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

WCDawg

@Dawg1419 said:

@WCDawg said:

@Dawg1419 said:

@WCDawg 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, the blow hard knows all, the people who actually know things don't really know anything.
If you ever lived in very mountainous places like Colorado and California you might have accidentally learned how hard it is to do controlled burns with that topography.

Where do you live?

I live back home in West Georgia now. I lived in Colorado for 10 years and I spent a lot of time in California doing landscape photography, hiking, climbing, skiing and kayaking.
Trump's problem..well, it's OUR problem really, is he doesn't like to study things, he just looks at something and thinks he understands it.

Welcome back.

Thanks, I love the west and the Western NC Mountains, but home will always be home.

PerroGrande

@WCDawg said:

@PerroGrande said:

@WCDawg said:

@PerroGrande said:

@RxDawg 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 actually figured it was just mass space. Cali is huge. That's a lot of dry woods to maintain.

I think the environmentalists don't like it, so it probably isn't popular in CA. And I haven't done much with forestry in a long time; it may not be considered best practice any longer. But, that used to be a specific selling point for doing it--it cleans out the kindling that helps the fires spread. CA is dry and it can be really windy, so it is possible that firebreaks and controlled burns don't do much.

That is just uneducated nonsense.

Good ole WC...insult first, ask questions later.
http://www.gfc.state.ga.us/forest-management/prescribed-fire/

Bite me...how's it going ?

No thanks, you're doing a great job of biting yourself!

WCDawg

@PerroGrande said:

@WCDawg said:

@PerroGrande said:

@WCDawg said:

@PerroGrande said:

@RxDawg 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 actually figured it was just mass space. Cali is huge. That's a lot of dry woods to maintain.

I think the environmentalists don't like it, so it probably isn't popular in CA. And I haven't done much with forestry in a long time; it may not be considered best practice any longer. But, that used to be a specific selling point for doing it--it cleans out the kindling that helps the fires spread. CA is dry and it can be really windy, so it is possible that firebreaks and controlled burns don't do much.

That is just uneducated nonsense.

Good ole WC...insult first, ask questions later.
http://www.gfc.state.ga.us/forest-management/prescribed-fire/

Bite me...how's it going ?

No thanks, you're doing a great job of biting yourself!

You may over estimate my level of giving a flip what you think of me.

PerroGrande

@WCDawg said:

@PerroGrande said:

@WCDawg said:

@PerroGrande said:

@WCDawg said:

@PerroGrande said:

@RxDawg 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 actually figured it was just mass space. Cali is huge. That's a lot of dry woods to maintain.

I think the environmentalists don't like it, so it probably isn't popular in CA. And I haven't done much with forestry in a long time; it may not be considered best practice any longer. But, that used to be a specific selling point for doing it--it cleans out the kindling that helps the fires spread. CA is dry and it can be really windy, so it is possible that firebreaks and controlled burns don't do much.

That is just uneducated nonsense.

Good ole WC...insult first, ask questions later.
http://www.gfc.state.ga.us/forest-management/prescribed-fire/

Bite me...how's it going ?

No thanks, you're doing a great job of biting yourself!

You may over estimate my level of giving a flip what you think of me.

Obviously, you don't care, since you've been in an insult contest with about half of the DN Forum. I'm sure you're aware of how you come across to others from family feedback, though.

RedBlackDawg

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.

RedBlackDawg

....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

YaleDawg

@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.

levander

Wow, WC is really **** eggs in this thread. It’s like 2/3rds of the people in this thread hate him.

But what’s truly amazing is he’a still posting, simply because he’s convinced he’s right about everything.

After all, they told him on TV that orange man is bad. So how could he be wrong?

WCDawg

@PerroGrande said:

@WCDawg said:

@PerroGrande said:

@WCDawg said:

@PerroGrande said:

@WCDawg said:

@PerroGrande said:

@RxDawg 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 actually figured it was just mass space. Cali is huge. That's a lot of dry woods to maintain.

I think the environmentalists don't like it, so it probably isn't popular in CA. And I haven't done much with forestry in a long time; it may not be considered best practice any longer. But, that used to be a specific selling point for doing it--it cleans out the kindling that helps the fires spread. CA is dry and it can be really windy, so it is possible that firebreaks and controlled burns don't do much.

That is just uneducated nonsense.

Good ole WC...insult first, ask questions later.
http://www.gfc.state.ga.us/forest-management/prescribed-fire/

Bite me...how's it going ?

No thanks, you're doing a great job of biting yourself!

You may over estimate my level of giving a flip what you think of me.

Obviously, you don't care, since you've been in an insult contest with about half of the DN Forum. I'm sure you're aware of how you come across to others from family feedback, though.

I'm sure you're sure about many things you don't know anything about.

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.

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, those disparate policies and interests attempt to balance conflicting environmental concerns with other factors.
You may have noticed these fires don't often occur in the central valley where clearing brush and controlling deliberately set fires is relatively simple.

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