[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
> If I am with a group and they want one and we have a fire ring and necessary
> permits. I always find one person in the group wanting to make the fire
> bigger and bigger
I know what you mean.
> On control burning. I suggest for those who think this will save the forest.
> Let me handcuff them to a tree were the fire is supposed to stop if they like
> their meat well done. "That is they will be well done." If they like their
> meat medium done I will spot them 500 feet. or if raw 1000 feet. Any takers.
> So much for controlled burning.
I'm not sure what your message here is. The basic idea behind
controlled burns is very simple - to burn, fire needs fuel. The 75 year
policy of suppressing every and all fires allowed a massive amount of
fuel to build up, leading in part to the catastrophic wildfire in recent
years. Reduce that fuel level, and you'll reduce the size of future
Note that the idea is not to eliminate fires. That's not possible, as
forest managers discovered with their past programs. The idea instead is
to keep fires at a manageable level. There will still be some damage,
but much more limited in scope and area. Controlled burns allow managers
to reduce the current dangerous levels of fuel to one that is more in
line with historic levels, and is safer in the long run to boot.
Eventually the annual cycle of fires will be mostly sufficient to keep
fuel amounts low.
What exactly do you find unacceptable about the process?
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will
determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate
discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor
must preside at our assemblies.
William O. Douglas