well if you are so dumb as to think that Indians let the forests alone, which you probably are that dumb, then we don't need to continue this beligerant discussion where you only write something after you've taken 12 shots of tequilla and slapped your viagra stick
but anyone with half a brain knows the forest service began in 1905, the argument of should we intervene in putting out fires was won over by 1908 as large fires occurred in the northeast and raged on into Canada, then the big blowup of 1910 that killed some 80 plus fire fighters and burned up 3 million acres in Idaho and Montana sealed the deal, the forest service decided it was going to fight fires, suppress them as soon as they could.
later on they decided that suppressing the fires has allowed there to be a large build up of fuels, but letting fires thin the forests doesn't work in the situation we have today, because we have ladder fuels, we have large amounts of trees, between 500 and 3,000 trees per acre on land that once only had 50 to 100 trees per acre. What we have is a situation whereby the one and ten hour fuels of the forest floor are burning, but they are catching the smaller trees on fire, which in turn ignite the medium sized trees and then you get your crown fires that take out the larger trees as well.
Now anybody who ever paid attention in class knows that a ground fire doesn't kill a large tree, but when the ground fire makes its way up the forest ladder and becomes a crown fire, I don't care how big the Ponderosa Pine is, the damn thing is dead once the firestorm passes. If you weren't such a belligerent drunken demented old fart who bases all his decisions on chit he saw eight years ago, before the worst of this chit started happening, you might be worth wasting time explaining what the situation is, but since you are a jackass incapable of refuting anything salient in this debate, go fuk yerself jackass
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Re: Forest Fires are for Suckers?like you!
Edit
Reply
Quote
