This hasn't been in the spotlight for a while but check this out. Who's to blaim for forest fires? Give up
Environmentalists
They don't let loggers cut down the trees, so there are fires.
Our president's solution is to let logging companies clear out the "brush"
This had me laughing for weeks, if private companies go in, they're not going to be interested in brush.

During the summer when the wild fires rage, I have to laugh. Not at the hardship people will suffer or the potential life lost, but more at the fact that this is such a big issue year after year.

It seems fairly straight forward to me.

During prior administrations, we decreased our forest maintainance funding. We no longer went in and picked up all of the dead branches and brush. Add that to a near-nationwide drought, and we now experience larger, more frequent forest fires.

So now we must make a choice. Do we clean up the forests, removing brush and dead branches, or do we assume the risk of not doing so?

I think we should either clean up, or let the fires burn themselves out. I really don't care which. Yeah, the forests are nice, but they'll grow back.

The issue last summer was pure politics. Unfortunately, the Democrats are better at politics then Republicans.

The Democrats wanted to make the President out to be an anti-environment "big-log" spokesman. For the most part, they seem to have succeeded. This issue was really pushed while the President was on his "working vacation", so it was also used to show he was lazy, and he was a slacker.

President Bush's response was great, though. What did he do on his vacation? Cleared brush out of his own forest! I found that very funny.

I probably over-analyzed this, huh?

Mike

I'd say democrats were right to call Bush's proposal to let logging companies "clear brush" what it was. A Joke.

turnea, what do you mean by calling it a joke?

President Bush's Initiative for Wildfire Prevention is located here, and a full PDF version (22 pages) is here.

It's all very reasonable, and very logical.

Please check it out.

Mike

I was refering to his proposal to let logging companies "thin" the forest. He presented his proposal as if they would clear brush in order to save old growth trees (which are resilient to fire). It stands to reason that this is not the objective of logging companies at all. It's simply not cost effective. They would only be interested if they were allowed to cut larger trees which of course would be bad for our nation's forests. I agree prescribed burns are in order, but the older trees should not be harmed, this defeats the purpose regarding the environment.

So what happened to the burning forests before we were here to put them out?

I propose we create giant coastal curtains to keep out the hurricanes if they come near land. We also need to work on maintaining a constant ocean tempurature for preventative reasons.

Sounds as ridiculous as trying to control nature, huh?

Agreed, but some people insist on living so close to the forest, that forest fires put them in danger. The government's job is to protect them, even from natural disasters.

Really? It's the government's JOB to protect us from our choices of where we live? Interesting. I'll have to mull that one over for awhile.

My family lives in Pine, Colorado, and they were evacuated three times this year because of the wildfires. It's a risk that people who decide to move to dense forested areas take, and they know that. Most people who live in areas that are at risk take the proper precautions against forest fires by clearing the brush off of their own land and not setting open fires. The problem is that the weekend warriors that visit those areas for recreational purposes are not always conscious of the potential risks involved in lighting a fire, and since they don't live there, they don't care as much. What's really sad is that one of the big fires that occured this year was actually started by an employee of the Forest service. I just can't work that one out.

It may be of some interest to you concerning what we down here call 'bush fires' (no pun intended).

In Western Australia we have, for many years, had a policy of contolled back burning and renewing firebreaks before summer sets in.
These are done by experts from the land management mob.
We have had very few serious bush fires for many years and those that we have had are normally controlled without loss of property.

In the eastern states the environmentalist put a stop to this practice because of smoke in the air and hence they had the devasting fires around Sydney that destroyed hundreds of homes, and caused loss of life.
They are now passing legislation to be able to back burn.

During summer here the smell of Eucalypt is in the air and is a bomb just waiting to go off.

Regards.....Alan