Cafeoutdoors.com: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"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.

Post Extras