Forest Thinning Saves Lives

Verv

Senior Veteran
Apr 17, 2005
7,244
624
서울
✟31,762.00
Country
Korea, Republic Of
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Many on the far left believe cutting down trees is always wrong but this controversial policy's fruit is coming to light in California:
LAKE ARROWHEAD -- As flames ravage surrounding communities, this resort town high in the San Bernardino Mountains emerged largely unscathed, an island in a sea of destruction.

The credit for that isolated victory, federal officials say, should go to firefighting tactics, shifting winds and favorable terrain -- and a sometimes controversial U.S. Forest Service effort to eliminate the tinder that fuels forest fires.
Since 2002, the Forest Service has removed millions of trees, thinned brush and cut low-hanging branches, creating fuel breaks around almost 80% of the community. Fires don't spread quickly or easily through such areas, instead burning lower to the ground and with less intensity.

"The fuel breaks saved Lake Arrowhead," said Randall Clauson, the Forest Service's division chief for the San Bernardino National Forest and incident commander earlier this week on the two biggest wildfires still burning in the mountains.

He said he believes that, without the breaks, "the fire would have run right through Lake Arrowhead and gone to Highway 18, cutting off the evacuation route and probably resulting in the loss of hundreds of lives."
LA Times


That is quite something -- literally a policy of cutting down trees having been strategically employed to save lives. I wonder how environmentalists feel about that one?
Sometimes cutting trees is a good thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vatuck

KomissarSteve

Basileus
Feb 1, 2007
9,058
351
40
✟25,945.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Tell me something, jmverville - are you really so desperate for reasons to disagree with the Left that you must imply that the Left and environmentalists in general oppose selective cutting of trees to prevent forest fires?:doh:

Your post only contributes to public ignorance.
 
Upvote 0

FadingWhispers3

Senior Veteran
Jun 28, 2003
2,998
233
✟19,344.00
Faith
Humanist
Politics
US-Others
The practical reason against deforestation is that certain trees and their roots stabilize the land against floods and landslides. But periodic and controlled fires may actually help forests. This is similar to the idea that while hunting a species to extinction is bad, sometimes hunting is actually good when it prevent starvation due to overpopulation.

But as for cutting down a few trees to save lives... that was job well done.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 29, 2005
33,645
10,917
✟183,670.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
That is quite something -- literally a policy of cutting down trees having been strategically employed to save lives. I wonder how environmentalists feel about that one?
Sometimes cutting trees is a good thing.
Micro-managing mother nature for the benefit of man, will surly mean the deaths of many of the Earths other creatures.

Why not? We're worth it ;)
 
Upvote 0

vipertaja

A real nobrainer
May 13, 2005
1,252
78
40
Finland
✟16,925.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Many on the far left believe cutting down trees is always wrong.

Don't complain though when people make threads about what "many"
on the "far right" supposedly "always do" or "always believe". ;)
That is some seriously loaded language. How's about just "some people
seem to believe". Wouldn't that make you sound considerably less
fanatic? I think it would make it easier to take you seriously.

Partisan attitude somehow never ceases to be amusing and morbidly fascinating.

EDIT to clarify: I'd even be ok with "far left" sneaked in somewhere...but the "many"
"far left" "always think and say and do" without a "seem" or "appear to" etc. to tone
it down a notch just looks cartoony. Or sort of robotic.
 
Upvote 0

Verv

Senior Veteran
Apr 17, 2005
7,244
624
서울
✟31,762.00
Country
Korea, Republic Of
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Tell me something, jmverville - are you really so desperate for reasons to disagree with the Left that you must imply that the Left and environmentalists in general oppose selective cutting of trees to prevent forest fires?:doh:

Shame on you for contributing to public ignorance.

Micro-managing mother nature for the benefit of man, will surly mean the deaths of many of the Earths other creatures.

Why not? We're worth it ;)

This is pretty great because I am accused of creating a strawman here but then someone comes out and notes the inherent wrongness in 'micromanaging' earth; it reminds me of the time Eudomania kept peskering me about 'who is arguing that man and animal are of similar worth? This is a straw man etc. etc. etc.' while the remaining 3 or 4 people going back and forth with me were arguing just that.

It is one of those things that will be opposed by the Left generally speaking, as certainly as they oppose the cutting of trees to even make paper they will oppose thinning the forests to insure that wildfires do not become so extreme.

However, I guess I will just keep this for a rainy day, waiting for the moment where the Left broaches such a topic again.
 
Upvote 0
S

Steezie

Guest
There is an actual purpose to these fires.

When a fire comes through, it burns out all the dry, dead brush. If it isnt cleared by hand or by fire, it stacks up for years and years and just gets drier and drier untill you've got whole valleys that are hundreds of feet deep FILLED with dry brush (We actually have those here). One spark and its an inferno.

Controlled large-scale burn-outs might actually do a LOT to help prevent massive infernos like what we had
 
Upvote 0

KomissarSteve

Basileus
Feb 1, 2007
9,058
351
40
✟25,945.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
This is pretty great because I am accused of creating a strawman here but then someone comes out and notes the inherent wrongness in 'micromanaging' earth

Right, but I think we all know that your mischaracterization of the Left as uniformly anti-selective cutting was based on an unfair assumption that all liberals are against cutting down any and all trees in principle.

Nice backpedal, though.:thumbsup:

It is one of those things that will be opposed by the Left generally speaking, as certainly as they oppose the cutting of trees to even make paper they will oppose thinning the forests to insure that wildfires do not become so extreme.

Evidence that the Left, as a whole, opposes this method of preventing forest fires, please?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
B

BlueAfgani

Guest
It's not about left or right. It's about these wackjob enviromentalists coming in, and dictating to people what they can cut, what they can't cut, how far back to cut it and so on. So many people in the fires were even allowed to clear firebreaks from their home because of some endangered critters.

It's the enviromentalist's own "green" policies that lead to this fire being as bad as it was.
 
Upvote 0

blueapplepaste

the purpose of life is a life of purpose
Jun 7, 2005
7,290
788
41
Texas
✟18,874.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Yes there are crazies who think that a tree should never ever be cut down. They are wrong. There are also people who see trees as money signs and think that everything should be clear-cut regardless. These are extremes on both sides.

To characterize "most on the left" as never supporting cutting down a tree means youre that ignorant (which I don't for one second believe) or you just playing partisan politics trying to make the California wildfires into a political tool.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 29, 2005
33,645
10,917
✟183,670.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Yea...because not clearing out the underbrush and allowing the forests to become tinderboxes does wonders for the wildlife, right?
Is that what you think they do when they speak of forest thinning? They go in and clean out the underbrush ^_^

Where is the money in that?
 
Upvote 0

kermit

Legend
Nov 13, 2003
15,477
807
49
Visit site
✟27,358.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
We have to understand that fire is a natural part of forest management. Rather than stop fires we have to let them run their course. To protect homes we have to build larger and well maintained fire breaks.

I saw some footage of a newer community that was devastated. The houses were no more than 30 feet from the trees. If they were more line 300 feet they'd probably still be standing.
 
Upvote 0

ImmortalTechnique

Senior Veteran
May 10, 2005
5,534
410
39
✟15,270.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Is that what you think they do when they speak of forest thinning? They go in and clean out the underbrush ^_^

Where is the money in that?

well, clearing the brush kept Bush distracted enough for 9/11 to happen, allowing for all the war profiteering that has gone on since
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
B

BlueAfgani

Guest
Is that what you think they do when they speak of forest thinning? They go in and clean out the underbrush

Aw. You're right. I just haven't been on a computer in a week, this is first topic on this fires I saw, kinda hankering for an arguement.

But still forest thinning has it's merits. You get so many stick trees growing up, it strangles the canopy. It can get thick enough to strangle out the wildlife.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 29, 2005
33,645
10,917
✟183,670.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Aw. You're right. I just haven't been on a computer in a week, this is first topic on this fires I saw, kinda hankering for an arguement.

But still forest thinning has it's merits. You get so many stick trees growing up, it strangles the canopy. It can get thick enough to strangle out the wildlife.
That's fine. I agree that forest management is a good thing. Having said that, micro-managing the environment always leads to a disruption in the wildlife.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
B

BlueAfgani

Guest
I would think micro managing would be constantly putting out every wildfire that comes about. This thought that all fire is bad, perpetuated by Smokey, is what leads to the forest generating an over abundance of small trees, and underbrush that turn normal wildfires into firestorms.

I thinned out some of my trees a couples years ago. You could look all the way up, and I had so many tress that they all looked like fluffy sticks. Some of them didn't even have crowns.

Now they all have crowns, they all have lateral growth, and that section of forest hase squirels in it now because now they can traverse the canopy.

Funny thing about nature is it doesn't take itself into account. Some of these forests are said to be permanently destroyed because of the heat. How many animals you think got caught up in this? You think the fire magically burned around the burrows of endangered critters?

You could clear cut the whole forest, and it would be less harmful for the forests than allowing them to grow into tinderboxes while prohibiting the only function nature has to clean them out.
 
Upvote 0