Australian Fires that killed hundreds: Green policy part of the problem

There was a report yesterday on the MSNBC site that the fires in several areas had been deliberately set. The PM was calling it mass murder. Presumably without these additional, intentionally started fires, the original fire would have been relatively easily contained. It looks like a lot is involved there that will take some considerable time to determine and sort out.
 
uscitizen said:
So Dano is advocating paying the govt to come in and cut peoples trees down for them?

Smaller govt, and personal responsibility for sure.

from dix's post:
"We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down,"

I think about every city in the US has restrictions on cutting trees.
Click to expand...
What on earth? How the heck did you ever get that out of this debate?
 
Thorn said:
There was a report yesterday on the MSNBC site that the fires in several areas had been deliberately set. The PM was calling it mass murder. Presumably without these additional, intentionally started fires, the original fire would have been relatively easily contained. It looks like a lot is involved there that will take some considerable time to determine and sort out.
Click to expand...

Yeah I heard that too, but regardless of motive, forest fires are easier to contain with logging done properly.
 
leaningright said:
You are correct........with your first sentence only. The only way to allow more trees to grow to maturity is to eliminate the mature trees providing a canopy of shade over them. As a firefighter of both structure and wild fires I can assure you that a fire spreading through forest grass is much easier to control than a fire spreading through the canopy of semi-mature to mature trees.
Click to expand...

Hey ib1... take a look at the above, then shut your pie hole. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
 
This has long been a problem in So. California. State Departments of Parks or EPA's, or whatever relevant agencies should be responsible for thinning hazardous brush and deadwood from forests. If they need to contract logging companies to do it, then fine.
 
leaningright said:
You are correct........with your first sentence only. The only way to allow more trees to grow to maturity is to eliminate the mature trees providing a canopy of shade over them. As a firefighter of both structure and wild fires I can assure you that a fire spreading through forest grass is much easier to control than a fire spreading through the canopy of semi-mature to mature trees.
Click to expand...

heheh I knew dungheap's logic was totally flawed.
 
KingCondanomation said:
What on earth? How the heck did you ever get that out of this debate?
Click to expand...

From your post, the guy was saying that his relatives died becuase the council would not cut some trees down. Not becuase they prohibited them being cut.

Read your own post dude.

from your post.
"wanting the council's HELP or permission to clean up around their properties"
"We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down,"


Understand what you post guy.

Wanting the govt to do it for them.
 
Last edited:
uscitizen said:
From your post, the guy was saying that his relatives died becuase the council would not cut some trees down. Not becuase they prohibited them being cut.

Read your own post dude.

from your post.
"wanting the council's HELP or permission to clean up around their properties"
"We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down,"


Understand what you post guy.

Wanting the govt to do it for them.
Click to expand...

Did you also see the part with the "or permission"? And when they say around their properties, I think they mean that literally, otherwise they would have said ON their properties. Meaning these trees that needed to be cut down were around their properties not on them.
But either way, the title is that they blame council policy and policy is defined as what the government allows or does not allow people to do, NOT what they fund and do themselves.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Well if they mean around their properties, then that is public (crown) land and only government would be legally allowed to cut there unless others are given permission from the state.
Click to expand...

did your post say that?

And the guy was complaining because the govt did not cut down the trees, not about permission to cut them down.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Did you also see the part with the "or permission"? And when they say around their properties, I think they mean that literally, otherwise they would have said ON their properties. Meaning these trees that needed to be cut down were around their properties not on them.
But either way, the title is that they blame council policy and policy is defined as what the government allows or does not allow people to do, NOT what they fund and do themselves.
Click to expand...

I literally started laughing out loud and did a double take. uscitizen trying to call someone else out for reading comprehension? It's pretty clear what the guy in the article was trying to say. If you are prohibited from trimming something that is around your property you have two legitimate options: get permission from the city government to cut or clear out yourself or get the government to do it (the third would be do it yourself without permission but that risks punishment). So legally the guy can't do anything but complain to the government so no wonder he's pissed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top