Is it just me or is the media overlooking a huge issue with these fires....I mean, its like the people who build their million $ houses on the beach in FL and NC and the like and go crying to their insurance companies when a hurricane comes by and flattens them. Though I feel sorry for these people losing their houses in the fires and feel even more sorry for the firemen busting their asses to put out the fires, this IS what happens when you build your house in the middle of what essentially is a desert....they wouldnt even be there if they weren't stealing all their water from CO in the first place for god sakes.....

This sure looks like a troll to me....

But you don't have to be a dick! Who cares where they live or where the water comes from.

Should I not feel bad for you if some arsonist comes and burns your house down...I mean how dare you have a house when people in this same country don't even have money to buy dinner for themselves or their families.

As well, how dare you take water from the earth...it wasn't put there for you - it was put there for all the little fishies!

But I guess if you can cry yourself a river, you will still have something to drink!

If they lived in a desert they would have nothing to burn and no forest fire.

So people are not supposed to have a nice house somewhere for fear mother nature might take it away. Man I hope a tornado doesn't tear my house down because it is my fault for living in the midwest. :rolleyes:

Cali fires?

Those Colombians must be pissed.

WTF?????? Have you ever even been here? Big Bear is not a desert. As Paul said, it is called a forest fire for a reason. How dare you blame where people want to build their houses for this tragedy, which is what this is. Not only is this horrible for the people who lost EVERYTHING they had to the fires but, it is going to destroy tourism for years to come. Big Bear is a ski resort in the winter and a hiking , off-roading, mountain biking, fishing, and all around outdoors paradise in the summer. The San Bernadino mountains are some of the most beautiful in the country. SCCX does many of our runs there. Your idiotic statement baffles me.

Jason

Hey spalind!

Got a message for you HERE

I don’t normally get involved in such discussions, but this one hits close to home.

The reason why we have such devastating fires is due to a cluster of a forest management plan in So Cal. On one side we have the “don’t cut/don’t burn” team and on the other side the small timber interest that have been chased out of the tree farming business in the Pac Northwest and have been forced to grab what they can down south. Both sides are highly suspicious of each other’s motives. What we end up with is a management policy that is a stagnant morass that needs a major shake up.
We need to do controlled burns, and we need to have selective harvesting that includes removal of dead scrags and replanting.

I consider myself an environmentalist but folks need to get off their high horse and focus on reasonable use of public lands that includes a forest management plan that includes recreation, economic considerations and preservation. I was a member of the Sierra Club since I was sixteen, but quit them three years ago because of their inability to literally “see the forest for the trees”.

I got my degree in anthropology and the record shows that indigenous populations regularly burned forestlands that ensured healthy forests for game and harvesting. While I have no illusions of the backward thinking idea of the “noble savage”, we need take a hard look on how natural and man-made burns have helped maintained healthy forests.

Doug

oh, to clarify.

CA steals there water from AZ.

Ah, thank you for clarifying Todrick...CA steals water from many states....AZ AND CO, since the rio grande starts as a CO river and much of the water is from the Rio Grande...2nd....not all deserts are like the Sahara...any place that falls under a certain amount of rain is considered a desert...it does not need to be treeless to be considered a desert...witness Antarctica--a desert...or Big Bend National Park....part of one of the larger deserts in North America and yet it is covered in scrub grasses and trees...and again...you people read far too much into what I say...just like the woment that most of you are...take what I say literally and in no way else...I feel sorry for people who lose their homes and the firemen who have to work in those conditions but when you build your house in a fire prone area this is bound to happen...and the rest of us...through higher property insurance and taxes (because WE fund the relief efforts paid by the state and federal government to rebuild these places) have to pay for many of these people to rebuild in the same damn places!! Its like those idiots who build their houses in areas prone to mud slides and on the edge of cliffs at the beach...yes its pretty but I shouldnt have to fund the rebuilding of their house because they made a stupid decision!!!

Ahh yes, the mighty forests of Antarctica.

You play a shrewd game.

A

OK dimwit...I wasnt refering to there being anything like a forest to burn in Antarctica...I was merely trying to get the DEFINITION of a desert across to you people and trying to show that not all deserts are full of sand like the beach....

the "Low lands" of So. Cal, yeah they are a desert.

But Big Bear? you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that a Pine forest at 10,000ft is a desert.

there are some very different regions within So Cal.

Then work on your communication skills.

It's a lifelong hobby.

A

Edited to add:

And I'll throw you a bone and not bring up the fact that the Rio Grande has very little to do with Arizona and California. P'raps you meant the Colorado?

Sorry dude but CA AND AZ both pipe water in from as far away as CO...including the Rio Grande....but you're right...they thief from the Colorado river too....damn SoCal people...its almost as if they think they deserve all their privilages just cause they live there...too bad the state won't divide into a NorCal and a SoCal so we could satch SoCal devolve into a third world nation that we could give back to Mexico!!

Are you absolutely sure? I am unaware of any water pipes that take water from the Rio Grande, cross the continental divide, and deliver said water to California.

a

I guess a few things come to mind.

I watched a Sierra Club idiot say the same stupid shit last night. There's nothing like a smug, I told you so, treehugger declaring that these people had it coming because they built their houses on top of nature to make you want to vomit.

1. Why would anyone in Mass. care where California gets it's water.

2. States sell the water so that California's farms can grow the FOOD that everyone in this country eats. You dont like it? Try growing shit in the snow. We also need the water because people from all over the country keep coming here. We can't stop them and they have to live. I guess it's not a bad idea using the water to keep people alive in a state that people want to live in instead of it sitting there doing nothing out in the middle of nowhere.

3. Aspen, Tahoe, Mammoth, Big Bear and countless other resorts exist all over the country. Do you suggest that all ski resorts should be uninhabited? Or just that anyone that chooses to live in one deserves to have their house burned down by an arsonist?

4. You obviously haven't been to California and if you did you didn't pay much attention. California has probably the most diverse topography of any state in the country. Los Angeles is pretty much a desert. The desert is boardered by mountains on one side and the ocean on the other. The mountains, in this case the Big Bear/Arrowhead area get snow. There's also a pretty damn big lake in Big bear. It's not very deserty up at 10k feet in the snow.

Don't you have a hurricane to chase somewhere?

Spalind,

You are indeed a troll. You might want to check up on your history of water (mis) management in the west. There is a great book by Marc Reisner titled Cadillac Desert. It has very few photos, so you might not be interested in it.

Additionally, it appears that you get snow and subsequent flooding in your area from snowmelt and rain. You might want to make sure that folks in your area never tap FEMA for help like they did in 1998.

FEMA Web Site

Doug

damn, I'm slipping.

This is likely a stupid question...but then again what would you expect from me??? A "troll"??? what does that indicate?? someone who annoys all the other users of a board?? I am just guessing....as for the other issues....

I have been to CA...LA mostly...but have also been to AZ, NV, TX, and CO and I have seen all your ugly, cheap, harmfull sprawl all over what used to be the beautiful West....I had thought the East Coast was bad before I saw LA and Las Vegas but now I see what sprawl really is...Go ahead...keep sucking up all the water out there to water your rock covered lawns...hmmm...now I see why Cali is in such big trouble...all of you seen to have an IQ on par with your former governor....

Oh.....and Hurricane season is winding down....not officially over for a few more weeks, so who knows...but now I have to look for other things....

Source

didn't you read Socal's post? If you shut down the water source to CA, then a huge chunk of the nations food supply is also cut down.

As for urban sprawl... We can't really help it if people used to move out here from across the world and across the nation. Given the current economic state of the world, CA probably already peaked population wise. Was too much developed? I don't know. The rate of development probably was appropriate for the rate of growth (or the demand at the time).

Question for spalind:
Where do you draw the line for sprawl? What is considered "ok" in your mind? Obviously people in CA don't have a high enough IQ to answer this. If it weren't for sprawl, we would all be living in great big cities in high rise apartment buildings. Is that what you want?

OK, finally a reasonable response that asks intelligent questions...#1--as far as the nations food supply goes I think all of you would admit that only a very small percentage of the nations food supply is grown in SoCal, I would hazard to guess that less than 5% of the nations food supply is grown in that area...most being in the midwestern states....#2-- as far as what level of development is OK...I'm not sure....I think the horse has left the gate on this one...at this point the sprawl is irreversible due to the fact that America is a country where everyone must "move forward" meaning bigger and bigger houses and developments...I dont think enormous high rise buildings in crowded cities are the answer either....I think a much smaller population would be the closest answer I can think of....turn back the clock to the population of the early 20th century....somewhere around the 100 million mark I think would be sustainable on the land we have without too much damage....

Cool. Mass killings for the good of the many.

Can we nominate people?

Alright, since you apparently have no idea what you are talking about, here is a breakdown of the water usage and economic impact of the water used in California.

Environmental use: 46 percent
Agricultural use: 43 percent
Urban use: 11 percent

Agriculture is one of the state's top industries, providing one in ten jobs. In 1997 the agricultural industry contributed $26.8 billion to the economy through direct sales. When the overall economic impact is figured, the industry is responsible for over $100 billion by creating jobs for additional products and services such as transportation and packaging.

Source: California water FAQ\'s

As far as your thoughts about California's agricultural contribution, you are an idiot.

California has been the nation's top state in agricultural reciepts since 1948.

California is the nations largest dairy producer with 18% of the national production value in 1999.

California accounts for 13% of the national cash reciepts from agriculture; $24.8 Billion.

Source: UC agriculture study

.The Golden State is the largest agricultural producer and exporter in the
United States, a position it has held for more than 50 years.

. California farmers and ranchers supply $73 million in food, fiber or flowers every day.

• California produces 350 crop and livestock commodities.

• Eight of the nation’s top 10 farm counties are in California.


California farms account for 13 percent of the
national gross cash receipts from farming products

California farms grow more than half the nation’s fruits, vegetables and nuts from just three percent of the nation’s farmland.

• California farms cover approximately one-third of the state’s total land area.

• California is the sole producer (99 percent or more) of the following commodities:
• Almonds
• Artichokes
• Dates
• Figs
• Raisins
• Kiwifruit • Olives
• Clingstone Peaches
• Persimmons
• Pistachios
• Dried Plums (Prunes)
• Walnuts

Source: http://www.calclingpeach.com/html/rcpe_consum/ca_grown_didUknow.html

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

LOL " much of the water is from the Rio Grande " . You had better get in line behind New Mexico, Texas and Mexico.

Yes...these are HUGE staples of every Americans daily diet....come on...gimme a break.....You are an absolute idiot if you think California is more important than say...Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana etc......They dont call it the "bread-basket" for nothing....please do not bother responding if you are gonna throw me soft-balls like this one....oooopss, I forgot SOFT-balls is all you have anyway....

I will agree with you here....they all steal from the Rio Grande....so much so that it runs dry on a yearly basis and doesnt even reach the ocean.....its a shame really since it is one of great American rivers, being the 3rd longest behind the Mississippi and the Mosouri....

So you are going to stick to your claim that California draws water from the Rio Grande?

And what IS your point, exactly? You hate California, and Californians. You make a Malthusian swerve in your argument when you bring up population control.

I suggest you fly yourself out to California and tell those homeowners to their faces that it is for the best that their homes burn. Don't tell the Xterra Owner's Club. Go to the source. "Sucks to be you!" You can tell them, as their stuff goes up in smoke. While you are there, tell the firemen they are not needed. "Go on home, boys!" you can say, giving them a hearty slap on th back, "this one's on me."

These will be fine memories as you float homeward on the Mosouri.

You've stumbled upon the truth.

No one is more important than the other. It's an all together kinda thing.

S'like if someone says hey, we're gonna reduce your pay by 18%. It's not like that 18% was the most important part of your income, it's just the part that's gone.

For all of your yeebling, the fact remains that water policy is seriously screwed up in this country. In the Southwest, it will soon be the single most important issue. Foreshadowing most other concerns. It's truly a shame than no one seems to really understand the facts of the matter.

Rio Grande indeed.

And just to clarify, the -- um -- "Mosouri" is the longest river. The Rio Grande is the fourth in length in the United States:

1. Missouri, 2,540 miles (flows into Mississippi River)
2. Mississippi, 2,340 miles (flows into Gulf of Mexico)
3. Yukon, 1,980 miles (flows into Bering Sea)
4. Rio Grande, 1,900 miles (flows into Gulf of Mexico)

Uh, to clarify CA steals water from CO, UT, NV and AZ.

They would be stealing water from WA, OR, MT, ID and anyone else they could have gotten away with it from.

If your going to talk trash about water in the west, I highly suggest you read up on it. Cadillac Desert is a good start. A little slanted (what isn't) but a pretty thorough and interesting read. I grew up in the Bureau of Reclamation (literally) and saw most of what that book describes first hand. I would call the book anti-BOR, but it gets most of the major points right.

And it's entertaining to boot... if you live in the south west (and even if you don't) I highly recommend it. Colorado river basin is in about year six of it's 20 year drought/flood cycle - that's part of the reason I am hanging out back east - waiting to see what happens (population has exploded since the last drought cycle).

Bzzzt! CA Steals water - they have always used the "excess" overage. Gale Norton, the current Secretary of the Interior has been the ONLY secretary to tell CA to shove it and live up to it's agreements:
Interior secretary cuts California\'s share of Colorado River
10.17.03 Interior secretary OKs water settlement

Also, CA farmers (most of the farms are now owned by large corporations) pay 1930's rates, while the consumer users and WE the taxpayers pay the lion's share of the water rates.

Yeah, growing stupid shit at subsidized rates:
Briefing Paper

A quick search on google for subsidized California farmer water rate turns up tons of stuff.

And it wouldn't be so bad if people weren't so ignorant... when I lived in San Diego in '96, the San Diego water district was working on a plan to recycle waste water and re-introduce it into the reservoir system. Some idiot news person got wind of it, dubbed it "Toilet to Tap", got the ignorant population riled up and the project canceled. Millions of gallons of freshwater, dumped into the ocean because of a bunch of ignorant people fueled by sensational news.

Guess what, San Diego is at the end (well, not quite - but darn close) of the water chain - all the states above dump treated wastewater and worse in above them already. I pointed this out to my coworkers who were busy congratulating themselves for killing that "stupid toilet to tap" idea. I warned them that in 5-10 years when they were in the middle of a drought they would wish they had that project and the recycled water it would have provided. Oh well, guess they are going to find out the hard way.

Well, I guess when the southwest finally runs out, there won't be much choice, eh? Things should be interesting over the next five years - the fun has just begun...

"Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."

Spalind: an example of why the gene pool occassionally needs a little chlorine. :rolleyes:

I know, how about CA stop buying water from AZ, etc..... and AZ stops buying gasoline from CA.

.#1--as far as the nations food supply goes I think all of you would admit that only a very small percentage of the nations food supply is grown in SoCal, I would hazard to guess that less than 5% of the nations food supply is grown in that area...most being in the midwestern states....#2--....I think a much smaller population would be the closest answer I can think of....turn back the clock to the population of the early 20th century....somewhere around the 100 million mark I think would be sustainable on the land we have without too much damage....

Now, you made these obviously ignorant statements and when you were presented the facts;

Half of ALL fruits and vegetables grown in the U.S. come from California.

13% of all farming products are from California.

California is the largest producer of dairy products in the country.

you failed to address the actual facts and you make some obnoxious statement softballs. Is that what happens when you are proven wrong? You made ignorant statements. You were provided with contridictory evidence of your ignorance. You have nothing left to say?

Your other thoughs about going back and time and dealing with the poplation as it existed long ago is assanine. Do you know anything at all about the subject you are attempting to argue?

An alternate way of looking at things--as to where people choose to live and whether they got what they deserve.....

A huge percentage of the land mass in this country is prone to some type of natural disaster. Anyone that lives within 100+ miles of an ocean is subject to hurricanes (I live over 70 miles from the gulf and ended up with 32 in. of rain in my neck of the woods 2 years ago from a tropical storm). People that live out west are subject to fires. People that live on or near a mountain are subject to avalanches and mudslides. People that live in tornado alley (TX, OK, AR, etc..) are subject to being blown away. People living near rivers are subject to flooding. Hawaii= volcanos. On and on it goes.

The point is there aren't many "safe" places to live and people don't "deserve" any of the natural disasters that occur, even when they know it's a possibility. Yes we all pay for the disasters that occur all over the country in a small percentage but the people who live in those areas pay more than the safe people.

Rant off.

I love that fact that most of the people railing against me are FROM California and are certainly not objective observers....and I DO know what I am talking about...CA DOES take water from CO and most other surrounding states to supply their population with water that itself cannot support...I would make the same criticism of Las Vegas and Nevada....people should not build homes on land that cannot support them....and secondly I did rebutt your point on the produce issue...Plainly almonds, pecans, grapes, and the like are not staples of the American diet, whereas wheat, oats, soybeans, etc. are...and again...please come up with some facts that are not culled from a biased report done by CA's own department of agriculture tooting their own horn...

Hell, the real water problem this country has is Mexico. They continue to break our water agreements, while we let them flood across the border.

Ahh....Excellent point...given that half of SoCal, AZ, NV and southern Texas is illegal Mexican immigrants we could start by sending all the illegals back to Mexico which would decrease the population and therefore the demand for water which is so much in need...now thats my kind of thinking!!!!

Why is everybody so worried about river rights? Dammit, turn on a hose! We don't need rivers anymore, the WATER COMES TO YOUR HOUSE!!

I really hope there is alot of sarcasm in this statement....if not...I am even more glad that I have moved out of Massachusetts so that I dont have to be in the same state as this moron....

You're an attention starved Troll and you're boring.

ahh...another intelligent response...and if I am such a troll starving for attention then why do I have so few posts???? hmm???? as a general rule I dont post unless I have a strong opinion about something and just because I disagree with you and your SoCal attitude doesnt make me a troll either....

LOL, trolls generaly have low post counts...

because they simply exist to cause problems, they have no other life and therefore wander from board to board causing problems...

if you were a well established member with several thousand posts, no one would consider you a troll... just a moron.

It's called commerce. If other states give back our products (includes computer technology, aviation technology, agricultural products, the space program, the nuclear program, and petroleum products), then we will give back their water. Also the Xterra was designed and developed in SoCal. The designers probably used stolen water to work on that as well.

[begin over the top reaction] Oh no! We all drive Xterra's. We are supporting the water hogging CA lifestyle. It might be time to boycott every product that ever came from CA. SELL YOUR XTERRA! SELL YOUR COMPUTER! DON'T BUY ANY ALMONDS! [end over the top reaction]

Reposted... just in case:

Half of ALL fruits and vegetables grown in the U.S. come from California.

13% of all farming products are from California.

California is the largest producer of dairy products in the country.

oh, and just to update everyone on this conversation...Though you may disagree with my conclusions ie: that the peoples whose houses are burning down should have seen this coming....None of you have been able to dispute the facts in the case--#1--houses are burning, #2--the cause of the severe damage is an area that is overly dry and filled with tinder, #3--a reasonable person who has observed fact #2 would think twice about building their house in such an area, and #3 the rest of the nation should not have to pay for the fact that facts #2 and #3 were ignored...

Fact. If the environmental wackos had allowed the powers that be to reduce the amount of brush, undergrowth, etc etc, we wouldnt be having this problem. What is it about these poeple that they would chose the life of a tree or a friggin chipmunk over a human life?

And AGAIN I am saying the these "fruits and vegetables that you are claiming are not staples of the American daily diet!!! I for one do not dine on a plate full of ALMONDS for lunch on a daily basis!!! and the large portion of these products I doubt are grown just outide of the LA and San Diego areas...more than likely most of them are grown in the more temperate northern California areas and not in the arid south....

So, I guess that means we have every right to the Iraqi's oil, since we've taken over their country.

HAHAHA

Damn, Wilmac wins again.

Asshat: You are still confused. Which part of ALL do you find confusing?

The list of items that you find not to be a staple in the regular diet are items that California produces 99% or MORE or ALL of.

Of ALL OTHER fruits and vegetables California produces half. ALL, EVERYTHING. ALL OTHER. Let's take oranges. California produces oranges. Not all of them but some of them ; probably half. Do you u n d e r s t a n d now?

Why does that confuse you so fucking much?

This one confuses me. Half of ALL fruits and vegetables? Is Corn (and wheat) not considered either?

(For the record - most of the corn grown in Indiana is NOT for human consumption. It is strictly livestock feed).

And while it may be extremely expensive, has California ever looked into desalination (sp?) plants?

Also something I didn't see anyone mention from the original "they should have known" argument - sure, forces of nature affect people and their homes - but last I knew, at least two of these fires were confirmed Arson. I would hardly call that a force of nature.

Actually its the middle of the state, niether north or south... and only about 1 hour from "LA", just over the "grapevine"

and... um, you dont drink milk? or use dairy products on a daily basis?

Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner. Improper forestry is to blame for the fires in CA, not houses being built there.

salind, you are losing the argument. Probably because you are being an idiot. I would say that 50% of the fruits and vegetables grown in the country is a large part of the food we eat.

Kansas: Wheat king of the world! On average, Kansas ranks number one in wheat and wheat products exported. Half of the wheat grown in Kansas is used in the United States; the other half is exported.

Kansas: We rule.

Of course I do. That's because I don't give up.

Yes, I understand that you have missed the point of this whole conversation...please go back and reread from the beginning....but to continue on your line of conversation...even if your statement that "california produces half of all fruits and vegetables"--leaving out the fact that this is "fruits and vegetables" and not grains or the like...these are still produced in the wetter more temperate areas of California and not in the arid southern reaches...and therefore has no bearing on the conversation....

Moby, California's climate, much like Florida's is condusive to growing fruits and vegetables. But, staples like grains like wheat, corn, potato(e)s (that was an ode to my hero D.Q.) and other staples that are grown in the interior of the country make up a large percentage of agricultural products.

That's why the number is only 13% of the total agricultural products.

What about people who live in tornado Alley? What about people who live in a hurricane zone? earthquake zone? Flood zone? Mud slide zone? How about we all move to a region of the planet that has abolutely zero risk factors in living there. :rolleyes:

OK, just checking. So grains aren't counted in that.

You are wrong, pal. North Dakota beats Kansas.

At least in Cash receipts for 1996, they did:

USDA Agricultural Cash Receipts

Actually I dont drink milk or use dairy products--I am latose intolerant...blame it on my indian ancestry...

The temperate aras of California? Jeesus. You are a fucking moron. The wetter part of the state? Clueless, the dry 110 degrees during three months of the year Central Valley from the grapevine to Sacramento is the bread basket of the state. It allso covers 70% of the state's area. They import a large percentage of their water from other states as well as bringing it down from Mt.Shasta and the Sierras.

Orange County, just outside of Los Angeles was the largets producer of oranges in the country until development and progress eventually was responsible for the groves being elimintated. It is also a "desert" by your ignorant standards; Dry, humid in the summer, temperate in the winter and minimal rain.

It is not an "arid" region.

Actually I dont drink milk or use dairy products--I am latose intolerant.....[/QUOTE]

I'd think that if you were lactose intolerant you could at least spell lactose intolerant.

Moby, interesting link. The USDA is not biased towards California. Possibly the idiot will finally concede.

California led the Nation in crop sales with $17.1 billion, and was the top producing State for 8 of the sector’s top 25 commodities: dairy products, greenhouse and nursery products, eggs, hay, grapes, tomatoes, lettuce, and almonds. California vaulted from third to first place in egg sales with a 27-percent rise in a single year. Three-quarters of California’s farm sales were from crops; fruits and nuts 27 percent, vegetables 23 percent, and greenhouse and nursery 10 percent.

Thank you for proving my point--that the areas around San Diego and LA are very dry "arid"--please look up the definition, what you are describing your area is, is the definition of an "arid" region...and 110 degree central region?? dont you think you are over exaggerating just a wee bit?? Death Valley and Phoneix only get to like 110-120...I doubt that Sacto sits at 110 for the entire summer....

so I suppose alot of EGG FARMS!!!!! got burnt down in these fires??!?!?!?! no, i dont think so...nor did I see any tomato farms or greenhouses going up in smoke!!!! again...we are not talking about the same areas....

We already agree with you. Everyone should move to a zero risk region of the planet with abundant resources.

It's called commerce.

Ah, well yes, 1996 was a tough year for all agriculture (plus an early heat wave that year dried up a lot of the crop.)

But ON AVERAGE, we're the wheat king.

It's the one thing we have to brag about.

More Kansas Wheat Facts

I'm done. Just like every other internet argument, this is pointless.

I think I speak for most everyone on the board when I say this:

Spalind, why don't you go hump some sheep? You know, so you can get rid of all the semen you have backed into your brain that's making you stupid.

The people who live in those home are likely very successful business men and women. I guess you can say they are a product of commerce. (has that been mentioned yet?)

California is generally very successful economically. People buy our products, and people move here for the business. They gotta build their homes somewhere. The mountains outside of LA/San Diego is a logical place to settle.

If you want to stop this sort of development, then boycott the products which come from CA.

I would agree...since my points have already been proven--ie:dumb to build your house in a fire prone area...we should let it die....kind of like the firey embers of the 2000 some odd houses that have burned down to this point...

Actually there is an egg farm on the way up to Julian from San Diego. It was in the fire zone but I'm not sure that it got burned. There's also tomato fields less than 3 miles from my house. It looks like they will be ready for harvesting in the next couple of weeks. Not too many parts of the country still growing tomatos but we are growing them here now. They were spared from the fires. People out here know the risks they take by building in this area. We're willing to take that chance because where else can you visit the beach, mountains and desert all in one day. We pay heavily in state tax and home insurance but for us it's worth the price. Oh, and by the way, can anyone spare a glass of water?

Again, you are being an idiot. What would you have us all do, live underground were there are no risks from anything? You were losing the argument, so you switched over to the 'water stealing', and that progressed to the agricultural stuff. After you lost those arguments, you said it didn't matter because that wasn't the original argument.

#1 Boy you are sure observant...

#2 Yep, the area is dry, and thanks to the bark beetle 30% of the trees have died, making the problem worse.

#3 Since most of the houses were built before the invasion of the bark beetle, and before the ARSONIST set the fire, any reasonable and prudent person would like to live in these aforementioned areas.

I am sure the people that have put their own money up for a reward to catch the arsonist really are ignorant, and only have money because they stole it from another state.

#3.1 If you think YOU are personally going to have to pay because of this, please figure out how much it is going to cost you, and I will personally refund you the cost.

As well if you are Indian (not from India?) as in Native American, go back to living on your reservation, as a sovreign nation and you wont have to pay shit for taxes or insurance. As long as you like to live in a hut, and have no modern conveniences this should be a boon for you.

Some random responses to your jibberish:

I guess California never bought the water? Persuant to your allegations of California "stealing" water from other states.

Though, all Californio's are illegal immigrants too, so they are all criminals - whats another theft huh...

You are just another typical wacko, they even sell stickers so that ignotant idiots like you can figure out what to do...

"If you don't like America, get the fuck out!"
...that is is you can read.

Now quit burning up the nations electrical resources by running you computer and surfing the net. And get to destroying the worlds resources by working for "the man" at Toyota...

...the horror, the horror.

Damn liberals.

That usually is your tactic as well come to think of it.

Noooo...my tactic is to continue arguing the same point over and over until you give up, and then I WIN!!

Ah yes. If you say it enough times it must be true.

Hell, you are reasonable compared to some of the libbies I used to argue with. If you want to see some psychotic leftists check out the political forum on shroomery.org. Nothing like a bunch of fried out conspiricy theorist commies to argue with. Madman needs to go over there for a while. That would be fun to watch.

Oh, if there is one thing that I do not want to be misunderstood here is what my political persuasion is.....I am definately not a liberal....I believe in capitalism, free markets, and other "conservative" economic policies and think the government is far too big and we are taxed far too much....none of which has any bearing on the original argument here....just seemed that some of you were inferring that I must be pinko to have the opinions expressed here....

If this were true, you should have no problem with people building/buying houses where ever they want. As long as someone is willing to spend the money, you shouldn't care where they build....right?

You are just pissed off and jealous of California because no one wants to live in your state.

Ummmm...no, just because you believe in capitalism does not mean that you believe that the enviroment should be exploited just because people "want" to do something...

Hey spalind!

Go live in a tree, you hippy. I'm sure the fire will listen to your argument.

Hey Spalind-

What is your malfunction, I have called you out twice, and you don't have a response...I guess rational responses directly to your comments are not what you are looking for.

Sounds like the typical liberal mentality to me!

...Only looking for a "fight", not ever looking for enlightenment.

He avoids the stuff he can't process or re-spin.

I'm still waiting to hear about the amazing, trans-continental divide water pipelines.



This kerfuffle has fully metastasized now that folks are tripping over themselves to stump the chump.

a

Spalind = Asshole

Asshole = Spalind

Any questions?

Just ta let ya know...my company, Toyota, gave 1 million $'s to help with the recovery effort...that that will make me sound any better in your eyes...just wanted to let ya know...

Nice try at a back pedal. A bit to late though

OH MY GOODNESS!

So after all of that you come cringing and mewling back with this pathetic offering.

You should at least try to maintain the courage of your convictions. Go to HQ and tell them how you really feel. Tell them you are not happy to work for a company that maintains beliefs in direct opposition to yours.

Spalind,

If you're going to have a hard core viewpoint, then at least have the temerity and gall to back it up when you've been argued into a corner.

So what if your company has donated money to the cause? What have YOU done, besides spew hatred and bile on a message board?

Before you come around here with a stupid viewpoint, why don't you stop, think, and then

I have not spewed any hatred towards anyone...I have not said that I hate anyone in particlar or that anyone deserves to have their house burned down...My original point....and I STILL stick to it is that if you build in any disaster prone area that YOU hold some responsibility for any damage done to that home...the rest of you have taken my statement personally and blown it far beyond what I have said...but yes, I am a bit depressed that my company gave away a million $'s....its bound to decrease my Xmas bonus....

Like we said what about others. Like me I live in a tornado prone area. California is also an earthquake prone are. Shall I not live where I live or anyone else live where they live due to natural disasters? I think that is where everyone is in thier tussle with you as to how can you predict where a fire/tornado/earthquake/flood/hurricane/big green monster might appear and take my home.

OK, I would agree that people should be able to live where they wish...this is America after all...but can at least some of you see a bit of my point that the homeowner must share at least SOME responsibility for the destruction of their home when they chose to build in places that may be more prone to disasters than others??

In a sense, the home owner already assumes responsibility for building in a "Disaster Prone" area by paying higher insurance rates (i.e flood/fire/etc.). If one decides to build in a flood zone for instance, the owner must purchasing flood insurance to satisfy that requirement needed for acquiring said lien on the property.

Does that mean if your home is damaged from the effects of freezing rain or an ice storm (search for "New Hampshire" on this FEMA page) that you should be held partially responsible because you live in an area where there could be ice storms? :rolleyes:

The only time I could see a homeowner being partially responsible for his home's destruction in a wildfire is if that homeowner did not take precautionary measures to clear fuel from around his home or refused/postponed intalling fire-retardant roofing. Witness the case of a single homeowner in the Scripps Ranch community whose home survived while hundreds of his neighbors homes burned to the ground.

One can only be "so prepared" for a natural disaster:
Live in a flood zone? Have flood insurance and/or buy a home on stilts.
Live in tornado alley? Buy a home with a basement and keep your most valued possessions there.
Live where earthquakes are possible? Buy a home whose construction meets earthquake-resistant building codes, secure your furniture and appliances.
Live where wildfires are possible? Trim back those bushes, don't keep fuel near your home, get rid of your shake roof.

Sometimes, though, despite your best preparations, shit happens. You can no more blame the residents for their burned homes than you can a driver being hit head-on by another car. If you want a life with ZERO risk, good luck finding it.

There's always going to be risk, that what the insurance is for. But some people don't buy the insurance and then sue the government expecting them to pay the bill, that's where the problem lies.

I'm not sure if the problem exists with these fires but we had problems like this when a river flooded and most of the people on the flood plain didn't bother to buy flood insureance since it had been a couple decades since the river flooded. So they sued the state saying they weren't adequately informed.

I feel sorry for the people who loose their homes I hope the insurance gets them a nice new house.

For the ones without insurance complaining that the rest of us should give them our tax money to bail them out, they've got nobody but themselves to blame for ignoring warnings.

So, here's a thought.... If you were one of the unfortunate souls to have lost your home, would you take the insurance money and buy a new house somewhere else, or would you rebuild on your old site? I imagine the wait time to get a new house built could be months.... Where would you live in the meantime?

Man, all those poor people in the Scripps Ranch area... that really sucks.

There's about 2,000 people living in an old airplane hanger in San Bernardino.

Not at all a good situation.

But a lot of folks donated a lot of stuff, and people make do. Kids even got to celebrate hallowe'en with donated costumes.

While I agree that the houses are burning(duhhh)SoCal may be dry but not overly dry, it does rain plus snow melt etc (where do you think mud comes from??)

As for your "reasonable" person, most of them woulds probably think that you are are freakin'loon for living in an area that virtually every year gets at least on major snowstorm of over a foot and/or an ice storm that knocks out power for days or weeks. its the price you pay for living where you do NO MATTER WHERE YOU LIVE!! As was aptly pointed out every region has its negative weather attributes.

Is your Sierra Club card printed on recycled paper??

Can we move Maine between VT and NH?? I'm ashamed to be this guys neighbor.

I do feel bad about the loss of life and I respect the hard work the fire fightes. But I have very little symapathy for the home owners who lost their homes, since they chose to live there. They chose to ignore the cold hard facts of how mother nature works, and she can go from nice to nasty in a blink of an eye.

Forest fires are a going to happen, its a natural part of the forest ecosystem. There is only two choises, ether put them off untill you get a big nasty fire or you carfully manage several smaller less damaging fires.

If you knowingly build a house in a area with a high water table you ether don't build a basement or invest in a sump pump. So if you build a house in a tinder box, then it stands to reason that you should also take steps to prevent getting burnt. Yes, the person that has to run a sump pump to keep their basment dry pays higher electric bills, but that is the price they pay to live were they do. You ether suck it up or move to higher ground.

If the local "enviromentalist" goverment will not let you take steps to protect your home and family, then ether change the goverment or sell the house while it is still worth something.

Some will say that I have over simplified the issue, but try looking at it this way. Insurance is a piss poor way to "protect" your family and home. Witch would you rather have, a nice warm bed or a cot in a shelter wating for that fat insurance check.

How mother nature works? Are you contradicting yourself? Mother Nature would have had periodic fires, eliminating the built-up fuel source for a fire of this magnitude. However, apparent forestry mismanagement has allowed fires of this magnitude to occur because they didn't have carefully-managed smaller fires. If that had been allowed to occur, then those people would still have their homes.

Not at all. Basily I was pointing out that there is nothing we can do to keep forest fires from happening. It is like trying to stop the rain. We can put the fires off but we are only setting up for a much stronger fire.

You are absolutly right and we are both on the same sheet of music. Mother nature would have perodic fires if left to her own devices, but too often she is not. Every one would be much better off if we worked with the enviroment instead of against it.

There is plenty that can be done to keep forest fires to a minimum. Even with Arson. If the environmental wacko special interest groups would have gotten the collective "logs" out of their asses, the powers-that-be couldve been thinning underbrush and other dead wood from the forest floor. They should have been able to thin the forests just enough to make it safe for animal and man. Its the difference between a three foot high fire that burns itself out, and a 90 foot high fire jumping all willy nilly from tree to tree. Its about priorities, and these wackos have proven again and again that thiers are way out of wack.

Just for the sake of argument (suprise huh?), who should pay for this "thinning of underbrush" for the people who live in these fire prone areas? I hope you're not suggesting the tax payer of the state/country pay for it. I for one would like to see the residents of disaster prone areas shoulder most of the burden themselves when it comes to the thinning of brush, building of additional dams, etc. The revenue of course would come from their elevated town property taxes.

In addition to making the requirement of fire/flood/earthquake insurance mandatory for these residents, the state should toughen the building requirements/codes even further for the people who want to build in those trouble prone areas by making mandatory fire resistant roofs/building material, basement/septic tank levels 2 - 3 ft above highest recorded flood level (required in my state of Mass Title V cert.), and stronger wall construction in areas where tornados are the norm. All I can say is if you don't want to pay the additional cost to live in these known "trouble" areas, go live somewhere else. I'm required to carry fire insurance on my house (mortgage requirement), why shouldn't everyone else? These people shouldn't expect the state/country to pay for their misfortune from these natural disasters.

For the sake of argument, why does this venture need funding? Why don't you and all those other tree-huugin liberals volunteer your time cleaning up the forest as MB stated above? Instead of volunteering your time handcuffing yourself to a tree in a forest, uncuff yourself and clean it. Oh yeah, that's right. Tree-huugin liberals refuse to work, especially manual labor. You guys only speak up after the fact and never do anything constructive to help fix the problem.

Who are you referring to as a "Tree Hugger" here nimrod? I know it can't be me, I work for a living, and I'm all for the thinning of forests to minimize fire. Got anything else "intelligent" to add to the conversation?

:rolleyes:

Wouldn't some of the thinning pay for itself? This is wood we are talking about here. The bigger trees that are removed can be sold. I think if you let a company do some careful logging, you could give them the wood, and they in return they could pay for the forest management. You just need someone to tell them what they can take and someone to make sure they are doing the job correctly.

One of the main problems the E-wackos had was logging. Everytime someone tried to push some kind of initiative through to do some prevention, the Wackos would claim the Logging companies would destroy the earth.

For god sake, these companies rely on trees as thier livlihood, they are not going to destroy thier livlihood by killing all the trees. One company planted 130,000,000 seedlings last year. Its a cycle that nature used to carry out on its own. Now, we need to help by thinning or the fires will just get bigger and bigger. The E-wackos will not allow that help to occur.

Only after the state/federal government passed laws for reforestation did the logging companies adopt these programs:

http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/state/forestry/hist/hist2.htm

That is true Sean. With proper forestry techniques, the loggers, and nature can coexist and benefit each other. Wood is the only renewable resource besides food that this country has.

This was a good thing, some occuring 75 years ago. With the amount of knowledge we share today, I find it hard to believe that a company would destroy the very thing it was trying to make money from. Today's logging companies face strict guidlines to follow for the protection of the forests. But these guidelines also protect the companies from losing thier source of income.

I just believe the E-wackos arguments are moot. They are close-minded and do not see "the forest for the trees." They are so busy arguing thier point that they fail to use common sense.

It seems that most people are forgetting or don't know that most of the plants in the area of the fires will only "reproduce" after their seeds have be subjected to fire. I can't remember the name of the plant, but it is found in Southern California and only germinates after it has been subjet to fire. Fire is part of the ecosystem there.

This area is always going to have fires. Like others have said, the owners of the houses that burned should have known the risks inherent in living there. If they had insurance, they are covered. If they didn't have insurance, lesson learned.

Where I lived in Iowa, there were people that lived on the river bank in houses built on stilts. Every single spring some of these houses would get flooded out. Every spring a homeowner would bitch because they didn't have flood insurance because it was too expensive and expect free money to rebuild their house! These are the idiots that I don't feel sorry for.

hmm....seems like alot more people agree with me than you people gave my ideas credit for!!!!

There are idiots born every day.

Guido, I understand that fire is a necessary part of the ecosystem. That is why proper forestry is necessary. Controlled burns help the forest, while preventing the entire thing from going up in flames.

Here is a lovely photo of the fire near San Diego:

I think I just figured out why Spalind says the things he does!

New Hampshire

The trouble is that loggers are just as bull headed as "tree-huggers". You give an inch and they take a mile. In some of the Utah forests forest thinning is allowed if you have a permit but one group sees a responsible company thinning the forest and the they think that means it's open season and they clearcut part of the forest.

The other problem is that the fallen trees on the forrest floor are usually rotten and not worth anything to loggers, so they leave them. Most of the dead trees still standing are partialy rotten too. And how often do you see a logging truck hauling out dry ground brush? The only good wood is the trees that are still alive so that's all they take.

I (as a "tree-hugger") don't have a problem with companies thinning the old growth out, but too many companies take more than they're supposed to or they clearcut. Plus they don't restore the logging trails they cut so the ATV's start using them all the time and then protest when the forest service tries to close them (or they destroy the barriers and use the trails anyway).

It's a vicious cycle and the only way to stop is is more regulation, control, and policing of logging laws and logging companies. But the forrest services are already under-funded and under-manned. And last year Bush passed laws to loosen restrictions on logging (I'm not tring to make this argument partisan, I'm just saing we're currently heading in the wrong direction).

Which brings me to off2cjb's comment:
You obviously don't have the slightest idea what most ecological groups do. The only people hancuffing themselves to trees are college student protesters and extremist groups like Greenpeace. Almost all legitimate eco groups fund outings to clean and revitalize the forest and raise awareness of how to work with the forest and how logging positively and negatively impacts the ecosystem.

They put in a hell of alot more money to rebuild the forests than the recreation groups that protest their actions. And they spend all their time trying to bennefit the forrest, that's a hell of alot more than can be said about your constant bitching about "Tree-Huggers".

Kerensky, you bring up valid points. I believe that these fires hitting so close to home for so many people will change the way a lot of the 'tree huggers' think. What do you think about these ideas?

1. Have the forest service tell the companies which trees they can take. They need to have a working relationship.

2. Make the companies pay for or do part or the rest of the job. This includes getting rid of some of the dead trees, controlled burns and such.

3. Open up some off road parks and charge entry fees. Here in Texas we have a private organization, the TMTC, that has had great success doing this. The government could take some of the forest areas and set them aside for this type of recreation. If you have places to go, with maintained trails people will go to them. If you don't some people will trespass and cause problems elsewhere.

All those points would help the situation, especially the first. It's not so much that loggers are wrong its usually just a problem of miscommunication or misunderstanding. People need to talk things out and find a middle ground that will make everybody happy. When the two camps of loggers and anti-loggers become too polarized nobody will be willing make concessions. Then one side sees any logging as forest abuse, when it might have been benneficial from the start.

I think offroading parks would help too but when it comes time to setting aside land everybody is going to say, "Not in my backyard".
But the idea does work. Here in Salt Lake they put skate parks up in a few places and now kids walk miles to skate at the park becasue it's way better than going up and down the railing at the supermarket over and over.

The same idea would probably work with offroading to keep people mainly in one place. Worst case scenario they trash the park and learn they have to keep it up to use it. Best case scenario people goto the offroad park as newbies and then go into the mountains after learning how to protect the trails and the land they use.

Someday people won't have to worry about going to their favorite campsite and finding a sign that says "This canyon closed due to trail abuse."