LED Campfire?
- Thread starter Ace Brown
- Start date
mezmochill
Is outside
Should they stop wildland firefighting around population centers?
Ace Brown
Retired Ol’ Fart
Of course not. It’s no different than stopping structure fires. The problem has been the greenies lobbying to prevent the USFS from doing their job of controlled burning and preventative clearing to remove fuel from our forests. Also we need to resume with adds educating dumbasses about fire safety. I was talking with a USFS ranger just last weekend about what he finds during fire patrol. He had to wake up a couple still sleeping in their tent while their campfire burned outside all night. This was during the current fire ban. Too many fires are started from ignorance or carelessness.
Ace
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
mezmochill
Is outside
So the "greenies" ( i assume you mean environmentalists), are the supposed sole group " preventing the USFS from doing their job of controlled burning and preventative clearing to remove fuel from our forests". Are they also the cause of the current drought and 50-100 years of overly aggressive wildfire suppression?
What would be the name of the group of uneducated "dumbasses" starting the fires? Are those the "greenies" too?
If not what would be the enviropolitical bent of that group?
Seems a little ying yang to me. Assuming your assessement is correct in regards to this complex issue.
mezmochill
Is outside
Your assessment blames enviromentalists for high fuel loads.
Would agree then there are at least a couple more factors that are actually more important factors for high fuel loads ? (Ie drought, pine beetle kill, over aggressise fire suppression throught the 20th century.)
**Just curious as to why you place your focus on the "greenies"??**
As far as ignition goes, how often is lightning to blame vs the uneducated " dumbasses"
Would agree then there are at least a couple more factors that are actually more important factors for high fuel loads ? (Ie drought, pine beetle kill, over aggressise fire suppression throught the 20th century.)
**Just curious as to why you place your focus on the "greenies"??**
As far as ignition goes, how often is lightning to blame vs the uneducated " dumbasses"
mezmochill
Is outside
Btw im not defending people being clueless when it comes to campfires, spark arrestors, fireworks etc.
Also not defending the extreme end of the enviro movement either.
Also not defending the extreme end of the enviro movement either.
Ace Brown
Retired Ol’ Fart
Because I didn’t mention B does not mean I’m focused on A.
More fires are human caused than lightning. I asked a ranger why they ban shooting. I had never heard of fires being started by recreational shooting. He replied they had put out two shooter caused fires during the recent ban: one shooting tracers, the other shooting explosive targets. I rest my case about dumbasses.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
mezmochill
Is outside
So you focus on blaming enviromentalists as being the cause of high fuel loads, even though as a causative factor(if in fact a factor at all) they would be a distant fourth relative to drought, pine beetle kill and overly agressove wildfire management in the past.
And then discount it by saying well I just didnt bring up B C and D.
I find that curious.
Whatevs.
More wildfire ignition from humans than lightning...in Colorado specifically or nationwide?
Kerensky97
Xterra101
Google "Environmentalist Wildfires" and you'll get a ton of links to very biased right-wing opinion sites trying to place blame with lots of accusations but very little verifiable facts.
Also those same sites will always try to blame large wildfires on opposition to logging, which Environmentalists do oppose when the logging is in an area that has been designated as protecting endangered species (The Spotted Owl is the example run out every time even though it dates back to the early 90s). But studies show that logging doesn't have much impact stopping wildfires. And logging hasn't been stopped by environmentalists, and is still very common in the National Forests. When it comes to fire suppression it's rare to see anybody other than the most militant environmentalist minority opposing fighting fires (remember they usually take the "let nature be free and do it's own thing" mentality).
The reality is that after the massive fires in 1910 the government took up a position of fighting all fires (ironically to protect the trees seen more as an extractable resource at the time). By the 1960's we started to realize that small burns prevent massive firestorms and began to let natural fires burn unless they threatened structures or lives. That policy continues today.
The massive fires recently aren't the fault of the "Librul Greenies" or "Environment Hating Conservatives", it's because the recent droughts have been the worst in 800 years. That combined with some of our forests still too dense from the old 1910 policy means we're going to have lots of fire potential. Trying to point the finger for personal political gain is the most unconstructive thing we can do to protect against these fires.
Good handout talking about fire policy and fire impacts here:
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/fire/upload/wildland-fire-in-national-parks-brochure-2013-poster.pdf
Also those same sites will always try to blame large wildfires on opposition to logging, which Environmentalists do oppose when the logging is in an area that has been designated as protecting endangered species (The Spotted Owl is the example run out every time even though it dates back to the early 90s). But studies show that logging doesn't have much impact stopping wildfires. And logging hasn't been stopped by environmentalists, and is still very common in the National Forests. When it comes to fire suppression it's rare to see anybody other than the most militant environmentalist minority opposing fighting fires (remember they usually take the "let nature be free and do it's own thing" mentality).
The reality is that after the massive fires in 1910 the government took up a position of fighting all fires (ironically to protect the trees seen more as an extractable resource at the time). By the 1960's we started to realize that small burns prevent massive firestorms and began to let natural fires burn unless they threatened structures or lives. That policy continues today.
The massive fires recently aren't the fault of the "Librul Greenies" or "Environment Hating Conservatives", it's because the recent droughts have been the worst in 800 years. That combined with some of our forests still too dense from the old 1910 policy means we're going to have lots of fire potential. Trying to point the finger for personal political gain is the most unconstructive thing we can do to protect against these fires.
Good handout talking about fire policy and fire impacts here:
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/fire/upload/wildland-fire-in-national-parks-brochure-2013-poster.pdf
Last edited:
mezmochill
Is outside
Yea I know, this place is overrun with talking points. K Street and Fox all rolled into one.
Im about ready to get banned for asking someone in another thread whether there sponsorships could effect there reviews...so adios...keep up the good fight.
Im about ready to get banned for asking someone in another thread whether there sponsorships could effect there reviews...so adios...keep up the good fight.
mezmochill
Is outside
And yea the wildfire issue is highly complex, but its the liberalzzzz fault. Simple solution. Doesnt suprise me a bit.
Ace Brown
Retired Ol’ Fart
jus passin thru
Adventurer
All we need is a smarter population and more rain, sounds easy to me. But you can’t fix stupid but maybe you can make it rain.
Ace Brown
Retired Ol’ Fart
I assure you we have been praying for rain here and it’s raining right now! It’s been long enough that I really can’t remember the last time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Similar threads
