T1B

There is a fire burning in Eagle County CO that is about 12 miles from our place. We aren’t in any danger at this time and in fact recent rains have helped the firefighters get the upper hand.

Each day on the news the firefighters are talking about how hard it is to fight this fire due to the huge deadfall. They are also battling some dead standing trees due to bark beetle.

Why are we not doing small logging projects where it makes sense or any thinning of bark beetle trees? This would provide small fire breaks and provide access for sunlight to reach the ground in far more places than it does now. This will provide areas of grass which will benefit the wildlife as well.

I have done some online reading but much of what I have seen is opinion and doesn’t link to actual science or scientists. Forests have management plans but those seem to be fought every step of the way so aren’t implemented much.

And if you have any suggested readings please send them my way.

We start by keeping our forests well-raked.

And right on cue, Mikey tries to just make a joke of forest management and pretend we haven’t allowed the tree huggers to impede it wherever possible.

Forest management isn’t the problem, global warming is.

Could it possibly be both?

We chop an awful lot of shit down already to give us places to live, grow stuff, etc.

Why aren’t we maintaining more fire breaks?

Fill’em with solar panels if it makes you feel good.

Many of them can be pretty much self maintaining if you keep grazing animals on them.

But no, we need to let nature manage them and when it burns down, blame fossil fuels


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

smackaholic wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 5:30 pm And right on cue, Mikey tries to just make a joke of forest management and pretend we haven’t allowed the tree huggers to impede it wherever possible.

Because you and your clown deserve it. The utter stupidity you debase and humilitate yourself over will never not be funny for us, but bad for our democracy.

Are any of you fukking lefties capable of actually discussing a topic?

We could limit wildfire damage if we actually bothered with things like firebreaks and some sort of management of undergrowth.

That doesn’t mean rake everything.

BTW, worldwide, the planet is greening. Satellite data proves this.

It’s what happens when you increase the substance needed by all plants to survive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

smackaholic wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 3:02 pm
We could limit wildfire damage if we actually bothered with things like firebreaks

You're joking, right?

smackaholic wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 3:02 pm Are any of you fukking lefties capable of actually discussing a topic?

We could limit wildfire damage if we actually bothered with things like firebreaks

That would help a little. But it won't help as much as you think if they aren't willing to build a firebreak that's at least 1.5 miles thick in every direction. See the Camp Fire from 2018.

and some sort of management of undergrowth.

Agreed, but that's an argument for controlled/prescribed burns...not logging. Logging isn't as evironmentally advantageous as fire is. Stop fucking with Mother Nature.

That doesn’t mean rake everything.

Tell that to the fat imbecile whose dick you've had your lips sealed on for the last 4+ years.

BTW, worldwide, the planet is greening. Satellite data proves this.

Tell that to the polar ice caps.

Mikey wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:18 pm

smackaholic wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 3:02 pm
We could limit wildfire damage if we actually bothered with things like firebreaks

You're joking, right?

Wait are you saying firebreaks don't help? Explain that.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 6:03 pm

Mikey wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:18 pm

smackaholic wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 3:02 pm
We could limit wildfire damage if we actually bothered with things like firebreaks

You're joking, right?

Wait are you saying firebreaks don't help? Explain that.

They do to a degree. See my response to smuckaholic.

I studied some forestry in college and worked one summer as a surveyor for the USFS out of Darrington Washington in 1959. Slash removal as it was called then was one of the more useful aspects of forest management. It was quite hot that summer and the loggers on USFS land were under a condition called "Hoot Owl" where they had to limit use of chain saws to time before sunrise and after sundown. Sometimes I could hear them using chain saws across a valley where were surveying new logging roads. We got called in one time to fight a fire. Supposedly it started when a log they were hauling up to a truck got loose and slide down the hillside striking another log and the friction started the fire.
Forest fire supression work is not fun.

Wolfman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 6:45 pm
Forest fire supression work is not fun.

Can't imagine it is. But if we are going to immediately try to put out every fire that starts, why don't we do a few things to help?

Left Seater wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 6:48 pm

Wolfman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 6:45 pm
Forest fire supression work is not fun.

But if we are going to immediately try to put out every fire that starts

We don't, numbnuts. Jesus Pole Vaulting Christ, where did you hear that we do?

Left Seater wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 6:03 pm

Mikey wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:18 pm

smackaholic wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 3:02 pm
We could limit wildfire damage if we actually bothered with things like firebreaks

You're joking, right?

Wait are you saying firebreaks don't help? Explain that.

What I'm saying is that this is not a new idea that some genius just thought of. Do you actually think that they haven't already been used for decades, if not centuries?

I do, and they have been used for likely centuries. So why are we not using them in National Forests or other public lands?

Did somebody say we aren't?

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/n ... 949473.pdf

https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/5585/fuel ... 212019.pdf



Seriously, where are you getting your information - smackaholic.com?

Mikey wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:19 pm Did somebody say we aren't?

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/n ... 949473.pdf

https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/5585/fuel ... 212019.pdf



Seriously, where are you getting your information - smackaholic.com?

Dude just bought a second home in Colorado & already thinks he knows forest management policy like the back of his hand...

Speaking of Colorado:

https://www.denverpost.com/2021/05/08/c ... -thinning/

Damn Biden Administration just refuses to use any firebreaks in Colorado.

Mikey wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:19 pm Did somebody say we aren't?

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/n ... 949473.pdf

https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/5585/fuel ... 212019.pdf

Great. So why are these being implemented in one spot and not another? (USFS)

Is this plan being fought each step of the implementation process?

Most of my info is coming from firefighters.

Maybe you could find something besides barroom conversation to demonstrate your point. Firebreaks have been used since the 1930s in Los Padres NF and, I would imagine in the rest of the National Forest system as well. Please find an example of what your “firefighter” friends are complaining about.

Do they work for the Forest Service or maybe the State of Colorado? Or maybe a private service under contact to a lumber company?

So that story mentions legislation that hasn’t passed. Meanwhile the Sierra club and others are actively working against forest thinning.

Even if the Senator is successful in getting the legislation passed, lawsuits that will hold up its implementation are all but certain.

https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/20 ... h-efforts/