Post Reply
7 years ago  ::  Oct 27, 2007 - 11:24PM #1
Bodean
Posts: 9,698
There is a lot of debate about the wild fires.

In our changing world, we need to think of ways to protect our natural resources.  But as always, the solutions are never clear cut.

While in another time and place, 300,000 acres burned would have been just a blip on the forest radar screen.  But, with today, many of our forest have been harvested to make way for farm lands and urban development.  Thus, 300,000 acres burned today is a moe significant impact.

Just fishing for thoughts on what people think are management strategies that can both benefit our forest and our existence.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 28, 2007 - 9:47AM #2
egon
Posts: 3
I think that more controlled burns would keep the fires that occcur unplanned more contollable. Build up of dead matter in the forest is its worst enemy.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 28, 2007 - 9:44PM #3
Bodean
Posts: 9,698
[QUOTE=egon;27757]I think that more controlled burns would keep the fires that occcur unplanned more contollable. Build up of dead matter in the forest is its worst enemy.[/QUOTE]

Egon ...

Funny you should mention such!  The Fed actually passed law to do it, but our friendly environmentalists are blocking such action.

Can't imagine why ... can you??
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2007 - 4:15PM #4
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301
Imagination is maybe your, but not knowledge's best friend, Bo.

Why not do some research and report back here why they blocked it,
and why they could be successful in doing so.

I really am curious, as to me it sounds very environmentalist to let
nature have its yearly bite on the foirest, yet keep the big picture intact
-- just as you suggest, egon.
tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2007 - 4:50PM #5
Bodean
Posts: 9,698
[QUOTE=CharikIeia;30820]Imagination is maybe your, but not knowledge's best friend, Bo.

Why not do some research and report back here why they blocked it,
and why they could be successful in doing so.

I really am curious, as to me it sounds very environmentalist to let
nature have its yearly bite on the foirest, yet keep the big picture intact
-- just as you suggest, egon.[/QUOTE]

Yes Charik ... I'm a ware of the reasoning.

The given reasoning is that it would suspend judicial review of certain projects.

The Fear, is that it is a gift to the logging industry and they would clear cut the National Forest.

The motive ... kinda hard to say.  Given the history of the greens, it is likely tied up in their anti-corporate nature.  They do not want logger 1 setting foot on these forest.

Granted, I support the greens in their concern for clear cutting old forest.  But this is something that could have been negotiated out.  But the Greens did not put up any suggestion of any type of negotiation along these lines.

Bush as well, should have taken into account their concerns, as they are valid.  The real boogy bear here, as usual, is politics.  The US is so divided that we can't come to the table and discuss anything.  It is either/or.

Thus, in this case, the forest burned.

Oh Well.

Good thing all the CO2 emitted in the air has no affect on Global Climate.  :p
Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook