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

KingCondanomation

KingCondanomation

New member
Not allowing any logging or tree cutting at all means faster spread of forest fires. That's one thing Bush got right, is the Healthy Forests initiative allows companies and people to clear away dead brush which adds jobs and helps reduce forest fire fuel.

"ANGRY residents last night accused local authorities of contributing to the bushfire toll by failing to let residents chop down trees and clear up bushland that posed a fire risk.

During question time at a packed community meeting in Arthurs Creek on Melbourne's northern fringe, Warwick Spooner — whose mother Marilyn and brother Damien perished along with their home in the Strathewen blaze — criticised the Nillumbik council for the limitations it placed on residents wanting the council's help or permission to clean up around their properties in preparation for the bushfire season. "We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down," he said.

"We wanted trees cut down on the side of the road … and you can't even cut the grass for God's sake."

Later, the meeting was cut short when Mr Spooner's father, Dennis, collapsed in his chair and an ambulance had to be called. Despite losing his wife and son and everything he owned, a friend later said he had not stopped or slept since the weekend"

http://www.theage.com.au/national/angry-survivors-blame-council-green-policy-20090211-83p0.html
 
KingCondanomation said:
Not allowing any logging or tree cutting at all means faster spread of forest fires. That's one thing Bush got right, is the Healthy Forests initiative allows companies and people to clear away dead brush which adds jobs and helps reduce forest fire fuel.

"ANGRY residents last night accused local authorities of contributing to the bushfire toll by failing to let residents chop down trees and clear up bushland that posed a fire risk.

During question time at a packed community meeting in Arthurs Creek on Melbourne's northern fringe, Warwick Spooner — whose mother Marilyn and brother Damien perished along with their home in the Strathewen blaze — criticised the Nillumbik council for the limitations it placed on residents wanting the council's help or permission to clean up around their properties in preparation for the bushfire season. "We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down," he said.

"We wanted trees cut down on the side of the road … and you can't even cut the grass for God's sake."

Later, the meeting was cut short when Mr Spooner's father, Dennis, collapsed in his chair and an ambulance had to be called. Despite losing his wife and son and everything he owned, a friend later said he had not stopped or slept since the weekend"

http://www.theage.com.au/national/angry-survivors-blame-council-green-policy-20090211-83p0.html
Click to expand...

Moron.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Save the forests by cutting them down. Brilliant.

Retard.
Click to expand...

Youi don't save the forest by cutting all the trees down....but you do save the forests and prevent wildfires by allowing select cutting (either by the timber industry or individuals) and allowing for the upkeep (mowing the roadsides) of your rural areas.

Back in the 80's the timber workers were allowed to clear cut our forests around here. Many of us banded together and got with our congressmen and governor and got them to only allow select cutting. Our forests have thrived since then with both trees and wildlife......and we have had very few uncontrollable wildfires. It seems to be good policy.
 
Dungheap said:
Nobody really likes DiFi.
Click to expand...

I know some on the left don't like her, but her voting record is hardly approaching even that of a moderate, she just isn't hardcore left.
Anyway, this is a distraction, other Democrats supported it too.
It makes sense, helping to create forestry jobs with logging that takes away a lot of dead trees, brush and helps thin where it can prevent firest. It's really one of those rare bills that is win-win for all.
 
KingCondanomation said:
I know some on the left don't like her, but her voting record is hardly approaching even that of a moderate, she just isn't hardcore left.
Anyway, this is a distraction, other Democrats supported it too.
It makes sense, helping to create forestry jobs with logging that takes away a lot of dead trees, brush and helps thin where it can prevent firest. It's really one of those rare bills that is win-win for all.
Click to expand...


Loggers aren't interested in clearing brush and undergrowth. They're into cutting down mature trees. If it were just about thinning out undergrowth there wouldn't have been an issue.

Cutting down mature trees, which the "Healthy Forest Restoration Act" permitted, not only doesn't serve to prevent forest fires, but actually exacerbates the problem by eliminating the forest canopy and permitting in place of mature trees, the growth of grasses, etc. that are the real problem.
 
I have no problem with prudent, responsible tree cutting, by either individuals or the logging industry. Clearly, the industry couldn't be trusted on its own to pursue that, but I'd support guidelines that are friendly to both industry & the environment.
 
Dungheap said:
Loggers aren't interested in clearing brush and undergrowth. They're into cutting down mature trees. If it were just about thinning out undergrowth there wouldn't have been an issue.

Cutting down mature trees, which the "Healthy Forest Restoration Act" permitted, not only doesn't serve to prevent forest fires, but actually exacerbates the problem by eliminating the forest canopy and permitting in place of mature trees, the growth of grasses, etc. that are the real problem.
Click to expand...

This is false. Forest fires often spread at the canopy level, not just ground level, so eliminating it is hardly a bad thing in some areas.
As an example, there are many gravel or paved roads going through forests, but the fires still spread over them because they can spread at the canopy level.

Mature trees gone in the right areas can slow the spread of forest fires and the most mature trees are the ones that are next about to die and become prime fuel for fires.
A bit of extra grass is not going to keep a fire going as long as a burning tree, you obviously have far more fuel per square foot of land. There is a reason why we see more forest fires and that are harder to put out than grassland fires.
 
Dungheap said:
Loggers aren't interested in clearing brush and undergrowth. They're into cutting down mature trees. If it were just about thinning out undergrowth there wouldn't have been an issue.

Cutting down mature trees, which the "Healthy Forest Restoration Act" permitted, not only doesn't serve to prevent forest fires, but actually exacerbates the problem by eliminating the forest canopy and permitting in place of mature trees, the growth of grasses, etc. that are the real problem.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Let's get real, we all need paper and wood. Obviously we need to harvest trees. IF we do have to cut down trees, it makes the most sense to cut down those that can help prevent forest fires.

The amount of trees (in America) has been increasing since the 1920's when people abandoned trees as a source of heating and moved to oil and electricity, so there is no valid concern over trying to "save" the trees from the destruction of humankind.

What would help the most is privatizing more government land. When loggers log public land, they have no incentive to plant more trees because those who will reap the benefits might be some other party. If loggers log private land, they do have a financial incentive to replant trees because then there land will be valuable again.
Same reason farmers keep good care of their own private land as opposed to those who were charged with planting crops in collectivist plans for socialist states where they reaped no personal benefit to a bigger harvest and better use of the land.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
LOL

So Dixie's had family members die in wildfires caused by liberal tree huggers, he camped out in the Green Zone, goes quail hunting with Zell Miller, and is totally fucking nuts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top