<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [Vision2020] Fw: Re: Western U.S. Forest
Wildfire Acti</title></head><body>
<div>The Endangered Species Act was signed by that known environmental
whacko Richard Nixon.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>m.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 3:19 PM -0700 10/26/07, Glenn Schwaller wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>It has EVERYTHING to do with whacko
environmentalists and the radical policies implemented by the Clinton
administration, which brought an abrupt and unfortunate end to
rational forest and brush management techniques. <br>
<br>
Only a few short years ago these enviro-freaks successfully passed
laws prohibiting SoCal residents from clearing brush near their homes
because of an "endangered" kangaroo rat and the spotted
mesquite weevil. Do you think that had controlled burns and
brush clearing be allowed, these catastrophic fires could have been
avoided, or at least lessened in their intensity, thus preserving
homes, (as well as the legally-privileged weevils and rats, who by the
way lost their lives and homes as well . . )<br>
<br>
As far as any "global warming" connection to the fires, I
would think if there was any influence at all it would be to REDUCE
the incidence of brush fires. Global warming would create a more
hot and arid climate with reduced rainfall, hence reduced growth of
brush to fuel the fires, hence less fire. So what ya need is a
long term drought to cut down on the amount of brush to burn.<br>
<br>
GS<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>On 10/26/07,<b> Sunil Ramalingam</b> <<a
href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com">sunilramalingam@hotmail.com</a
>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote>Roger,<br>
<br>
I don't disagree that there's a lot of underbrush in lots of
national<br>
forests, along with a lot of skinny trees that will never get big,
that are<br>
great fuel for fires. This has little if anything to do
with the actions of<br>
environmentalists. This is from a century of putting out
fires when they're<br>
small, and a lot of that had to do with preserving
timber. Firefighting has<br>
been in transition away from that practice for a while now, but
there's<br>
plenty of brush out there.<br>
<br>
I disagree that it's the USFS policy to not clear out
brush. Prescription<br>
fires are lit to clear out brush, and a lot of those take place every
spring<br>
and fall.<br>
<br>
This is a separate issue from the SoCal fires. The
vegetation in these<br>
areas is primarily brush, not timber.<br>
<br>
I think you're making blanket statements about environmentalists
here. Some<br>
don't want any intervention, some agree there should be some
intervention.<br>
Those saying there should be no intervention aren't making any of
the<br>
policies currently in place. I consider myself an
environmentalist, but I<br>
don't think we should let all fires burn freely. At the
same time, even<br>
though I fought wildland fires for ten summers, I don't think we
should be<br>
putting them all out either. I certainly think anyone
living out in the<br>
urban-rural interface should be clearing out the brush around
their<br>
property.<br>
<br>
Sunil<br>
<br>
<br>
>From: lfalen <<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">
lfalen@turbonet.com</a>><br>
>Reply-To: lfalen <<a
href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>><br>
>To: <a
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
>Subject: [Vision2020] Fw: Re: Western U.S. Forest
Wildfire Activity<br>
>Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:08:02 -0700<br>
><br>
>Sunil<br>
>There seems to be a problem with "reply all" for this
email so I am<br>
>forwarding it instead.<br>
><br>
>The underbrush problem is a general one. Not clearing out
underbrush is<br>
>part of the Forest Service's policy. It has been well documented
that at<br>
>least some vocal environmentalist do not want any intervention by
man or<br>
>management of the forests. This includes thinning out
underbrush or insect<br>
>control. Dead trees due to insect infestation adds to the fire
hazard<br>
>provided by underbrush. They are partly right in that before
man's<br>
>involvement ther were small fires that cleared the underbrush
which<br>
>prevented a hotter fire from wiping out the entire forest. Not
all<br>
>environmentalist or forest managers see it this way. There is
legislation<br>
>being proposed at the state and national level to change this
policy.<br>
>Roger<br>
>-----Original message-----</blockquote>
<blockquote>><br>
>From: "Sunil Ramalingam" <a
href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com">sunilramalingam@hotmail.com</a
><br>
>Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:05:05 -0700<br>
>To:<br>
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Western U.S. Forest Wildfire
Activity<br>
><br>
>Roger, what is the basis of your statement:<br>
><br>
>'The extent of the fires we exacerbated by the dense underbrush
that<br>
>resulltd from environmetalist not allowing it to be cleared
out,'<br>
><br>
>and which fires are you talking about?<br>
><br>
>Sunil<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<span
></span> <a
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"> Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>