I respectfully disagree with the DU lead story

[Stupdworld]

Placing "the blame" for the CA fires solely on the shoulders of the loggers who leave brush behind ignores the basic fact that some of these fires were started by firebugs or carelessness of others handling fire or incendiary devices. I will agree some level of comparative fault can be laid at the feet of loggers, SHOULD THOSE LOGGERS HAVE LEFT DRIED OUT TIMBER IN THE AREAS WHERE THE FIRES STARTED OR SPREAD TO. Annapolis CA, the first picture shown, seems to be located north and perhaps east or so of the northernmost fire. I may be wrong, but it doesnt look like that area is anywhere near the fires. Gualala is west northwest of Annapolis. Unless I am wrong, which is possible, I don't think these areas are anywhere near the fires, and cannot be a proximate cause of the fire or the spread.

Should the logging industry modify its practices to avoid leaving dried debris just laying around? sure. sounds like this dried timber is "fuel for the fire." Are they "to blame" for this? In our zeal to get Bush, we must not throw out logic. The primary responsibility for these fires lays with arsonists, careless people, and perhaps CA's dry climate. Until evidence shows that logging industry's leavings at cutting sites directly caused or facilited the spread of the fire, I am not going to lay the blame on their shoulders or Bush. If that evidence does appear, then I'll sing a different tune.

[skyzics]

1. Fire suppression over the years the main cause, IMO..

These areas used to burn routinely.. every few years.. sometimes every year in some areas. Natural fires were non-destructive, taking out overgrowth and making room for new. Fire suppression over the last hundred years or more has caused an inordinate build-up of brush and trees. Then, when conditions are right, such as after the normally long, dry California summer followed by seasonal strong, warm and dry desert winds that frequently sweep the area in the autumn, conflagrations are the result.

Such a disastrous scale of fire is wholly unnatural and decades or more in the making - usually not the cause of one careless individual, arsonists or of particular logging or non-logging practices.

[soupkitchen]

3. At some point it's about unwise development and urban sprawl

We are building in areas where mother nature is advising us it is not a good idea. And in areas that we will never be able to employ enough firemen to protect us. Afterall, the more homes you build the more firemen you need.

[skyzics]

4. Right..

Fires are suppressed largely because they risk destroying human development. Nice that some folks have cabins or homes in the natural beauty of the chaparral or mountains, but the rest of us working stiffs get to help foot the bill for fire suppression and these disasters that will eventually and inevitably follow.

[markus]

6. You also pay for flood protection for all those lovely coastal homes

It's ridiculous. There are so many activities which, if users actually had to pay for them, would make no sense.

Imagine if the owners of Hummers (and their insurance companies) were held liable for the inordinate damage they do to reasonable automobiles.

[JBolt]

14. They are

If I crash my car into someone else, and the accident is my fault, my insurance pays for the repairs of their vehicle. Wether I'm driving a Geo Metro or a Hummer.

[gasperc]

2. They don't and can't log in some of the areas

There is no logging along the foothills of Rancho Cucamonga it's mostly brush and grass. Down in San Diego it is much the same. Now up in the Big Bear area, it is a forest and there are strict logging rules up there. But alot of the fires were dry brush and grassland.

[drdigi420]

21. OK

how about making them pay for making so many people late by driving such a slow cumbersome vehicle that cant handle corners?

how about making them pay for the extra pot i have to smoke to recover from driving behind them and being pissed off that they are soooo slow.

how about at least making them pay for the environmental damage they cause, especially when owned by thoughtless suburbanites that drive an hour each way in their pollution machine?

how about making them pay for the fines that the EPA levels on cities where they bring their giant, polluting truck into the city?

[AP]

5. This reminds me of something I read about the rail industry.

Did you know that it's practically de facto negligence for a municipality to lay rail tracks in a trough between two little hills. If a car stalled and rolled to the bottom of the trough and then got hit by a car, it would be almost impossible for the municipality to win a negligence suit against it.

Does that sound odd? Well, not if you're urban planner. Although you may never have heard of law suits like this, there have been enough cases over the years, and enough publicity of them among urban planners, and the consequences are so grave, that courts no longer entertain the notion that building tracks in dangerous places is a legitimate mistake. Urban planners are held to very high standards.

So, although the idea that loggers left debris behind might sound to you like an honest mistake, in CA, loggers make enough money, and there have been enough examples of the repercussions, and the repercussions can be so grave, that I wouldn't be surprised if courts felt that there isn't very much room for error and that loggers should be held to a very high standard of care.

[Elad]

7. Clarification on the photos

The photos were not of the areas currently burning, they were included only as a graphical demonstration of the destructiveness of clearcutting.

[bpilgrim]

8. more pictures here...

http://bbs.globalfreepress.com/coppermine/thumbnails.php?album=64

peace

[Media_Lies_Daily]

9. Give the Bushies a little more time and Al Qaeda will be responsible.

[bleedingheart]

10. Actually the big problem is the fact that people are living in

zones that are naturally prone to fire.

I don't live there but I bet the following:

1. None of the residents of that area would want loggers in their backyard because the selling point on that property is the natural look.

2. Controlled fires are out of the question because these people wouldn't want the risk of it getting out of control... but I bet many of them never thought to rake up the forest floor to keep the tinder from piling up.

3. These people built wooden homes in the shade of trees...a nice idea in Pennsylvania where fires aren't a problem but probably not a good idea in California.

[JBolt]

12. not allowed

2. Controlled fires are out of the question because these people wouldn't want the risk of it getting out of control... but I bet many of them never thought to rake up the forest floor to keep the tinder from piling up.

Not allowed. It is illegal to do this in many areas because of environmental reasons and endangered species such as the Kangaroo Rat.

I remember a few years ago there was a fire and a home owner cleared the land around his home of all debris on the floor in an attempt to save his home. His entire neighborhood burned down, except his house because of his efforts. He was promptly charged with several crimes for his actions.

[bleedingheart]

15. you have got to be kidding me...there are laws to prevent

people from raking up debris? Was this debris on his property or was it on federal/state property? If it was on state/federal property I could possibly understand...but that's bizarre.

[JBolt]

16. Not kidding

see how fast you can not touch or alter your property if a habitat for an endangered species is found on it.

Ever heard the saying "Shoot, shovel, and shut up."

[JBolt]

17. Some more

"The brutal realities of the ESA were exhibited to the entire nation on ABC's 20/20 television news program of Friday, November 19, 1993 (hosted by Hugh Downs and Barbara Walters and reported by John Stossel), where Ms. Anna Klimko, who obeyed the federal government's orders not to create a firebreak by plowing the brush in front of her house because doing so would damage the k-rat's burrows and therefore harm the k-rat, was kneeling in the ashes of her totally destroyed home and dreams, digging for the possible remnants of family keepsakes. Ms. Klimko looked up with tears streaming down her face and asked, "In three minutes, my house was fully consumed in flames and in seven minutes, everything was gone. For what? A rat?" "

The "shoot, shovel, and shut up syndrome" inspired by the ESA is rapidly becoming the norm.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg16n4h.html


"Ike C. Sugg, "California Fires -- Losing Houses, Saving Rats" (article about how the Rowe family saved their home from the Oct. 1993 California fires by destroying kangaroo rat habitat --i.e. digging up dry brush around their homes. Homeowners who obeyed the law and did not destroy the dry brush around their homes saw their homes burn to the ground.) The Wall Street Journal, November 10, 1993. "

http://www.webcom.com/fairgov/reading.htm


"The Committee also heard from several other victims of forest fires in the area that occurred in 1993. Part of the restrictions for protecting the kangaroo rat habitat involved prohibitions against discing fields and removal of habitat. These prohibitions created conditions conducive to swift fire movement through the area. In addition, the discing prohibitions prevented people from creating firebreaks around their homes to protect their residences. Some people who obeyed the restrictions lost their homes to fire. Others who ignored the restriction kept theirs."

http://www.senate.gov/~epw/107th/pau_1019.htm


There is plenty more out there.

[maggrwaggr]

22. you're fulla s**t, dude

thanks for cruisng DU anyway.

It's always nice when your types show up.

The facts of the matter are (not that you would care about FACTS) is that homeowners in Southern California are required by LAW to clear the brush around their homes. They are also required by law to have tile roofs and to take other fire-preventive measures.

So shut the f**k up unless you know what you're actually talking about.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[maggrwaggr]

19. they wouldn't want loggers in their backyards because there ARE NO LOGS

DUH

DUH

DOUBLE DUH

This conversation shouldn't even be happening. The fact that it is means people are falling for the republican lies. The republicans are simply exploiting this to shove their agenda down our throats

[MrPrax]

11. You hit on a very good hyprocrisy

With the CA fires, the Media has no problem 'probing' secondary causes like 'debris' and elevating them to primary causes in the same breath as 'widespread' reports of arson and man-made causes...

Imagine if they treated 911 the same way!
Yes indeed the terrorists were responsible, BUT should airport security and the laxity of the Bush administration concerning intelligence reports be equally to blame? News at 11...

Good point on seeing a certain 'selfish' motive

Memory hole article:
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair0824.html
Bush Forest Fire Plan: Log It All
Chainsaw George

by Jeffrey St. Clair

"In the name of fire prevention, Bush wants to okay the timber industry to log off more than 2.5 million acres of federal forest over the next ten years. He wants it done quickly and without any interference from pesky statutes such as the Endangered Species Act. Bush called his plan "the Healthy Forests Initiative". But it's nothing more than a giveaway to big timber, that comes at a high price to the taxpayer and forest ecosystems."...
<..>
"In effect, the Forest Service's fire suppression programs (and similar operations by state and local governments) have acted as little more than federally-funded fire insurance policies for the big timber companies, an ongoing corporate bailout that has totaled tens of billions of dollars and shows no sign of slowing down. There's an old saying that the Forest Service fights fires by throwing money at them. And the more money it spends, the more money it gets from Congress."

[JBolt]

13. Airport security

Airport security was not the problem on 9/11. The hijackers did not bring any banned items onto the plane. It was perfectly legal to bring a box cutter, and other knives onto planes as long as the blade was shorter than a length I can not remember at this time.

Bush and the ignoring of intel was the problem.

[maggrwaggr]

18. "Republicans Shamelessly Exploit Tragic Fires to Push Anti-Enviro Agenda"

That's why any of these headlines should read.

I am so fucking disgusted with these republican assholes, and the media that's letting them do it, in fact the media who is PUSHING their agenda with them.

This reminds me of the other lies: blaming 9/11 on Iraq (so we can invade Iraq), exploiting the deaths of 3,000 people in 9/11 so they can shove their agenda down our fucking throats.

These people disgust me. They have NO INTEREST whatsoever in the people who lost their homes, NO INTEREST in the actual FACTS of these fires, all they see is an opportunity to lie to the American people and point their fingers at their enemies so they can keep pushing their CORPORATE WELFARE.

I saw Hardball right before I went to bed last night and Mary Fucking Bono was on talking about this. What a scuzzy thieving lying cunt she is.

Anyone who knows jack shit about these fires know they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with ANY logging practices. The fires started where THERE ARE NO TREES. 95% of the fires are not TREES.

Sorry for all the caps, but I just can't believe this can even be an item of discussion anywhere. Anyone who carps on this one bit is just falling dupe to the republican lies.

[denverbill]

20. You're right. It's actually Bush's fault.

Since Gray Davis asked Bush for funds to help clear the underbrush last year, and Bush refused the funding. The blame is squarely on the Bush administration for these fires.