More than 75 LA fire fighters made more than $200,000 last year

#52
#52
utvolpj said:
I have a feeling some would drink much more than others but we'd all have to split the check evenly
Click to expand...

Or the richest person will be given the beer to distribute evenly, but he'll keep most to himself for later and give everyone else the minimum.
 
#53
#53
IPorange said:
That is due to more fuel build up from fire suppression. Less fires, but much bigger fires.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Which was my original point. Namely, the fires were part of the natural ecosystem, and nature managed it better than we do.

It has nothing to do with "ecoterrorists" (sic).

Thankee! :hi:
 
#55
#55
IPorange said:
That is due to more fuel build up from fire suppression. Less fires, but much bigger fires.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Exactly, fires that once would have consumed less concentrated underbrush are fueld by dense underbrush allowed to grow from decades of no burn. When this occurs the fire has much more fuel and is allowed to burn much higher into the canopy consuming entire forests where they would have otherwise burned out the thinner underbrush.

This isn't complicated in the least and one with the most rudimentary understanding could easily come to the correct conclusion. It's common sense for cry out loud.
 
#56
#56
utgibbs said:
Which was my original point. Namely, the fires were part of the natural ecosystem, and nature managed it better than we do.

It has nothing to do with "ecoterrorists" (sic).

Thankee! :hi:
Click to expand...

Until we stepped in and the fires got much worse after decades of suppression.
 
#57
#57
you mean the "environmentalists" also fight to eliminate the controlled burns that could help lessen the impact of fires? I'm shocked :yikes:
 
#58
#58
utvolpj said:
you mean the "environmentalists" also fight to eliminate the controlled burns that could help lessen the impact of fires? I'm shocked :yikes:
Click to expand...

It isn't like there is only one set of opinions among environments, or like there aren't interests that would sooner see every old growth forest logged if they could.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#59
#59
just letting you know what I experienced looking out my back door
 
#60
#60
This isn't complicated in the least and one with the most rudimentary understanding could easily come to the correct conclusion. It's common sense for cry out loud.
Click to expand...

I teach this stuff for a living. You'd be surprised how difficult it is to get past the smokey the bear programming.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#61
#61
KB5252 said:
Until we stepped in and the fires got much worse after decades of suppression.
Click to expand...

Yes. This is what I've been saying.

The notion that "ecoterrorists" are responsible for raging wildfires is simply irresponsible bunk.

Unless you mean these guys:

1997 Indonesian forest fires - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: I do not believe subsistence farmers are ecoterrorists. But the dominant culture / economy which forces them to slash and burn certainly more than qualifies for immensely short-sighted, unwise, and dangerous behavior.
 
#62
#62
utgibbs said:
Yes. This is what I've been saying.
Click to expand...

you have either (1) so poorly stated your position that no one in this thread has a clue what it is or (2) you aren't really sure what you're claiming

fires that destroyed homes and threatened people's lives were preventable without the meddling of the enviros. I am sure of that
 
#64
#64
utgibbs said:
Yes. This is what I've been saying.

The notion that "ecoterrorists" are responsible for raging wildfires is simply irresponsible bunk.

Unless you mean these guys:

1997 Indonesian forest fires - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: I do not believe subsistence farmers are ecoterrorists. But the dominant culture / economy which forces them to slash and burn certainly more than qualifies for immensely short-sighted, unwise, and dangerous behavior.
Click to expand...


I agree with pj in the above post. for an example I will direct you to MG earlier post which you stated was false, in it he claimed environmental wacknuts didn't allow the forests to be properly managed, proper management would include allowing underbrush fires to burn.

You seem to be at odds with your own position, par for the course from what I have seen coming from you though.
 
#65
#65
utvolpj said:
you have either (1) so poorly stated your position that no one in this thread has a clue what it is or (2) you aren't really sure what you're claiming

fires that destroyed homes and threatened people's lives were preventable without the meddling of the enviros. I am sure of that
Click to expand...

I know. All the data and evidence provided in this thread has "confused" many of you.

What "meddling" exactly did the "enviros" do?

The fires are worse because of fuel build-up thanks to suppression. The natural behavior of these ecosystems is frequent, small scale fires (although global heating might change that).

So, remind me again who is to blame?
 
#66
#66
utgibbs said:
I know. All the data and evidence provided in this thread has "confused" many of you.

What "meddling" exactly did the "enviros" do?
Click to expand...

prevented clearing of the overgrowth and controlled burns. But you're probably right, I guess it was just coincidence that the exact same places burned out of control soon after
 
#67
#67
utvolpj said:
prevented clearing of the overgrowth and controlled burns. But you're probably right, I guess it was just coincidence that the exact same places burned out of control soon after
Click to expand...

forget trying to explain anything to gibbs. He simply wants to blame mankind for all the earth's troubles regardless of our ability to mitigate said troubles.

He would rather see massive fires that burn for months, because that's how nature did it before mankind showed up with technology to fight fires.

He did manage to come full circle. At first he defended the salaries outlined in the OP and ended up accusing people of actually making things worse.
 
#68
#68
utvolpj said:
prevented clearing of the overgrowth and controlled burns. But you're probably right, I guess it was just coincidence that the exact same places burned out of control soon after
Click to expand...

And yet all the data suggests the human management agents have been responsible for the increased burnage.

:eek:k:

Even with the large infrastructure dedicated to fire suppression, the majority of western forests managed by the USFS have experienced a significant increase in relative area burned from 1940 to 2000.
Click to expand...
 
#70
#70
MG1968 said:
forget trying to explain anything to gibbs. He simply wants to blame mankind for all the earth's troubles regardless of our ability to mitigate said troubles.

He would rather see massive fires that burn for months, because that's how nature did it before mankind showed up with technology to fight fires.

He did manage to come full circle. At first he defended the salaries outlined in the OP and ended up accusing people of actually making things worse.
Click to expand...

And yet the consensus is the human management agents have worsened rather than ameliorated the natural situation.

:eek:k:

Even with the large infrastructure dedicated to fire suppression, the majority of western forests managed by the USFS have experienced a significant increase in relative area burned from 1940 to 2000.
Click to expand...

If you want more peer-reviewed data, there is plenty.

Again, I'm among the last voices calling for a rollback of the Enlightment, unlike many voices on here.
 
#72
#72
utgibbs said:
And yet all the data suggests the human management agents have been responsible for the increased burnage.

:eek:k:
Click to expand...

At the very beginning they were resistant to allowing these fires to burn but aver time it became clear that periodic burns were good for the system. At that point the wacknut enviros entered the mix and lobbied to stop controlled burns and advocated fighting forest fires to protect the resource.

The forest service was wrong in the beginning but the wacknuts made the problem worse over the last couple of decades.
 
#74
#74
utgibbs said:
And yet all the data suggests the human management agents have been responsible for the increased burnage.
Click to expand...

but what happened to the government efficiency model? Or is that only for healthcare?
 
#75
#75
OHHHHHHHHHHH!

So, it's much better now?

Except:

Even with the large infrastructure dedicated to fire suppression, the majority of western forests managed by the USFS have experienced a significant increase in relative area burned from 1940 to 2000.
Click to expand...

Look, I think it is very possible to learn some valuable lessons along the way. However, when it comes to managing ecosystems, the tools of the Enlightenment simply have not had the time and resources to address the problem in its most rudimentary details. E. O. Wilson has my back on this - big time.

There are no "ecoterrorists" or "whackjobs" preventing the proper protection of natural ecosystems. It is specious argument from the very start becuase we don't know how to manage ecosystems. As the data clearly suggests. So, in a grand irony, the real nutjobs are those who think we can.

Moreover, what the hell is an "ecoterrorist?" anyway? Someone who drives a car?????
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top