How stupid is this moron?
- Thread starter Marine03
- Start date
Why so mad? Own the fact you voted for perhaps the dumbest POTUS that’s ever been in office, thanks in part to dumbasses such as yourself.
He’s blaming the mismanagement of the forest. But you know that and are just trying to score points
Fire prevention is poor. That's for two reasons:
1. California, like a lot of other places, is beautiful and people want to live in that natural beauty. Unfortunately, nature is not kind, and living in an ecosystem that has evolved to use fire as a tool has certain risks. One of those risks is we cannot do much to selectively burn next to houses, and since we cannot do that nature will eventually do the job for us. And you can properly landscape all you want, and build your home to a certain standard, but when fires are being driven by the 50 mph winds you are in deep shit anyway. Bottom line: if you live in a wildland-urban interface, you risk getting burned.
2. Funding. Trump wants areas in the hundreds of thousands of acres 100% properly fire managed? Go to Congress and ask for the money, because that shit is not going to be cheap. I checked: 60% of California forest is managed by the federal government. Buck up,motherfvcker.
Why are the fires so bad? Drought. At a certain point the wildlands are a tinderbox, and there isn't a damn thing you can do but a rain-dance.
Trump is being an idiot. Nothing new.
1. California, like a lot of other places, is beautiful and people want to live in that natural beauty. Unfortunately, nature is not kind, and living in an ecosystem that has evolved to use fire as a tool has certain risks. One of those risks is we cannot do much to selectively burn next to houses, and since we cannot do that nature will eventually do the job for us. And you can properly landscape all you want, and build your home to a certain standard, but when fires are being driven by the 50 mph winds you are in deep shit anyway. Bottom line: if you live in a wildland-urban interface, you risk getting burned.
2. Funding. Trump wants areas in the hundreds of thousands of acres 100% properly fire managed? Go to Congress and ask for the money, because that shit is not going to be cheap. I checked: 60% of California forest is managed by the federal government. Buck up,motherfvcker.
Why are the fires so bad? Drought. At a certain point the wildlands are a tinderbox, and there isn't a damn thing you can do but a rain-dance.
Trump is being an idiot. Nothing new.
He'd be better off to blame allowing housing to be built in fire-prone areas, but aggressive housing planning is socialist, you know.
I actually know people in the forest industry that agree with Trump and what he said.
Mismanagement of the forest by California.
Mismanagement of the forest by California.
57.5% of California forest is managed by the federal government. That would be the government under cheetos, regardless of what the people you know have to say about it.
Brian Rice, president of the California Professional Firefighters, described Trump's assertion about the state's forest management practices as "dangerously wrong," noting that 60 percent of California forests are directly managed by the federal government, which has reduced spending on forestry in recent years. The Los Angeles Timesexplained that the Camp Fire was fueled not by over-dense timber, but dry grass amid sparse pine and oak woodlands which previously burned just 10 years ago.
But of course you can take trumps word for it like you do all the time. Trumptards can’t think for themselves.
But of course you can take trumps word for it like you do all the time. Trumptards can’t think for themselves.
Uh huh. Who do you know in the Western forest forestry? You know any Western FFT2's or 1's? I know a few.
Who was responsible for the 2016 GSM fires? Tennessee?
Your leader is running his cocksucker because CA is Dem. Period. 60% of CA forest land is fed. Buck up, motherfvcker.
It's dry and the wind is kicking. You get a fire in the those conditions and the trees explode. Trump has zero clue about anything but golf courses...and I bet he couldn't be greenskeeper, either.
**** California, and **** fags like raoul and bucky, as well as that bisexual bet-welching rifle.
I've gotten to the point where I don't care at all when I see destruction in California. With that said, I admittedly know nothing about forest fire prevention, but, since it seems to be a major issue at least once a year, why don't you put in place some type of permanent breaks? I understand that high winds cause fire to jump breaks, just seems like people who really understand these fires, could devise a set of permanent breaks to allow effective containment and ease the fire fighting process.
Yes, very expensive to construct, but how expensive compared to the billions in damage each fire now causes?
Yes, very expensive to construct, but how expensive compared to the billions in damage each fire now causes?
Trump's not entirely wrong. Nor is it entirely California's fault. Years and years of fire suppression, coupled with poor forestry management (doing nothing about e excessive undergrowth, failing to create permanent trenches/firebreaks near residential areas, etc.) All contribute to the magnitude of fires we see in the West. Hell, we were talking about this in my environmental science class at Marshall 20 years ago.
well since you know nothing about forest fire prevention you should wait for Cuntry to weigh in on the subject. I'm sure he doesn't know anything either but will be more than happy to confidently share is lack of knowledge.
No, he really doesn't. He truly believes what he stated. That's what you're dealing with.
It's where people build their homes.
. The state’s urban sprawl and encroachment into formerly undeveloped land is the real catalyst, though, said former Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District chief Kurt Henke.
A recent Villanova University study found there are about 7 million homes in fire-prone areas in the West, more than 10 times the 600,000 or so that were present in 1940. That includes nearly 2,000 homes in Folsom and about 4,600 in the greater Sacramento region. Environmental scientists believe 1.2 million more could be built in the highest-risk areasstatewide between 2000 and 2050.
The same bucolic landscape that earned Paradise its name can magnify the effects of natural disasters, Cal Fire spokesman Rick Carhart said. Paradise is built atop a ridge, with canyons descending on either side. Carhart said fires that reach the bottom of canyons have every intention of climbing back to the top. Those kinds of geographic features are present in many foothill towns, where development continues to push dense housing deeper into rural areas.
The infrastructure necessary for housing also brings dangers. Overhead power lines have been cited or suspected as the cause of some of California’s most deadly wildfires, prompting PG&E to try pre-emptive outages when high winds kick in. At this point, Henke said, house hunters should view future blazes as inevitable when buying in places such as the Sierra Nevada foothills and Central Valley.
“In these places, it’s not if a fire is going to happen, it’s when it’s going to happen,” said Henke, who now consults with fire departments. “We’re basically building structures right in the path of firestorms. There’s just some places a subdivison shouldn’t be built.”
Fire experts use the term wildlife urban interface, or WUI, to refer to the area where human building meets or intermingles with undeveloped natural land. California’s WUI zone grew 20 percent from 1990 to 2010, according to U.S. Forest Service data.
Paved streets have replaced underbrush, but most developments on natural land keep some native trees and other vegetation intact, said Keith Gillies, dean emeritus and a current professor of forest economics in UC Berkeley’s College of Natural Resources.
When fires get large enough that they “crown” — spread from treetop to treetop — they’ll move nearly as quickly in a vegetation-rich residential neighborhood as they would in the woods, Gillies said.
“We have a lot of people living in ‘urban forest’ conditions,” Gillies said. “It’s sort of a mixed bag. If you have a forest canopy and put homes under it and roads under it, that can help (limit the fire) ... but in an extreme fire, homes become fuel themselves.”
State officials have taken steps to limit people’s exposure to wildfires in recent years.
Cal Fire requires new developments near wilderness areas to be built out of fire-resistant materials and requires owners to keep easily combustible vegetation at least 100 feet from walls. The state budget funded “pre-positioning,” or mobilizing strike teams to vulnerable locations before a wildfire ignites, for the first time in 2018.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/fires/article221385910.html
How many are prone to flooding in West Virginia and West Virginians just keep rebuilding in the food plain. Really no different.
I don't disagree with any of that. Doesn't change the fact that poor forestry management at the state and federal levels are also contributors.
Ok, what if you ran a water line system in the most fire prone areas and construct a line of 100' towers along that water line. Create a 100 yard wide cleared area and when fire approaches the break you turn on the "sprinkler system". It would carry the water in the same direction as the wind and embers would be traveling, protecting the integrity of the break. You could build out a grid over time for further protection.
Can’t do that because the water might affect the three eyed newt
I cannot even begin to image how much this would cost. Just California is huge, and it seems to me most of the state, besides the desert, is fire prone. Add in a bunch of other western states....wow.
When I lived in the Elkins region, there was a reason I lived on a mountaintop and not by a stream or river.
There are actually a lot of properties in that region that were bought out by the federal government and not rebuilt on.
I wouldn't be surprised to find a three-eyed newt on the old Rocky Mountain Arsenal project or the Hanford site.
Well, California had $2.5 billion in wildfire damage last year, not including the cost to fight them. So far this year they are at $845 million and, obviously, counting.
The cost to run a water line is about a half million per mile, so $50 million per 100 miles plus the cost of the towers and keeping the break cleared. If you are saving even 25% of the damage cost you can fund a lot of miles of water lines.
Why don't you guys eat a bag of dicks. They are not managing the Forrest correctly. All in the name of save da Earf and tree hugging. You have to limit growth and have controlled burns as well. So, yehh suck one. They don't have a healthy forest situation going on. Because they are not managing it correctly.
Exactly what foresters have told me. You have to manage the damn forest.
----------------------------------------------
Experts point to a century’s worth of fire suppression as one factor in allowing forests to build up a dangerous amount of flammable material. Tom Bonnicksen, a retired forestry and wildfire expert who spent years researching fires in California, told The Chronicle that forests around Paradise contained about 2,000 trees per acre when he studied the area about a decade ago. A healthy forest should have between 60 and 80 trees per acre, he said.
Exactly what foresters have told me. You have to manage the damn forest.
----------------------------------------------
Experts point to a century’s worth of fire suppression as one factor in allowing forests to build up a dangerous amount of flammable material. Tom Bonnicksen, a retired forestry and wildfire expert who spent years researching fires in California, told The Chronicle that forests around Paradise contained about 2,000 trees per acre when he studied the area about a decade ago. A healthy forest should have between 60 and 80 trees per acre, he said.
Similar threads
