The western states wildfires COULD have been prevented, if it weren't for the environmentalists preventing proper forestry management.



[url]http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0624fire-policy24.html[/url]

Additionally, controlled burns and even planned clearcutting prevents big spreads of wildfire.  But nooooo......

I think of my self as very "pro-environment", but I never understood the opposition to controlled burns.

The burning helps the forest by providing all types of nutrients into the soil and clearing the forest of all the dead underbrush.

I guess they don't want the furry little animals to die.

Av.

They don't want to displace or kill a few little furry animals in controlled burns.  Instead, they'd rather let the little furry animal environment be a tinderbox for when some stupid twit starts a fire.  Why risk a few animals in a controlled environment when you can let hundreds of them die in a large forest fire.  Not to mention the damage to their habitat that will take several decades to repair.  Just like gun control freaks are pro-crime, hard core environmentalists are anti-earth.

Just like the environmentalists that are against deer hunting / harvesting.

They wouldn't want anyone to shoot a nice little deer.

They would prefer (as shown by all major animal management studies) that the deer suffer a brutal, agonizing, not to mention wasteful, death by starvation during winter months when the snows cover over the vegetation, and there little for the deer to eat.

What a great statement for a bumper sticker!  This gets my vote for quote of the week.

Environmentalist Agenda = Uncontrollable Wildfires and Dependence on Foreign Oil

Gun Control Agenda = Higher Crime and Defenseless Victims

Higher Taxes for Social Programs = American families struggling to make ends meet



Let's face it folks:

LIBERALISM KILLS.

In another thread on this topic (300,000 acres burn or something like that) I posted a link to a story about a private company that offered to cut around 30 miles of firebreak through the forest. They weren't allowed to do it for fear of "tearing up the ground". Bs. They even offered to foot the bill to plant new trees afterwords. I'm too lazy to dig the link up. It's a government conspiracy.

It is amazing that the Forest Service has to spend almost half of its budget on lawyers in order to fight the lawsuits and legal challenges by environmentalist wackos.

Instead of clearing the dry underbrush and getting rid of deadwood,  the Forest Service sits around doing nothing (much of the time).

The USA currently has more Forest and tree cover than it did over one hundred years ago.  The population of the USA has increased several times over, we've built millions of homes, built tens of millions of furniture pieces, printed billions of newspapers, magazines, letters, papers etc. but the number of trees has increased dramatically.

Yet, even though we have plenty of trees, the tree huggers (it isn't about the animals, it's about worshipping trees) act like we are destroying the planet because we need to clear cut forests and manage the undergrowth.

I am surprised that this info made it into the major news media.  Finding info that is critical of the eco-freaks is difficult to come by.  

Eco-freaks are responsible for killing millions of people in the third world.  DDT was outlawed by Eco-idiots even though it virtually eradicated malaria.  In the years since the ban on DDT, 40 million people have died of malaria (Africa, Southeast Asia, mostly. Source: Wall Street Journal).  DDT was an extremely cheap and effective way for poor countries to manage malaria.  It was outlawed by rich country idiots who wanted to protect little critters because some dubious research said it harmed them (and some humans).  Overall the benefits of DDT FAR outweighed the risks.  It was estimated that 1000 people a year would die from DDT.  What they didn't consider was that malaria kills over 1 million people per year. (Source:  Wall Street Journal)

Actually it is even simpler than that.  Redwoods and Sequoias as native to dry environments where frequent lightning strikes and dry conditions often lead to fires.  Over the centuries, these trees adapted a dependence upon fire to reproduce.  They need the heat to open their cones exposing the seeds to fertilization and dispersal.  Without fire that simply does not happen.

Additionally, the bark of redwoods and Sequoia are also adapted to deal with fire, being quite thick and resistant to fire.  

Neat trees.

I'm not a big fan of large clearcuts.  Aside from being ugly, they are lazy forestry and leave an unatural landscape that takes a long time to regenerate and is exposed to severe erosion.  Smaller clear cuts are desirable however.  They allow different tree specieis to establish in the area and provide open space habitat for any number of bird and animal species.  

Actually, over the past 100 years, the area of forests has declined, from over 300 million ha (or rougly 33% of the US) to around 270 million ha  or 30% of the US (USGS and CIA websites).  In 1630 that figure was estimated to be 450 million ha (USGS website).  The useage has changed - less timber is being cleared for agriculture, but less is available in cities as well.  The loss of tree cover in US cities costs the taxpayers money in the form of water management.

I'd love to hear where that 40% figure came from - is that like the figure for the likelyness of being shot by your own gun? [:O]

And that is how it should be. The strong survive, while the weak die. When was the last time a hunter bagged a sick or elderly deer? Unfortunately hunters kill the strong, healthy deer.

Av.

No sir, you are mistaken.

Environmentalists are making it so that the strong starve to death.

I used to be against deer hunting - for personalk reasons.

That was before the overpopulation of deer wrecked my car TWICE, risking my life BOTH times. (not kidding or exaggerating)

Even teh strong deer need to be harvested. I don't do it myself, but encourage others to do so.

I must agree with the G-man on this one - deer need to be harvested just like any other rodents - they just happen to be bigger than (most) rats and have a white, bushy tail.  Overpopulation incites the spread of disease and run-ins with human population that we could all live without.  They also make good eatin' (at least in the smoked sausages that I happen to like).

I second Gman and Dave.  All one has to do is take an afternoon drive though some Texas Hill Country suburb and see the massive overpopulation of white-tail.  At times there are 3 to 4 lounging in the front yards of the neighborhood.  I was a landscaper for many of these communities and had to educate many of the residents about not feeding the deer.  In Lakeway near Austin there was a proposal last year to hire police snipers to start thinning out the heard and send the meat to local food kitchens.  Of course the bunny huggers put a stop to that and now the deer are trapped and moved to Mexico at $3000 of my tax money per deer.  I would have gladly donated the $1.25 .270Wby rounds myself taken the meat and saved us all a lot of money.
On killing sick and old deer, at my ranch and my friends ranch we always shoot the old grey does and bucks first.  After several years, the health and quality of the deer population in our area has improved dramatically.

Now THAT makes sense! [thinking] I don't have a solution for deer overcrowding, but as long as the meat is being used, that's not such a bad thing.

Too often out here people just kill the deer and let them rot in the woods. Quite often it is not a clean kill either.

Av.

Well, now - that would NOT be "harvesting" now would it???

I'm not aware of a SINGLE hunter that bagged a deer that DID NOT want to haul it back it to brag about over beer and venison.

Methinks these tales of hunters killing deer and leaving them there to rot out in the woods are overblown. Pure fabrication.

The deer that WAS left there to rot was the "summer deer" that  smashed the front end of my car, and was mere INCHES from coming thru my windshield, turning garandman into ghostman.

The SOLUTION for deer over crowding is ....hunters.

Thank God for them.

The victims of this fire need to force the issue and file suit against the enviromental groups that have opposed forest management.

It would be a radical precident if the suits were allowed to go forward but it should be at least attempted.

[img]http://www.scfirearms.org/images/edkelleher.jpg[/img]


I'm evil. P-U-R-E evil.  [}:D]

??? I know quite a few deer hunters (I hope to get my first deer next fall), and none of them would even think about leaving the dead deer in the woods for a second. Nor have I ever heard of leaving the carcass in the woods.

As a person who lives where people hunt, there are instances where carcasses are left to rot.  Of course, other animals usually eat off the carcass as well.... turkey vultures, etc.  

The main reason is people hunting with dogs.  They don't ever get a clear shot.  They try to hit the deer and follow the blood trail.  Sometimes they lose the trail. [:(]

I've very pro-hunter... but I think hunters need to police their own to stop those few who propogate the negative image some folks have of hunting.

Firefighters are making a last effort to get a fire break in that will help protect Show Low. A favorable turn in the weather has made this possible. Show Low is still in EXTREME danger, but at least there is hope.

GOD BLESS YOU FIREFIGHTERS !!

[url]http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0624fire-rimfire24-ON.html[/url]