1,129
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 115:
Line 115: + + + +
Tahoe and fire management
Why are pop stars' opinions removed when they make good points and included when they make dumb points (like here)? [[User:Pendayho|Pachuca]] 12:16, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
Why are pop stars' opinions removed when they make good points and included when they make dumb points (like here)? [[User:Pendayho|Pachuca]] 12:16, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
Because this is essentially a blog for people with an axe to grind. Why else? [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 16:30, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
Because this is essentially a blog for people with an axe to grind. Why else? [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 16:30, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
== Tahoe and fire management ==
One finger to point is at the environmentalists. Another is at flawed fire management policy for the past few decades. The Tahoe basin is an area that is subject to many natural fires. With so many houses in the area (where did the environmentalists stand on that?) it became necessary to put out every fire immediately. This prevented the natural cycle of fuel for fires from being reduced regularly. Fire management has acknowledged that this fire has been in the making for decades. Further reading: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/26/HISTORY.TMP Compare this to Yosemite (similar area) and the fire management policies there http://www.nps.gov/archive/yose/fire/wildland.htm http://www.yosemite.org/visitor/frequent-fire.htm . Additional useful reading is the U.S Fish & Wildlife Service on fire management - http://www.fws.gov/fire/living_with_fire/ . Overly dense crowding for the area, removal of fire resistant species of trees, and quick extinguishing of natural fires coupled with a much dryer than average winter. Environmentalists certainly are not to blame for the first three on that list, and can hardly be blamed for the fourth. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 01:07, 27 June 2007 (EDT)