Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, November 20, 2018

Obscured amid the chaos of California's latest wildfire outbreak is a striking sign of change that may help curtail future devastating infernos. After decades of butting heads, some environmentalists and logging supporters have largely come to agreement that forests need to be logged to be saved.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Do you actualy think taking the fuel away will have an effect on a fire? HA!!!

#1 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-11-20 11:30 AM | Reply

No, raking will be enough.

#2 | Posted by bored at 2018-11-20 12:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

How about increasing the resources for controlled burns (which were blocked on Federal lands for the past 40+ years by litigation that was only recently settled) to allow the clearance of deadwood and renew the forests first?

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-11-20 12:10 PM | Reply

Logging is good forest management. Every land owner knows this.
Plus, you can make a pretty penny doing it, depending on your trees and accessibility.

#4 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-11-20 12:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#4

Agreed, but as an avid backpacker throughout the National Forests on the West Coast, I have seen first hand how much deadwood and overgrowth that has dried out and died there is (in some forests in the Northern Sierras it is over 6 feet high in areas) and almost every Forest Service employee that I have spoken with over the past 30 years has said that there is too much for anyone to remove by hand, it has to be burned out.

It is my understanding that once that is done, then the forests can be safely and efficiently thinned.

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-11-20 12:36 PM | Reply

Logging is good forest management. Every land owner knows this.
Plus, you can make a pretty penny doing it, depending on your trees and accessibility.

#4 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Yep! Rape the land of all its trees and resources for money and be done with it.

Good forest management is more than just cutting down all the trees for profit. (and usually it is not to the profit of the People who actually own the land)

#6 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-11-20 01:54 PM | Reply

It is my understanding that once that is done, then the forests can be safely and efficiently thinned.

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter

Also, I love how Trumpsters suddenly have become experts on California forest management techniques.

#7 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-11-20 01:56 PM | Reply

#7: Or maybe, they've seen where proper management has taken place with outstanding results.

#8 | Posted by Daniel at 2018-11-20 02:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Or maybe, they've seen where proper management has taken place with outstanding results.

#8 | Posted by Daniel

Like where for instance?

It is mostly federal land so the Feds are already mostly responsible for most of our forest management.

So it should be easy to show us an example.

#9 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-11-20 02:34 PM | Reply

#8

What Daniel said, I saw first hand what proper management and thinning did in the Desolation Wilderness outside of Tahoe in 2017, and was on the Little Kern in 2016 when they did one of the first controlled burns in Sequoia after the Sierra Club dropped its final suit against the NFS and Kern County.

#10 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-11-20 02:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Breaking: Environmentalists discover forest science...film at 11.

#11 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-11-20 02:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-Environmentalists discover forest science...film at 11.

I doubt the antagonist you're referring to is an environmentalist in any way.

Politics is where his interest ends. It doesn't have ---- to do with the environment.

#12 | Posted by eberly at 2018-11-20 03:04 PM | Reply

#9 Oregon, for one. At least until the early 90s.

Right-O, controlled burns have their place, but more than one has become an out of control burn. Several just in the last month or so in Southern Oregon.

#13 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2018-11-20 03:26 PM | Reply

See? It WAS easy to provide examples. BLM issued lumber permits all the time.

#14 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2018-11-20 03:28 PM | Reply

Eliminating trees prevents forest fires
Eliminating guns doesn't prevent gun crime

Wingdinger logic

#15 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-11-20 03:45 PM | Reply

#13

That does happen, from what I understand it usually occurs when an unexpected wind comes up...most controlled burns are done on calm days, with wind speed less than 1 mph.

One of my best friends brothers has been a very stoney Forest Service employee for 25 years, and he spends 2 weeks a month on a elevated stand in Shasta, he told me that SOP in CA has been to have Cal Fire and their aircraft on alert when they do burns just in case they get a wind spike.

With the funding that is currently in place it could take them 20 years to clear the undergrowth, but maybe that will be more of a priority, I have been told with proper funding that could be cut to 5 years.

#16 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-11-20 03:51 PM | Reply

Wingdinger logic
#15 | POSTED BY CHIEFTUTMOSES

Prohibition won't stop criminals getting guns.

but

Prohibition will stop people getting abortions.

#17 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-11-20 04:42 PM | Reply

Do you actualy think taking the fuel away will have an effect on a fire? HA!!!

#1 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-11-20 11:30 AMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

I'm glad you're not working at my fire department.

#18 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-11-21 09:25 AM | Reply

#2 You know he was talking about these, right? Brush rakes, root rakes, grapple rakes...

kenco.com

#19 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2018-11-21 10:35 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"You know he was talking about these, right?"

Laughable. In Trump's mind, it's the multi-pronged fork at the bottom of a wooden handle. Suggesting he's ever lifted a finger to learn about varying forest rakes is waaaay beyond the pale.

#20 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-21 10:38 AM | Reply

"Eliminating trees prevents forest fires. Eliminating guns doesn't prevent gun crime"

Technically, it's the use of controlled fires to limit uncontrolled fires. For your argument to be logical, you would need to suggest that all trees be disposed of specifically to prevent the possibility of an uncontrolled fire.

#21 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-11-21 11:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

California is planning selective thinning, which is a fine idea but can only do so much.

Anyone thinking about full-scale logging needs to take a look at what the area looks like after. Stumps, branches, debris... it becomes a tinderbox with little ability to retain any water.

Raking? Good luck trying to rake up millions of acres. All the debris comes back right away anyway so what's the point?

Welcome to Trump's Bizarro World. Climate change is the real cause yet here we are arguing the merits of some idiot's bonehead ideas.

#22 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2018-11-21 02:32 PM | Reply

California is planning selective thinning, which is a fine idea but can only do so much.

POSTED BY DEREK_WILDSTAR AT 2018-11-21 02:32 PM | REPLY

PICK ME PICK ME PICK ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#23 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-11-21 02:35 PM | Reply

If we eliminate trees and shrubs and bushes and just pave everything.

We can prevent all forest fires.

#24 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-11-21 02:48 PM | Reply

9 Oregon, for one. At least until the early 90s.

LOL

Not a good example. NOT outstanding results. Oregon almost burnt to the ground not long ago.

#25 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-11-21 02:49 PM | Reply

BLM issued lumber permits all the time.

#14 | Posted by MUSTANG

so BLM is responsible for poor forest management then?

#26 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-11-21 02:50 PM | Reply

But, no worries! Humpy has got this!

Time for a new Gubmint Bureaucracy.

The United States Rake Force!

#27 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-11-21 02:51 PM | Reply

#10 | Posted by Rightocenter

WE interrupt this thread for a ALTERNATIVE FACT CHECK:

California has been doing prescribed burns for many years now.

Before the first torch even can drip fire on the ground on a prescribed burn in California, federal law requires extensive environmental review.

Carry on with the spin of the day ROC.

#28 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-11-21 02:56 PM | Reply

federal law requires extensive environmental review. Donnerboy

Nice try, There was a lawsuit by environmentalist against fed controlled burns.

Just recently resolved.

But you do point out that locals should be in control of thier region. Thanks for that.

#29 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-11-21 03:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#28

Yet again, Dboy unwittingly makes my point for me...

Well done, I guess.

#30 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-11-21 03:38 PM | Reply

--California is planning selective thinning, which is a fine idea but can only do so much.

That's true. What's also necessary is to stop building and rebuilding in fire zones.

A policy of "build baby build" followed by "burn baby burn" followed by "rebuild baby rebuild" is imbecilic. Don't hold your breath waiting for California state and local government to stop that.

#31 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-11-21 03:44 PM | Reply

Nice try, There was a lawsuit by environmentalist against fed controlled burns.

Just recently resolved.

I call BS.

Yeah. Sorry I don't believe you. I am gonna need a link on that. I can find nothing on it.

The Sierra club promotes prescribed burns and allowing for controlled natural burns.

In areas included in or proposed for the National Wilderness Preservation System, fires should be managed primarily by the forces of nature. Minimal exceptions to this provision may occur where these areas contain ecosystems altered by previous fire suppression, or where they are too small or too close to human habitation to permit the ideal of natural fire regimes. Limited planned ignitions should be a management option only in those areas where there are dangerous fuel accumulations, with a resultant threat of catastrophic fires, or where they are needed to restore the natural ecosystem.

www.sierraclub.org

why would they fight against prescribed burns it unless they were not following Federal law for some reason.

#32 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-11-21 04:27 PM | Reply

"so BLM is responsible for poor forest management then?"

I can't speak to BLM-managed lands, but when it comes to wilderness you can't even use the equipment needed to conduct fire prevention efforts. A few years ago, a relatively radical environmentalist group actually sued, and won, to have an existing fire lookout removed from a wilderness area in Washington State.

#33 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-11-21 11:21 PM | Reply

#25 Exactly. After 25 years of idiocy, Oregon burned. You're making my point.

#26 Not solely, bu Yes, they are. It's in the title of the Bureau - Land Management. They determine who does what on BLM lands, which parcels they can use, and set regulations and restrictions on the use.

#34 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2018-11-22 07:07 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort