take responsibility for their part in
creating
> > a bark beetle infestation that nearly killed an entire forest and
created so
> > much fuel for the fire. Instead, they will be the ones blaming
President Bush
> > for not providing enoungh money fast enough to cut down the dead trees
before
> > they caught fire.
> >
> > Wongheaded enviromentalism is ultimately the cause of the California
wildfires
> > and a $2 billion loss to the local economy. We simply cannot afford the
> > greenies anymore
> >
> > It is time for every one of us to support the Bush administration's
Healthy
> > Forest Initiative in any way we can. Write to your senators and
representatives
> > in Congress. Enlist the support of your friends and everyone you meet on
the
> > trail. Donate money to the legal defense funds at the Blue Ribbon
Coalition,
> > California Association of 4WD Clubs and CORVA. The survival of the
forests
> > depends upon it, and so does our sport.
> >
> > Robert Bills
> > Orange County CA
> >
> > Jerry Bransford wrote:
> >
> >>It's ridiculous... truly ridiculous... to think California could have
> >>cleaned out those millions of dead trees in the couple of months it was
> >>since the request for funding to do so was sent to Washington. The
outcome
> >>would have been the same had it been approved because of the short time
> >>involved.
> >
> >
> >
>
#80
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: SBDO Forest Fire,Bark Beetles and Jeep Trail Closures
Indeed, the goal of most environmental groups is the complete destruction of
the logging industry. That's why they fight every logging proposal so
vigorously, even violently. In the process they're killing the very forests
they say they're trying to protect. In short, they're getting a very well
deserved comeuppance. The only good that will come of the recent disasters
is that common sense MAY be allowed to run the forests again, not this bunch
of extremists.
After our fire here in Durango last year the community is organizing to
reduce hazard fuels and thin private property adjacent to risk-prone areas
of the National Forest. To our shock we've learned there is not enough
logging infrastructure left in the area to accommodate even a fraction of
what needs to be done on private land, much less the National Forests & BLM
lands. All but a few of the logging operations that for years worked in this
area are gone, just a few mom 7 pop mills remain and their capabilities are
miniscule. As a result we're having to basically beg people to handle the
process themselves, and you know what that's going to bring.
For anyone who's interested check out the numerous national Firewise web
sites, which detail the problem and solutions. This is a mess and it won;t
be solved by more obstructionism from the radical greens. In fact, they
ought to be dragged into court for damages, but don't get me started on
this!
"Hackle" <nrlystk@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:xcVob.66$9D6.45229@news.uswest.net...
> Clear cutting has not been in the logging business for a long time.
They
> also clear out the under brush, dead trees and thin while working the
area.
> I can show you areas in AZ that have been logged years ago next to areas
> that have not been logged for a long time if ever. The logged area will
look
> more like old growth then the older growth. You are correct in that the
> fires used to clear an area and leave the big trees and thin the forest.
To
> me if we can log it and help our economy and the results are pretty much
the
> same I would rather see logging then smoke.
> The anti-recreationists have called for nothing over a 13" log to be
> cut. Did you even wonder why? This is the point where logging makes zero
> money. If they hold the line at 13" it about guarantees no cutting will
> happen as the Forest Service and Tax payers usually do not want to pay for
> the clearing. JMHO Jim F.
>
> --
> "I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a member" Groucho
> Marx
> Member of the original dirty half dozen.
> http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/
> "Bill Price" <bprice@volcano.net> wrote in message
> news:vq7v43i6kmik77@corp.supernews.com...
> > I am not an apologist for any extremist, be he environmentalist or
> > anything else. You make some good points, and I will accept your
> > assertions as facts. In fairness, though, I think you have to include
> > century-old policy of stopping every fire in its tracks, no matter how
> > remote from human habitation (Were the Smokejumpers ultimately a good
> > idea, romantic as they are?). Then, homebuilders have kept encroaching
> > on wildlands, bringing their powerlines, cigarettes, lawnmowers, and
> > carelessness. Folks who live in forested rural areas have wanted their
> > beautiful settings preserved, no matter what.
> > I would like to hear your thoughts about the President's forest
> > protection plan. The criticism I keep hearing is that it really just
> > means letting the logging companies loose to take what they want. And,
> > the argument goes, the loggers will only want the biggest, best and
> > healthiest that the forest has to offer. Undergrowth and immature trees
> > have no commercial value, so will not be a priority; their only removal
> > would occur as a result of clear-cutting to get at the "good" trees. If
> > Bush's plan somehow provides some guarantees against that general
> > scenario, I would appreciate hearing them, because I haven't studied the
> > plan.
> >
> > Robert Bills wrote:
> >
> > > The San Bernardino mountain fires have not only wiped out nearly a
> thousand
> > > homes and killed four people, the burn area impacts nearly 50% of the
> jeep
> > > trails in the San Bernardino National Forest. These trails will soon
be
> > > officially closed for several years while the forest regenerates, just
> like the
> > > recently reopened White Mountain trail was closed after the fire there
> several
> > > years ago.
> > >
> > > Responsibility for the overgrowth and the infestation of the bark
beetle
> which
> > > exacerbated this inferno lies at the feet of the environmentalists,
not
> any
> > > perceived delay in obtaining federal funds for clearing dead trees.
> > >
> > > It is well documented that at the early stages of the bark beetle
> infestation,
> > > which began near Lake Arrowhead (where enviromentalist generated
> restrictions
> > > on tree cutting increased the forest density from the normal 30-40
> trees/acre
> > > to 250-300 trees/acre),treatment with insecticides would have been
> tremendously
> > > effective. However, outside pressure from the Sierra Club, Center for
> > > Biological Diversity and other eco-groups, and inside pressure from
> enviro-
> > > indoctrinated career foresters during the Clinton years, resulted in a
> Forest
> > > Service prohibition of the use of those insecticides.
> > > The environmentalists will never take responsibility for their part in
> creating
> > > a bark beetle infestation that nearly killed an entire forest and
> created so
> > > much fuel for the fire. Instead, they will be the ones blaming
> President Bush
> > > for not providing enoungh money fast enough to cut down the dead trees
> before
> > > they caught fire.
> > >
> > > Wongheaded enviromentalism is ultimately the cause of the California
> wildfires
> > > and a $2 billion loss to the local economy. We simply cannot afford
the
> > > greenies anymore
> > >
> > > It is time for every one of us to support the Bush administration's
> Healthy
> > > Forest Initiative in any way we can. Write to your senators and
> representatives
> > > in Congress. Enlist the support of your friends and everyone you meet
on
> the
> > > trail. Donate money to the legal defense funds at the Blue Ribbon
> Coalition,
> > > California Association of 4WD Clubs and CORVA. The survival of the
> forests
> > > depends upon it, and so does our sport.
> > >
> > > Robert Bills
> > > Orange County CA
> > >
> > > Jerry Bransford wrote:
> > >
> > >>It's ridiculous... truly ridiculous... to think California could have
> > >>cleaned out those millions of dead trees in the couple of months it
was
> > >>since the request for funding to do so was sent to Washington. The
> outcome
> > >>would have been the same had it been approved because of the short
time
> > >>involved.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
the logging industry. That's why they fight every logging proposal so
vigorously, even violently. In the process they're killing the very forests
they say they're trying to protect. In short, they're getting a very well
deserved comeuppance. The only good that will come of the recent disasters
is that common sense MAY be allowed to run the forests again, not this bunch
of extremists.
After our fire here in Durango last year the community is organizing to
reduce hazard fuels and thin private property adjacent to risk-prone areas
of the National Forest. To our shock we've learned there is not enough
logging infrastructure left in the area to accommodate even a fraction of
what needs to be done on private land, much less the National Forests & BLM
lands. All but a few of the logging operations that for years worked in this
area are gone, just a few mom 7 pop mills remain and their capabilities are
miniscule. As a result we're having to basically beg people to handle the
process themselves, and you know what that's going to bring.
For anyone who's interested check out the numerous national Firewise web
sites, which detail the problem and solutions. This is a mess and it won;t
be solved by more obstructionism from the radical greens. In fact, they
ought to be dragged into court for damages, but don't get me started on
this!
"Hackle" <nrlystk@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:xcVob.66$9D6.45229@news.uswest.net...
> Clear cutting has not been in the logging business for a long time.
They
> also clear out the under brush, dead trees and thin while working the
area.
> I can show you areas in AZ that have been logged years ago next to areas
> that have not been logged for a long time if ever. The logged area will
look
> more like old growth then the older growth. You are correct in that the
> fires used to clear an area and leave the big trees and thin the forest.
To
> me if we can log it and help our economy and the results are pretty much
the
> same I would rather see logging then smoke.
> The anti-recreationists have called for nothing over a 13" log to be
> cut. Did you even wonder why? This is the point where logging makes zero
> money. If they hold the line at 13" it about guarantees no cutting will
> happen as the Forest Service and Tax payers usually do not want to pay for
> the clearing. JMHO Jim F.
>
> --
> "I refuse to belong to any group that would have me as a member" Groucho
> Marx
> Member of the original dirty half dozen.
> http://www.users.qwest.net/~jkflorence/
> "Bill Price" <bprice@volcano.net> wrote in message
> news:vq7v43i6kmik77@corp.supernews.com...
> > I am not an apologist for any extremist, be he environmentalist or
> > anything else. You make some good points, and I will accept your
> > assertions as facts. In fairness, though, I think you have to include
> > century-old policy of stopping every fire in its tracks, no matter how
> > remote from human habitation (Were the Smokejumpers ultimately a good
> > idea, romantic as they are?). Then, homebuilders have kept encroaching
> > on wildlands, bringing their powerlines, cigarettes, lawnmowers, and
> > carelessness. Folks who live in forested rural areas have wanted their
> > beautiful settings preserved, no matter what.
> > I would like to hear your thoughts about the President's forest
> > protection plan. The criticism I keep hearing is that it really just
> > means letting the logging companies loose to take what they want. And,
> > the argument goes, the loggers will only want the biggest, best and
> > healthiest that the forest has to offer. Undergrowth and immature trees
> > have no commercial value, so will not be a priority; their only removal
> > would occur as a result of clear-cutting to get at the "good" trees. If
> > Bush's plan somehow provides some guarantees against that general
> > scenario, I would appreciate hearing them, because I haven't studied the
> > plan.
> >
> > Robert Bills wrote:
> >
> > > The San Bernardino mountain fires have not only wiped out nearly a
> thousand
> > > homes and killed four people, the burn area impacts nearly 50% of the
> jeep
> > > trails in the San Bernardino National Forest. These trails will soon
be
> > > officially closed for several years while the forest regenerates, just
> like the
> > > recently reopened White Mountain trail was closed after the fire there
> several
> > > years ago.
> > >
> > > Responsibility for the overgrowth and the infestation of the bark
beetle
> which
> > > exacerbated this inferno lies at the feet of the environmentalists,
not
> any
> > > perceived delay in obtaining federal funds for clearing dead trees.
> > >
> > > It is well documented that at the early stages of the bark beetle
> infestation,
> > > which began near Lake Arrowhead (where enviromentalist generated
> restrictions
> > > on tree cutting increased the forest density from the normal 30-40
> trees/acre
> > > to 250-300 trees/acre),treatment with insecticides would have been
> tremendously
> > > effective. However, outside pressure from the Sierra Club, Center for
> > > Biological Diversity and other eco-groups, and inside pressure from
> enviro-
> > > indoctrinated career foresters during the Clinton years, resulted in a
> Forest
> > > Service prohibition of the use of those insecticides.
> > > The environmentalists will never take responsibility for their part in
> creating
> > > a bark beetle infestation that nearly killed an entire forest and
> created so
> > > much fuel for the fire. Instead, they will be the ones blaming
> President Bush
> > > for not providing enoungh money fast enough to cut down the dead trees
> before
> > > they caught fire.
> > >
> > > Wongheaded enviromentalism is ultimately the cause of the California
> wildfires
> > > and a $2 billion loss to the local economy. We simply cannot afford
the
> > > greenies anymore
> > >
> > > It is time for every one of us to support the Bush administration's
> Healthy
> > > Forest Initiative in any way we can. Write to your senators and
> representatives
> > > in Congress. Enlist the support of your friends and everyone you meet
on
> the
> > > trail. Donate money to the legal defense funds at the Blue Ribbon
> Coalition,
> > > California Association of 4WD Clubs and CORVA. The survival of the
> forests
> > > depends upon it, and so does our sport.
> > >
> > > Robert Bills
> > > Orange County CA
> > >
> > > Jerry Bransford wrote:
> > >
> > >>It's ridiculous... truly ridiculous... to think California could have
> > >>cleaned out those millions of dead trees in the couple of months it
was
> > >>since the request for funding to do so was sent to Washington. The
> outcome
> > >>would have been the same had it been approved because of the short
time
> > >>involved.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>