The Camp Fire is shaping up as our worst natural disaster since Katrina..

YaleDawg

@WCDawg said:

@YaleDawg said:

@Dawg1419 said:

@PerroGrande said:
You can talk to a forestry grad from UGA about it. We used to have a great Forestry school. We probably have some foresters on board. Controlled burns used to be the answer to reducing forest fire risk. Perhaps the forests out there are different, and maybe the environmentalists oppose it, despite the safety benefits.

I have and he said with the lack of rainfall in the area, winds and not being able to prescribe burn its Californias fault this is happening. So Trump is right as usual. Like it or not the truth is they need to remove the fuel from the ground by prescribe burns. We do it every year where we hunt.

Sure, there has been some mismanagement of the forests by Cali with allowing undergrowth to flourish and stringent logging policy preventing a thinning of forests, and they are working to address these issues by relaxing some regulations and implementing a planned thinning of forests. They are rightfully concerned about opening up the forests to timber companies for clear cutting which trump and Zinke want to do. Trump's criticism is also a bit odd because the federal gov owns 57% of cali forests, 40% privately owned, and the rest owned by the state. If its being mismanaged, his administration can fix most it. People also dont want to talk about the biggest issue causing the blazes to appear more often and with stronger intensity.

None of those things relate to these property destroying and life threatening urban transition fires though. What you're referring to is managing wilderness areas, which tries to balance environmental concerns. They are varied and often have conflicting purposes.

Yep, it's an incredibly complex issue that's hard to describe in an online forum of non experts much less a tweet.

Edit: I'm not an expert in case that came across as condescending.

WCDawg

@YaleDawg said:

@Dawg1419 said:

@PerroGrande said:
You can talk to a forestry grad from UGA about it. We used to have a great Forestry school. We probably have some foresters on board. Controlled burns used to be the answer to reducing forest fire risk. Perhaps the forests out there are different, and maybe the environmentalists oppose it, despite the safety benefits.

I have and he said with the lack of rainfall in the area, winds and not being able to prescribe burn its Californias fault this is happening. So Trump is right as usual. Like it or not the truth is they need to remove the fuel from the ground by prescribe burns. We do it every year where we hunt.

Sure, there has been some mismanagement of the forests by Cali with allowing undergrowth to flourish and stringent logging policy preventing a thinning of forests, and they are working to address these issues by relaxing some regulations and implementing a planned thinning of forests. They are rightfully concerned about opening up the forests to timber companies for clear cutting which trump and Zinke want to do. Trump's criticism is also a bit odd because the federal gov owns 57% of cali forests, 40% privately owned, and the rest owned by the state. If its being mismanaged, his administration can fix most it. People also dont want to talk about the biggest issue causing the blazes to appear more often and with stronger intensity.

Trump rarely if ever concerns himself with facts before running his mouth. He is driven by self interest and his petty nature.

WCDawg

@RedBlackDawg said:
....and how many times did the OP said he was done with this thread and just kept dragging it on and on and on....attention seeking behavior if I’ve ever seen it

I never said I'm done with this thread, I said I'm done with a couple of posters . Careful the ignorance doesn't infect you.

donm

@Dawg1419 said:

@PerroGrande said:
You can talk to a forestry grad from UGA about it. We used to have a great Forestry school. We probably have some foresters on board. Controlled burns used to be the answer to reducing forest fire risk. Perhaps the forests out there are different, and maybe the environmentalists oppose it, despite the safety benefits.

I have and he said with the lack of rainfall in the area, winds and not being able to prescribe burn its Californias fault this is happening. So Trump is right as usual. Like it or not the truth is they need to remove the fuel from the ground by prescribe burns. We do it every year where we hunt.

I don't know what effect it might have had, but funding for the Forest Service has been cut back in CA. Not sure how much raking or controlled burns they would do "normally" but it's certainly less now. Plus, with the 5 year drought I'm not sure how safe it would be to do "controlled" burns anyway. That's a LOT of forest to "rake". CA isn't Finland.

YaleDawg

@donm said:

@Dawg1419 said:

@PerroGrande said:
You can talk to a forestry grad from UGA about it. We used to have a great Forestry school. We probably have some foresters on board. Controlled burns used to be the answer to reducing forest fire risk. Perhaps the forests out there are different, and maybe the environmentalists oppose it, despite the safety benefits.

I have and he said with the lack of rainfall in the area, winds and not being able to prescribe burn its Californias fault this is happening. So Trump is right as usual. Like it or not the truth is they need to remove the fuel from the ground by prescribe burns. We do it every year where we hunt.

I don't know what effect it might have had, but funding for the Forest Service has been cut back in CA. Not sure how much raking or controlled burns they would do "normally" but it's certainly less now. Plus, with the 5 year drought I'm not sure how safe it would be to do "controlled" burns anyway. That's a LOT of forest to "rake". CA isn't Finland.

sounds like #rakenews to me

WCDawg

@donm said:

@Dawg1419 said:

@PerroGrande said:
You can talk to a forestry grad from UGA about it. We used to have a great Forestry school. We probably have some foresters on board. Controlled burns used to be the answer to reducing forest fire risk. Perhaps the forests out there are different, and maybe the environmentalists oppose it, despite the safety benefits.

I have and he said with the lack of rainfall in the area, winds and not being able to prescribe burn its Californias fault this is happening. So Trump is right as usual. Like it or not the truth is they need to remove the fuel from the ground by prescribe burns. We do it every year where we hunt.

I don't know what effect it might have had, but funding for the Forest Service has been cut back in CA. Not sure how much raking or controlled burns they would do "normally" but it's certainly less now. Plus, with the 5 year drought I'm not sure how safe it would be to do "controlled" burns anyway. That's a LOT of forest to "rake". CA isn't Finland.

I wonder how many of you have ever set foot in mountainous wilderness areas, not that it even relates to the Camp Fire but the idea of raking like they do in Finnish pine forest is absolute nonsense. I'm guessing a single day of hiking in Sierra Mountain wilderness would make it obvious how absurd a notion raking it is. This isn't Finnish pine rows.

donm

@YaleDawg said:

@donm said:

@Dawg1419 said:

@PerroGrande said:
You can talk to a forestry grad from UGA about it. We used to have a great Forestry school. We probably have some foresters on board. Controlled burns used to be the answer to reducing forest fire risk. Perhaps the forests out there are different, and maybe the environmentalists oppose it, despite the safety benefits.

I have and he said with the lack of rainfall in the area, winds and not being able to prescribe burn its Californias fault this is happening. So Trump is right as usual. Like it or not the truth is they need to remove the fuel from the ground by prescribe burns. We do it every year where we hunt.

I don't know what effect it might have had, but funding for the Forest Service has been cut back in CA. Not sure how much raking or controlled burns they would do "normally" but it's certainly less now. Plus, with the 5 year drought I'm not sure how safe it would be to do "controlled" burns anyway. That's a LOT of forest to "rake". CA isn't Finland.

sounds like #rakenews to me

I don't really know one way or the other. Just reporting what I heard the Forest Service guy say on the radio when he was being interviewed. Could be or might not be. He might be a pathological liar or telling the absolute truth. If a fellow were
to take the time and make the effort, it might be answerable. I'm pretty sure raking isn't the answer.

YaleDawg

@donm said:

@YaleDawg said:

@donm said:

@Dawg1419 said:

@PerroGrande said:
You can talk to a forestry grad from UGA about it. We used to have a great Forestry school. We probably have some foresters on board. Controlled burns used to be the answer to reducing forest fire risk. Perhaps the forests out there are different, and maybe the environmentalists oppose it, despite the safety benefits.

I have and he said with the lack of rainfall in the area, winds and not being able to prescribe burn its Californias fault this is happening. So Trump is right as usual. Like it or not the truth is they need to remove the fuel from the ground by prescribe burns. We do it every year where we hunt.

I don't know what effect it might have had, but funding for the Forest Service has been cut back in CA. Not sure how much raking or controlled burns they would do "normally" but it's certainly less now. Plus, with the 5 year drought I'm not sure how safe it would be to do "controlled" burns anyway. That's a LOT of forest to "rake". CA isn't Finland.

sounds like #rakenews to me

I don't really know one way or the other. Just reporting what I heard the Forest Service guy say on the radio when he was being interviewed. Could be or might not be. He might be a pathological liar or telling the absolute truth. If a fellow were
to take the time and make the effort, it might be answerable. I'm pretty sure raking isn't the answer.

I feel ya man. I was just trying to add some levity to the discussion with rake news. Thought it was a fun play on words.

WCDawg

@donm said:

@YaleDawg said:

@donm said:

@Dawg1419 said:

@PerroGrande said:
You can talk to a forestry grad from UGA about it. We used to have a great Forestry school. We probably have some foresters on board. Controlled burns used to be the answer to reducing forest fire risk. Perhaps the forests out there are different, and maybe the environmentalists oppose it, despite the safety benefits.

I have and he said with the lack of rainfall in the area, winds and not being able to prescribe burn its Californias fault this is happening. So Trump is right as usual. Like it or not the truth is they need to remove the fuel from the ground by prescribe burns. We do it every year where we hunt.

I don't know what effect it might have had, but funding for the Forest Service has been cut back in CA. Not sure how much raking or controlled burns they would do "normally" but it's certainly less now. Plus, with the 5 year drought I'm not sure how safe it would be to do "controlled" burns anyway. That's a LOT of forest to "rake". CA isn't Finland.

sounds like #rakenews to me

I don't really know one way or the other. Just reporting what I heard the Forest Service guy say on the radio when he was being interviewed. Could be or might not be. He might be a pathological liar or telling the absolute truth. If a fellow were
to take the time and make the effort, it might be answerable. I'm pretty sure raking isn't the answer.

Have you ever hiked through 8,000 to 12,000 ft elevation western mountain wilderness ? I have, some of the thinking here is comically absurd.

WCDawg

@RedBlackDawg said:
Never understood why certain people post topics of “DawgNation Forum” that has zero relevance to DawgNation. Not that it’s not allowed, but what’s the purpose? Then when things, predictably, gets political, the OP has no reservations about calling people “Trumpsters” or “orange man”. He’s no different than idiots calling Obama a “Kenyan”.

If you wanna make yourself look like a caring social justice warrior, just post in on your darned FB site where someone might give a **** about your feelings.

So sorry, I sometimes forget the crowd I'm conversing with, not the deepest well to say the least.

donm

@YaleDawg said:

@donm said:

@YaleDawg said:

@donm said:

@Dawg1419 said:

@PerroGrande said:
You can talk to a forestry grad from UGA about it. We used to have a great Forestry school. We probably have some foresters on board. Controlled burns used to be the answer to reducing forest fire risk. Perhaps the forests out there are different, and maybe the environmentalists oppose it, despite the safety benefits.

I have and he said with the lack of rainfall in the area, winds and not being able to prescribe burn its Californias fault this is happening. So Trump is right as usual. Like it or not the truth is they need to remove the fuel from the ground by prescribe burns. We do it every year where we hunt.

I don't know what effect it might have had, but funding for the Forest Service has been cut back in CA. Not sure how much raking or controlled burns they would do "normally" but it's certainly less now. Plus, with the 5 year drought I'm not sure how safe it would be to do "controlled" burns anyway. That's a LOT of forest to "rake". CA isn't Finland.

sounds like #rakenews to me

I don't really know one way or the other. Just reporting what I heard the Forest Service guy say on the radio when he was being interviewed. Could be or might not be. He might be a pathological liar or telling the absolute truth. If a fellow were
to take the time and make the effort, it might be answerable. I'm pretty sure raking isn't the answer.

I feel ya man. I was just trying to add some levity to the discussion with rake news. Thought it was a fun play on words.

I really feel like a dumbass now. Took it too seriously. Thought #rakenews was a typo and you really meant fake news. I'll be right back after I slap myself.

donm

@WCDawg said:

@donm said:

@YaleDawg said:

@donm said:

@Dawg1419 said:

@PerroGrande said:
You can talk to a forestry grad from UGA about it. We used to have a great Forestry school. We probably have some foresters on board. Controlled burns used to be the answer to reducing forest fire risk. Perhaps the forests out there are different, and maybe the environmentalists oppose it, despite the safety benefits.

I have and he said with the lack of rainfall in the area, winds and not being able to prescribe burn its Californias fault this is happening. So Trump is right as usual. Like it or not the truth is they need to remove the fuel from the ground by prescribe burns. We do it every year where we hunt.

I don't know what effect it might have had, but funding for the Forest Service has been cut back in CA. Not sure how much raking or controlled burns they would do "normally" but it's certainly less now. Plus, with the 5 year drought I'm not sure how safe it would be to do "controlled" burns anyway. That's a LOT of forest to "rake". CA isn't Finland.

sounds like #rakenews to me

I don't really know one way or the other. Just reporting what I heard the Forest Service guy say on the radio when he was being interviewed. Could be or might not be. He might be a pathological liar or telling the absolute truth. If a fellow were
to take the time and make the effort, it might be answerable. I'm pretty sure raking isn't the answer.

Have you ever hiked through 8,000 to 12,000 ft elevation western mountain wilderness ? I have, some of the thinking here is comically absurd.

Yep, lived in Colorado for 5 years and did some elk hunting in said mountains and did a lot of hiking and camping in the Poudre River area. Beautiful.

WCDawg

@donm said:

@WCDawg said:

@donm said:

@YaleDawg said:

@donm said:

@Dawg1419 said:

@PerroGrande said:
You can talk to a forestry grad from UGA about it. We used to have a great Forestry school. We probably have some foresters on board. Controlled burns used to be the answer to reducing forest fire risk. Perhaps the forests out there are different, and maybe the environmentalists oppose it, despite the safety benefits.

I have and he said with the lack of rainfall in the area, winds and not being able to prescribe burn its Californias fault this is happening. So Trump is right as usual. Like it or not the truth is they need to remove the fuel from the ground by prescribe burns. We do it every year where we hunt.

I don't know what effect it might have had, but funding for the Forest Service has been cut back in CA. Not sure how much raking or controlled burns they would do "normally" but it's certainly less now. Plus, with the 5 year drought I'm not sure how safe it would be to do "controlled" burns anyway. That's a LOT of forest to "rake". CA isn't Finland.

sounds like #rakenews to me

I don't really know one way or the other. Just reporting what I heard the Forest Service guy say on the radio when he was being interviewed. Could be or might not be. He might be a pathological liar or telling the absolute truth. If a fellow were
to take the time and make the effort, it might be answerable. I'm pretty sure raking isn't the answer.

Have you ever hiked through 8,000 to 12,000 ft elevation western mountain wilderness ? I have, some of the thinking here is comically absurd.

Yep, lived in Colorado for 5 years and did some elk hunting in said mountains and did a lot of hiking and camping in the Poudre River area. Beautiful.

Good, it's special isn't it. Imagine raking that terrain and the scale it would take to make even a dent in the forest bed.

It's not like raking between planted pine rows to put it mildly.

RedBlackDawg

@WCDawg said:

@RedBlackDawg said:
Never understood why certain people post topics of “DawgNation Forum” that has zero relevance to DawgNation. Not that it’s not allowed, but what’s the purpose? Then when things, predictably, gets political, the OP has no reservations about calling people “Trumpsters” or “orange man”. He’s no different than idiots calling Obama a “Kenyan”.

If you wanna make yourself look like a caring social justice warrior, just post in on your darned FB site where someone might give a **** about your feelings.

So sorry, I sometimes forget the crowd I'm conversing with, not the deepest well to say the least.

How many times on this thread have you either directly stated or (not so) subtly inferred how much superior your intellect is compared to the rest of us? Surely there must be a blog out in the tree hugging liberal universe where you must feel more comfortable conversing with people worthy enough for you to impart your vast knowledge, unsurpassed moral righteousness, and the purity of your convictions?

....on a website about college football??
ROTFLMAO!!!

WCDawg

@RedBlackDawg said:

@WCDawg said:

@RedBlackDawg said:
Never understood why certain people post topics of “DawgNation Forum” that has zero relevance to DawgNation. Not that it’s not allowed, but what’s the purpose? Then when things, predictably, gets political, the OP has no reservations about calling people “Trumpsters” or “orange man”. He’s no different than idiots calling Obama a “Kenyan”.

If you wanna make yourself look like a caring social justice warrior, just post in on your darned FB site where someone might give a **** about your feelings.

So sorry, I sometimes forget the crowd I'm conversing with, not the deepest well to say the least.

How many times on this thread have you either directly stated or (not so) subtly inferred how much superior your intellect is compared to the rest of us? Surely there must be a blog out in the tree hugging liberal universe where you must feel more comfortable conversing with people worthy enough for you to impart your vast knowledge, unsurpassed moral righteousness, and the purity of your convictions?

....on a website about college football??
ROTFLMAO!!!

It's not intellect, it's bothering to get a f….ing clue.If you don't care to bother taking a bit of thought for a serious subject, just **** about it. What bothers me are the people who parrot others ignorance while also being insulting.

RedBlackDawg

@WCDawg said:

@RedBlackDawg said:
....and how many times did the OP said he was done with this thread and just kept dragging it on and on and on....attention seeking behavior if I’ve ever seen it

I never said I'm done with this thread, I said I'm done with a couple of posters . Careful the ignorance doesn't infect you.

C’mon man......admit it. You’re just loving all the attention right now, ain’t ya??

RedBlackDawg

@WCDawg said:

@RedBlackDawg said:

@WCDawg said:

@RedBlackDawg said:
Never understood why certain people post topics of “DawgNation Forum” that has zero relevance to DawgNation. Not that it’s not allowed, but what’s the purpose? Then when things, predictably, gets political, the OP has no reservations about calling people “Trumpsters” or “orange man”. He’s no different than idiots calling Obama a “Kenyan”.

If you wanna make yourself look like a caring social justice warrior, just post in on your darned FB site where someone might give a **** about your feelings.

So sorry, I sometimes forget the crowd I'm conversing with, not the deepest well to say the least.

How many times on this thread have you either directly stated or (not so) subtly inferred how much superior your intellect is compared to the rest of us? Surely there must be a blog out in the tree hugging liberal universe where you must feel more comfortable conversing with people worthy enough for you to impart your vast knowledge, unsurpassed moral righteousness, and the purity of your convictions?

....on a website about college football??
ROTFLMAO!!!

It's not intellect, it's bothering to get a f….ing clue.If you don't care to bother taking a bit of thought for a serious subject, just **** about it. What bothers me are the people who parrot others ignorance while also being insulting.

So you blame “the Orange Man” for the fire. I bet you blamed GW Bush for Katrina. And in both instances, Democrats were the governors. I get annoyed with persons of such (self proclaimed) high intellect use the tragedies of natural disasters to take not so cheap shots at people who are not aligned with their political proclivities when they question your motives.

....again this is a college football blog....Might wanna consider reposting, on say....Daily Kos, FiveThirtyEight, Mother Jones, et al

Kasey

Tommy "Wildfire" Rich had a great look in the ring, but just couldn't hang on the mic. Although he did win the NWA title from Harley Race in Augusta once, so there's that

WCDawg

@RedBlackDawg said:

@WCDawg said:

@RedBlackDawg said:

@WCDawg said:

@RedBlackDawg said:
Never understood why certain people post topics of “DawgNation Forum” that has zero relevance to DawgNation. Not that it’s not allowed, but what’s the purpose? Then when things, predictably, gets political, the OP has no reservations about calling people “Trumpsters” or “orange man”. He’s no different than idiots calling Obama a “Kenyan”.

If you wanna make yourself look like a caring social justice warrior, just post in on your darned FB site where someone might give a **** about your feelings.

So sorry, I sometimes forget the crowd I'm conversing with, not the deepest well to say the least.

How many times on this thread have you either directly stated or (not so) subtly inferred how much superior your intellect is compared to the rest of us? Surely there must be a blog out in the tree hugging liberal universe where you must feel more comfortable conversing with people worthy enough for you to impart your vast knowledge, unsurpassed moral righteousness, and the purity of your convictions?

....on a website about college football??
ROTFLMAO!!!

It's not intellect, it's bothering to get a f….ing clue.If you don't care to bother taking a bit of thought for a serious subject, just **** about it. What bothers me are the people who parrot others ignorance while also being insulting.

So you blame “the Orange Man” for the fire. I bet you blamed GW Bush for Katrina. And in both instances, Democrats were the governors. I get annoyed with persons of such (self proclaimed) high intellect use the tragedies of natural disasters to take not so cheap shots at people who are not aligned with their political proclivities when they question your motives.

....again this is a college football blog....Might wanna consider reposting, on say....Daily Kos, FiveThirtyEight, Mother Jones, et al

You're deliberately being idiotic.

RedBlackDawg

@WCDawg said:

@RedBlackDawg said:

@WCDawg said:

@RedBlackDawg said:

@WCDawg said:

@RedBlackDawg said:
Never understood why certain people post topics of “DawgNation Forum” that has zero relevance to DawgNation. Not that it’s not allowed, but what’s the purpose? Then when things, predictably, gets political, the OP has no reservations about calling people “Trumpsters” or “orange man”. He’s no different than idiots calling Obama a “Kenyan”.

If you wanna make yourself look like a caring social justice warrior, just post in on your darned FB site where someone might give a **** about your feelings.

So sorry, I sometimes forget the crowd I'm conversing with, not the deepest well to say the least.

How many times on this thread have you either directly stated or (not so) subtly inferred how much superior your intellect is compared to the rest of us? Surely there must be a blog out in the tree hugging liberal universe where you must feel more comfortable conversing with people worthy enough for you to impart your vast knowledge, unsurpassed moral righteousness, and the purity of your convictions?

....on a website about college football??
ROTFLMAO!!!

It's not intellect, it's bothering to get a f….ing clue.If you don't care to bother taking a bit of thought for a serious subject, just **** about it. What bothers me are the people who parrot others ignorance while also being insulting.

So you blame “the Orange Man” for the fire. I bet you blamed GW Bush for Katrina. And in both instances, Democrats were the governors. I get annoyed with persons of such (self proclaimed) high intellect use the tragedies of natural disasters to take not so cheap shots at people who are not aligned with their political proclivities when they question your motives.

....again this is a college football blog....Might wanna consider reposting, on say....Daily Kos, FiveThirtyEight, Mother Jones, et al

You're deliberately being idiotic.

You mad ‘bro??