Hellbender
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3416
Loc: Taney County
|
|
As an expert on Western Forest, where you've spent 2 or 3 years  , answer these questions.
Is there any correlation between drought and fire size?
Were there any years, when extensive timber sales were occurring, that also had serious fire seasons?
When places such as western Texas and Oklahoma have massive fires,98% of which is grass, is that added to the fire totals?
We'll be waiting for you expert report. 
--------------------
A government survey has shown that 91% of illegal immigrants come to this country so that they can see their own doctor.
|
Liberty
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796
|
|
HB, 2 million acres burned in Idaho this year alone do the math now take that and place it over your state of Missouri, 11.2 million has burned so far across the country. In Idaho more than a million of that burned in the mountains in the forest, it was trees and they were wiped out over vast stretches. The areas all burned together creating a path of destruction some 30 miles wide and 90 miles long.
I don't care if you care or not, it ain't like your old ass is going to ever come back out west again considering how worried you are that the government won't take over your healthcare. Real people are put in real dangerous situations due to mismanagement of national forest land.
hillbilly, thinking that the forest service is going to be around in another 100 years is a bit premature.
HB why don't you answer a question, being the conservative you say you are (of course that is bullchit and you prove it daily) what's better, local or national control of these forests?
You are a believer in the liberal notion of wilderness, that believes man wasn't a part of the wilderness, how foolish are you? Now you want the wilderness practices placed on national forest. You are an idiot, behind the curve and too stupid to realize your mistakes.
The forests you so want your children to enjoy are fantastic places to visit now, the stands of trees are being replaced by grass. Now if someone would just forest the plains we can have total transference
|
JJ McGuire
Reged: 06/01/06
Posts: 357
Loc: Chester Springs, PA
|
|
I love the smell of forest fires, it reminds me of my great grandparents' smokehouses. Never had finer meats than what they would make.
--------------------
keeping it rural
|
hillbilly
member
Reged: 12/27/05
Posts: 490
Loc: Cedar County
|
|
Quote:
Liberty said:
hillbilly, thinking that the forest service is going to be around in another 100 years is a bit premature.
Ahh, now we're getting somewhere. Thinking the forests will be gone in another 100 years is pretty far fetched as well. Thinking man can realistically manage the forests better than ma nature is just absurd. Look where it's got us so far. Thinking the forest service is responsible for all the idiots building houses next to them without some sort of fire prevention plan is utterly ridiculous. I think them west coast libs are starting to rub off on you Liberty. 
|
Hellbender
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3416
Loc: Taney County
|
|
Yes Lib I must be a liberal thinking that the creator might do a better job of taking care of the forests.
I noticed that once again you answer questions with a question, which is what some people think liberals do to avoid the truth.
11.2 million?
2007 Fire Report
--------------------
A government survey has shown that 91% of illegal immigrants come to this country so that they can see their own doctor.
|
Liberty
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796
|
|
can you not add?
What is 8.2 million plus 2.7 million plus another 400,000 acres, why even I was low on the number
again do you favor local control over the forests or national control, it's a simple question.
the Creator uses us as well, or did you think that we were just witnesses to the world around us never having anything to do with anything.
hillbilly now we are getting somewhere you have hit the nail on the head without even knowing it.
"Thinking man can realistically manage the forests better than ma nature is just absurd."--hillbilly
and yet that's exactly what the forest service is doing and you want to continue their failed management, but in truth man has managed the environment around him as much as he is able since the dawn of time. It's no different than the beaver that backs up a stream, we have shaped these forests with fire, now we are simply destroying them with fire because we are not managing them properly.
"Thinking the forest service is responsible for all the idiots building houses next to them without some sort of fire prevention plan is utterly ridiculous."--hillbilly
who was there first, the forest service or private land owners, HB would say the forest service and he'd be wrong, I hope you are smart enough to know that the forest service is only about 100 years old and people lived in these woods long before they were instituted. I also hope you realize that there is nowhere on earth where you are not subject to one form of catastrophe or another and when a tornado takes out your house, at least you can have the comfort of knowing there are people as crass as you saying well if you are too stupid to live in tornado alley I got no sympathy for you.
When the New Madrid fault goes, would you like the rest of the country to just coldly say, well it's their own damn fault for living in an earthquake zone, they should have lived somewhere else. Where is this utopia you speak of that is not subject to one form of natural disaster or another.
We can mitigate the hazards of our surroundings, but when the government owns our surroundings and will not take care of their own property, where should people go? should we all be herded to some utopian place that does not exist or should we be allowed to live wherever and take care of our own as we currently do.
You speak ill of people who live in the forest as if that is somehow a crime and you assume that we do not take actions to secure our property. You think we do not utilize firewise practices and while that can be said of some people who build huge homes they live in about two weeks a year, the year round residents do what they can to prepare for the disaster most likely to befall them, just as you have probably purchased a home with a basement or storm cellar.
|
Liberty
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796
|
|
HB, let me give you a clue as to wildland fire use, those aren't all set fires, in many cases large swaths of forest are dedicated to this policy and when lightning strikes they allow some areas to burn unless people and property are going to be put in harms way.
therefore you have to add the 3.1 million acres to the total 8.2 million acres of wildfire. Now if you were as smart as you say you are about these forest fires you would already know this. The fact that you don't further diminishes your credibility on the issue.
|
Hellbender
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3416
Loc: Taney County
|
|
Explain PRESCRIBED fires.
Again, what effect do you think Drought has on fire supression?
Do you think those figures are only for forest, I.E. tress burning?
How about some answers to simple questions?
--------------------
A government survey has shown that 91% of illegal immigrants come to this country so that they can see their own doctor.
Edited by Hellbender (10/02/07 03:13 PM)
|
hillbilly
member
Reged: 12/27/05
Posts: 490
Loc: Cedar County
|
|
According to my limited knowledge of forest service management, folks who owned land/house prior to certain dates have the ability to apply fire prevention techniques utilizing fed. lands. Those who built after a certain dates don't. I would place that squarely on their shoulders, where it belongs. That's considered responsibilty, a concept you have argued relentlessly in the past. The fact is people didn't use to build homes where they are building now. It was called common sense back then. And I'll be damned if forest policy should be built around their stupidity. And, like I said before, come back in a hundred years and see where the 11 million burned acres are at. I'll wager they are somewhere close to a forest again.
|
Liberty
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796
|
|
HB,
I've answered your questions thoroughly over and over jackass, and you and I both know that the fires burn brush too, but they also burn forests, which you are so far reluctant to admit, and I have explained to you in great detail what types of fires they had in Idaho, more than half of the fires in Idaho were burned through forested areas, you can continue to not answer the question if forests should be managed locally or nationally, but I already know you favor a distant bureaucracy because you are a liberal.
hillbilly many of these towns have been around since the 1860s, get your limited facts straight.
When a firestorm approaches, no matter what you do to mitigate your property you are in danger because the forest around you was not taken care of by its present owners. And they have a number of excuses, none of which that don't call for them to consider selling off land they can't take care of. Whole towns are threatened, think what you want, but I live out here and happen to know what the fork is going on. You live in Missouri and think you know. And when presented with the truth you reject out of hand based on an admitted limited knowledge.
Come back in a 100 years, like that is possible.
Here's an example of how you are wrong from SOS Forests
"Take Mann Gulch, for example. In 1949 a forested canyon on the Missouri River 20 miles north of Helena burned in the fire that also killed 13 firefighters. In his famous book about the Mann Gulch Fire, Young Men And Fire, author Norman Maclean doesn?t discuss the vegetation much. There is this passage, however:
In the formal description of the Report of Board of Review:? At the point of origin of the fire the fuel type consisted of a dense stand of six- to eight-inch Douglas fir and some ponderosa pine on the lateral ridges.?
But it was a different type of fuel on the north side, where the crew was now on its way to the river. ?At the point of disaster the tree cover consisted of stringers of scattered young ponderosa pine trees with occasional overmature ponderosa pine trees. The ground cover or understory which predominated was bunch grass with some cheat grass.? Essentially the north side of Mann Gulch was rocky and steep with a lot of grass and brush and only a scattering of trees. The south side was densely timbered.
Maclean?s photos bear out his descriptions of Mann Gulch. Some were agency photos taken before the Mann Gulch Fire, some immediately after, and some twenty years later. The post-fire photos clearly show pine trees killed by the fire. The pictures from 1969 show no living trees. Maclean had this to say after he visited the site in the 1980?s:
Now, almost forty years later, small trees have just started to grow along the bottoms of dry finger gulches on the hillside in Mann Gulch, where moisture from rain and snow are retained underground. Since even now these little evergreens are only six to eight inches high, the grass has to be parted to find them?
This summer, 58 years later, Mann Gulch burned again. Whatever tiny trees had survived from the 1980?s were fried. What was once forested is now de-treed permanently. The canyon adjacent to Mann Gulch, Meriwether Canyon, was not burned in 1949 but did burn this summer. The dense thicket of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir cooked completely, as if Meriwether Canyon had been a giant pottery kiln."
here you have a perfect example that when a firestorm goes through it changes the landscape forever, those trees only started growing back some 30 years later and before they got to be of any size they were burned again.
In Idaho, this year, firefighters thought that old burns would slow the fires, they didn't, the old burns got nuked along with the new burns. This fairy tale about fires regenerate the forest is exactly that, a fairy tale told by people so you can rest easy at night, in the meantime property values plummet and recreational values within these areas diminish for generations. HB wants his kids to enjoy the forests, that's a fine goal, unfortunately he has cast his lot with the forest service and through mismanagement there are several forests that can no longer be described as such.
You want to talk about responsibility of the land owners, well here's one that needs to take responsibility for their land land you happen to own a piece of and here you give them a pass while attacking your fellow citizens out of your own ignorance.
|
hillbilly
member
Reged: 12/27/05
Posts: 490
Loc: Cedar County
|
|
It's called succession Liberty. Earlier cultures tended to manage for the early successional species, as your post describes, over most of the continent. If you want to do something positive for the forests figure out a way to eradicate the cheatgrass. Another of man's mistakes out west.
|
Hellbender
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3416
Loc: Taney County
|
|
Quote:
HB wants his kids to enjoy the forests, that's a fine goal, unfortunately he has cast his lot with the forest service and through mismanagement
You know thats not true, but your only defense is to make up untrue stances that you attribute to me.
You come on here and try to make others believe that 11 million acres of trees have burned, thats simply not true, much of it is brush, most of it is private land or dry areas dotted with sage and Junipers (Cedars)with low branches. The fact is you don't have the information to make an accurate assumption of whether there are more acres of timber burning. Prescribed fires, the question you conveniently dodged, are fires started to eliminate ground fuel. They are started under ideal conditions to avoid fires jumping to the mast. Idaho, that you keep bringing up has gone through some rough fire years, and some rough drought years, making for a perfect combination.
You use the same style of evidence that Global Warming advocates do. Picking and choosing you evidence and refusing to answer any question that might threaten your claims.
--------------------
A government survey has shown that 91% of illegal immigrants come to this country so that they can see their own doctor.
|
Liberty
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796
|
|
no most of it is federal lands and most of that is forested acres
and you continue to pick and choose juniper and cedar as if they dominate the land scape, maybe on your former scrub brush ranch
and HB you still haven't answered if you support local or national control of the forests, I wonder why that is, because you are liberal.
drought or not, idiot if fuels are lessened so is the fire intensity. Thinning works and since the forests have eight times the amount of trees as they had before, we need to get back to thinning
hillbilly, I can't do a damn thing in the national forests, point your suggestions to those who mismanage our lands.
Succession, yeah the Native Americans were pretty good at succession and creating old stand forests, we are not. We want to leave the forests alone, they haven't been left alone for 10,000 years, leaving it alone totally dismisses the fact that we have people living out here.
|
hillbilly
member
Reged: 12/27/05
Posts: 490
Loc: Cedar County
|
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21102611/
I guess the question remains, exactly who is drinking the 
|
Hellbender
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3416
Loc: Taney County
|
|
Quote:
no most of it is federal lands and most of that is forested acres
You don't know that because you haven't done the research. I know what the Texas panhandle looks like, where there was a big fire, and there are probably more Honda Ridglines there than trees.
Quote:
and HB you still haven't answered if you support local or national control of the forests, I wonder why that is, because you are liberal
I've answered that over and over, National. I wouldn't let my county officials hold $5 for me until tomorrow. I want a professional staff to manage them, without having to show a profit. You bounce out there and try to pass yourself off as an expert, fact is you don't know chit. You don't have a clue whats burning and whats not. The truth is that most of the acres burned AREN'T timber. And you haven't a shred of evidence to counter that.
Its obvious that you live in a small world, Private forests from the west coast through AR and OK to the south east are grown extremely thick. The reason they don't burn as quick is because they are in plots, too thick for underbrush to grow, and unnatural. Natural forest will always be in the way nature, if they wouldn't they would be artificial, or cut down, like you suggest.
Don't argue thinning, you don't understand the process.
It will take time to overcome the mistake of fire suppression that was in place for decades until 1989, and it won't be cured in 18 years. There's no way man can overcome what nature did in many decades in less than two.
--------------------
A government survey has shown that 91% of illegal immigrants come to this country so that they can see their own doctor.
|
Liberty
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796
|
|
you haven't a shred of evidence to prove that most of the acreage isn't timber either, if so, you'd produced it by now. I have, unlike you, walked these destroyed forests in several states, and I know what I saw and I know it wasn't scrub brush
|
Ozark
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 4012
Loc: out in the woods
|
|
I'm willing to drive up there and burn all the woods down if it'll make you guys finally quit this.
|
Hellbender
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3416
Loc: Taney County
|
|
Don't look Ethel!
Quote:
you haven't a shred of evidence to prove that most of the acreage is timber either
Duh, I never said it was, you did dummy.
--------------------
A government survey has shown that 91% of illegal immigrants come to this country so that they can see their own doctor.
Edited by Hellbender (10/03/07 12:20 AM)
|
Liberty
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796
|
|
"Don't argue thinning, you don't understand the process."--HB
I know that your blessed forest service is expending tax dollars on thinning the forests, but their plan is too limited to make a difference. I know that when you ask anyone out here who lives in a real forest they will tell you we need to thin the forests and that we need to do so in a manner that gets the loggers back into our forests rather than getting our lumber from elsewhere.
hillbilly, your story proves what exactly. Yeah some firefighters don't want to risk their lives for property that hasn't been protected by the owners and so I guess in your limited intellectual capacity you assume that is the case for everyone who lives out here, that we are all a bunch of idiots who don't know how to remove brush from our home for a minimal distance of 300 feet, have metal roofs, build with fire proof materials, have a sprinkled lawn.
Well if you think that story captures the essence of the majority of the people out here, then you cannot be helped.
Personally, I wish one of you would come up with a convincing argument, I'd much rather just say, well there's nothing that can be done better here, let's just watch as areas the size of New England burn up each year out here.
In Idaho, again HB, they had a series of large complex fires that eventually burned together both above and below the Salmon River, two major forks of the river had major fires along the banks, the famed Middle Fork was hit pretty bad by most year's standards, but considering what happened to its sister stream the South Fork it seems the Middle Fork got off easy this year. You had three large complex fires that were being managed as suppression fires and one large wildland use fire all in the same area. You want to let it burn, imagine if they actually did just let it burn rather than successfully snuffing out 90 percent of the fire starts on the forests this year. Imagine the destruction of the forests if they ever did hold to their letter of the law on wildland use fires. About 800,000 acres burned in those three complexes and the wildland use fire and all of the areas around the Middle and South forks of the Salmon River were forested lands, varying from Ponderosa to lodgepole to firs and more than 600,000 acres burned below the Salmon River in the forested lands, much of what burned north of the Salmon River was also forested lands.
Imagine your let it burn idea if it were actually accepted on all fire starts, they tried to put those Idaho fires out, but couldn't due to the extreme fuel loads and drought and low moisture levels and you want them to just let them burn, in conditions like the ones we had this year. I flew out to those areas, walked those lands, flew over those lands and its a war zone. I've seen normal forest fires and the effects, these are nothing like those of previous excursions.
you worry that loggers will destroy the forest, while I would never allow a clear cut of 800,000 acres, you think it is just fine for fire to do the same thing, guess what that forest you want for your kids, ain't there anymore. Those endangered salmon in Idaho, just got a little more endangered. And you would rather the problem compounded. And you would rather there be national control, well I got news for you, that ain't a conservative principle, I hate to break it to you. 
|
Liberty
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796
|
|
I feel it important to mention I have nothing against forest service employees, many of whom are some of the finest Americans we have, and the firefighters, especially the ones that get over the thrill of it and take it seriously are impressive people, but the idea that one gigantic federal bureaucracy can manage millions of acres of wildland from Washington D.C. is not an idea that is ever going to be successful and it has been proven, over and over.
What would preclude a professional staff from being locally controlled, HB, apparently you live in some backwards county if you won't trust your county officials with $5.
|
Liberty
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796
|
|
"I'm willing to drive up there and burn all the woods down if it'll make you guys finally quit this."--Ozark
it'll never happen, HB will always continue to promote liberal ideas, and I will never let that stand, never.
|
duko™
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3442
Loc: east mo
|
|
Was checking the stock market today and seen that forest fires have rose 6 degrees.
I suspect its from all the bullchit that Liberty has been selling 
duko
|
Liberty
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796
|
|
you idiots can continue to choose to support a failed government bureaucracy and you can continue to not understand life in the west.
hillbilly's story he posted says some astronomical number of homes have been built within 30 miles of a national forest since 1982 is comical to say the least, I'd like to see just how much land in the west is at least 31 miles away from a national forest boundary.
I guess what I should be doing is demanding all of you in Missouri build your homes to withstand a tornado and an earthquake and floods, ya know and when you are flooded out or blown over or shaken down I guess our response in the west should be that you should have built a stronger home at a higher elevation that was earthquake proof.
I would never say that though considering I know that there is nowhere on the earth where you are not subject to at least one form of natural disaster or another.
All thinning the forests would do is give people one more way to mitigate the hazards that may one day present themselves out here, just as you scurry to the basement or storm cellar or purchase property that is above the 500 year flood plain.
The thing is, we can't force our largest neighbor to take care of the land they manage for the people. And why, because they don't have the money to take care of the land they have and because of that, the conditions on their land threatens our land.
If you can't take care of your property, you should sell it to someone who can, it is that simple and all of you would agree with that, but you would rather argue for failure since I am presenting it to you rather than follow sound conservative principles many of you claim to adhere to.
|
hillbilly
member
Reged: 12/27/05
Posts: 490
Loc: Cedar County
|
|
Maybe if you would look at fire for what it is, it wouldn't be such a boogey man to you. Everything you talk about is a simple response from nature to man's inept attempt at control. Thinning out the national forests is an impossible idea. Thinning out some areas around towns, homes, not so impossible. Now I know you have a vested interest in the logging industry to supply the podium (paper) for your rants, but come on. Take a trip to Yellowstone and try writing something about the wonderous system of rejuvenation the Creator put in place. Look at the natural state of overstocking created to allow for survival of the fittest to achieve a healthy, balanced forest. You have such a one sided view of the situation and yet you continue to rail against other views based on fact? Don't lecture me about conservation because the view you have is supported by industry only, it has no biological basis for a ecosystem that can take care of itself. Conservative use of a resource is one thing, but don't tell me ist all for the forest's benefit, because it isn't.
|
Liberty
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796
|
|
"Thinning out the national forests is an impossible idea. Thinning out some areas around towns, homes, not so impossible. Now I know you have a vested interest in the logging industry to supply the podium (paper) for your rants, but come on. Take a trip to Yellowstone and try writing something about the wonderous system of rejuvenation the Creator put in place."--hillbilly
vested interest, damn how dumb are you?, secondly, rejuvenation do you know how much replanting is done when there are major fires? Do you? And third, thinning the entire forest is impossible? What are you an idiot? We don't need the entire forest thinned, whoever said that, oh yeah you and your boogey man that damn evil logger who provided you with everything wood in your damn house, but you sure as hell can thin where it needs to be thinned and that takes in more than just around the towns
and hillbilly, I know you happen to be ignorant of the whole thing, but guess what the forest service and their limited thinning budget, are putting that money around the towns and it isn't even enough to thin out those areas.
"Don't lecture me about conservation because the view you have is supported by industry only, it has no biological basis for a ecosystem that can take care of itself. Conservative use of a resource is one thing, but don't tell me ist all for the forest's benefit, because it isn't. "--hillbilly
it ain't conservation to let it all burn and to totally try to remove man from the forest. Now I don't know why you are so stupid or how you and most of the free world got so stupid as to think that man hasn't always shaped the environment around him. The fact of the matter is, I will continue to lecture your ass until you grow tired, change your mind or shutup, it is that simple, it is a test of wills and I happen to know I am right and am talking to someone who has no damn clue, someone who buys into the whole man is the problem everywhere in the world.
that's where your belief system comes from hillbilly, it is of the same ilk that coined the idea that man has caused climate change. Man doesn't belong in the forest
Your stupid ass article from MSNBC, a liberal outfit, that is against mankind when you get down to it points out that all these houses have been built within 30 miles of a National Forest boundary, others of the liberal let's remove man from the environment because he is the problem have said similar things about it being those who move to within 30 miles of federal land
IF YOU TOOK THE TIME TO LOOK INTO ANYTHING YOU WOULD REALIZE THAT DENVER, LOS ANGELES, SEATTLE, RENO, SALT LAKE CITY, PHOENIX, BOISE, PORTLAND AND MANY, MANY OTHER MAJOR CITIES IN THE WEST HAPPEN TO RESIDE WITHIN 30 MILES OF A DAMN NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY.
Understand the side you happen to be on, it is the side that believes man is the problem that we somehow are not a part of this environment, that we are the problem within our environment.
Man used fire in the American west for 10,000 years to shape the forests, and he shaped the forests into large old growth stands where he could that were resistant to the types firestorms I am talking about that are being experienced today.
you would rather everyone move away from the forest, well I'm sorry but this is a free country and I'll be damned if some ignorant person from Missouri who has no clue what living out here is like will lecture me about where I live.
See how far that stupid ass statement gets by telling all the people in those cities that they live too close to the national forest, evil people encroaching on the forest that man has no part in.
Boy, the world would just be a better place if man would have never invented the SUV so we wouldn't all burn up and if man would have never touched the forest, that way he could have long ago died out for having never found shelter
THAT'S THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION TO YOUR DAMN ARGUMENT THAT'S WHERE ALL YOUR LIBERAL ALLIES TAKE THE DAMN ARGUMENT GET RID OF MAN
You want to side with that, well always know that I will forever be at war with you. And if you have any christian beliefs within you, you can start with love thy neighbor and figure out for yourself just how wrong you are in supporting a neighbor who's incompetence is forcing hardship upon his neighbors and has an army of environmentalists out there that get you to believe that man has no right to live anywhere near the forest, next time you decide to think for yourself, take a look at a map that show federal lands in the west and just tell me where in the hell more than a third of the US population should move to satisfy your stupidity, should we all come to Missouri?
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
