FireAg said:
B-1 83 said:
annie88 said:
That's not bad Trump at all.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
Once again, Trump is right. You're the one that seems to be confused.
Then please explain in detail with your vast prescribed burn and rangeland knowledge what "forest floor" he's babbling about with these fires in LA? There is no "forest".
It's semantics…the point is they need to do a better job of clearing fuel loads away from these inhabited areas…yes, that means it is an annual effort in areas the grow up brush the drys out every year…
Yes, I expect it is expensive to do so…
The alternative is to stop living there…
As I pointed out in another thread, "clearing those fuel loads" in that country is not nearly the same task as it is in genuinely forested areas. The pictures reveal a landscape that's steep, rocky, and almost inaccessible to do so. To top it all off, today's "fuel loads" is tomorrow's erosion control - we can't go in and spray the brush, and if you've been around sagebrush you know one year of good rains brings it back. I even thought about prescribed burns, but I'll be damned if I want anybody out there to control a Class III or IV burn out my back door in that terrain.
I just don't think bringing that particular tweet back after 5 years is appropriate for this situation. California has some major issues with their public land management when it comes to fire control and suppression, but this situation in LA seems to lie squarely with long term and short term human planning and error. It may not be a case of .stop living there" as much as "rebuild with the concept of fires in mind next time".
Being in TexAgs jail changes a man……..no, not really