Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The woman without a brain, Michelle Malkin "Fires caused by lack of tree thinning"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 05:46 PM
Original message
The woman without a brain, Michelle Malkin "Fires caused by lack of tree thinning"
Do u think she knows that brush fires aren't caused by trees? Do u think she even knows the difference between a brush and a tree?

http://michellemalkin.com/
Weve been here before and weve been warned that these disasters will continue. Just last month, experts were calling on Congress to expedite forest thinning and other forest managment alternatives:

Wildfires thrive in hot, dry weather. But the conditions also contribute to the die-off of trees, which must compete for water in forests that have become unnaturally dense because of a century of misguided fire suppression. Once dead and brittle, the trees become more fuel for catastrophic fires.

The panelists testified that more resources are needed to keep up with necessary tree thinning and removal campaigns. One witness, University of Arizona Professor Thomas Swetnam, said even that wont be enough to reverse the trend.

I dont think we can thin our way out of this, Swetnam said.

He said more prominent use of intentionally set fires to mimic naturally occurring blazes has certain risks, but is less costly than mechanical thinning with hand crews and chainsaws.
Environmentalists blame global warming for the problem, but guess whos standing in the way of a solution?

Litigious environmentalists:

The GAO examined 762 U.S. Forest Service (USFS) proposals to thin forests and prevent fires during the past two years. According to the study, slightly more than half the proposals were not subject to third-party appeal. Of those proposals subject to appeal, third parties challenged 59 percent.

Appeals were filed most often by anti-logging groups, including the Sierra Club, Alliance for Wild Rockies, and Forest Conservation Council. According to the GAO, 84 interest groups filed more than 400 appeals of Forest Service proposals. The appeals delayed efforts to treat 900,000 acres of forests and cost the federal government millions of dollars to address.

Forest Service officials estimate they spend nearly half their time, and $250 million each year, preparing for the appeals and procedural challenges launched by activists.

The report demonstrates that the appeals needlessly delay federal efforts to prevent wildfires, and if the process is not streamlined, millions of acres will be lost this summer, said Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico).

The American people will no longer tolerate management by wildfire, Domenici added.

This finding is nothing short of appalling, especially when you think of the catastrophic losses suffered in last years <2002> horrific fire season alone, said House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-California).

These were not only losses of forest, endangered species, and wildlife habitat, they were losses of human life and family property, Pombo said.
Same old, same old. Lawsuits have tied up the presidents Healthy Forests Initiative passed in 2003.
http://michellemalkin.com/


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. Screw you, Malkin!
Where does that Medusa live? I hope she doesn't in my state (California)!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. I don't think so. She would be able to tell the difference between a brush fire
and a forest fire! She must live in a barn somewhere!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
22. My guess is a deep hole ... (n/t)!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
supernova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. Lives near D.C.
At least, that's what her blog "about" page says.

Yeah, I went there. :puke: Anybody got some bleach for my eyes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. Thanks for the sacrifice (n/t)!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. If by 'thinning' you mean letting little brush fires burn themselves out and thin out the fuel OK
If by 'thinning' you mean letting the logging industry go in and cherry pick the forest get fucked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Malkin obviously means the latter.
I've heard other wingnuts push it. Stupid then, stupid now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. Then the case is clear FUCK Malkin and FUCK the RW nutz
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
17. There's nothing to cherry pick...except the chokecherries
Aside from a few live oaks, there is no usable lumber from this vegetation. The junipers are great for firewood, but not much else, sycamore is a softwood that doesn't have much structural rigidity, and the chokecherry is so gnarled, it's rare to find a straight length over 2 feet. There are two ways to thin the fuel out, set controlled burns at the end of the rainy season in March or April, but that gets people all fired up. :P The other way is to heavily graze the land with browsing herbivores (not happy cows, but goats). Somehow, I don't think Californians are going to give up their modern urban lifestyle to have the hillsides filled with goatherds tending their flocks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. If they don't want to deal with the causes they can deal with the results.
The RW talk machine will still use it as an argument to log the National Forest.
They do not look at disasters as chances to make things better.
They view disasters as opportunities to advance their agendas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
3. I remember this issue. The forests to be thinned are nowhere near the brushlands.
There is legitimate forest thinning. This is logging via an excuse. There's not really much to say other than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. I don't think there are forests in the canyons...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mark414 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
6. she's right! let's just cover everything in blacktop and build a home depot on it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lpbk2713 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
7. Such a dipshit. A self-styled expert on any topic.




If you don't believe it just ask her.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HowHasItComeToThis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
9. LBFM MAKES IT BIG
Edited on Tue Oct-23-07 05:53 PM by YEBBA
SUCH A JOKE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
angstlessk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
10. IF ONLY THE WORLD WERE A DESERT THERE WOULD BE NO FOREST FIRES
good thinking Malkin...if you had a brain you could be dangerous!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danieljay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. another 20 years and half our effing country will be a desert. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mz Pip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
11. At least she didn't blame
Clinton. :eyes:

Tell me Michelle, since you are such a frigging expert, exactly how we are supposed to 'thin' hundreds of thousands of acres of forest?

Mz Pip
:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #11
23. Does this stupid, viscious person have a large following?
Does it matter what tripe she puts out?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DBoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
14. so she wants us to log the chaparral in San Diego County?
and if so what will she use the "logging" for? toothpicks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gold Metal Flake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
16. She can only respond within the limits of her programming.
Obviously, she has only been programmed with the standard wood products industry propaganda phrase set.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KT2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
18. Does she have a tv?
She is dragging out the evergreen forest rationale to describe brush fires in CA??? What an idiot.

Pombo and Malkin - :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
20. I see her point but at what point does the fire say "that branch is too far away?" and fizzle out?!
Her theory isn't altogether sound.

I ought to look for proof, but surely the South American rain forests are rather more dense than the forests in California?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malakai2 Donating Member (483 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
24. Science-based policy should be set by smart people
Wildfires thrive where there is an ignition source and fuel to burn. Every vegetation type in North America had historic fire return intervals...on tallgrass prairie it might have been 5 years, in ponderosa pine savanna it might have been 10 or 15 years, in Great Lakes white pine/red pine forests it might have been 500 years, in sagebrush grassland it might have been 100 or 125 years. Those vegetation types would also have had typical burn patterns...grasslands would have burned in a stand replacing fire that consumed everything above ground, savannas would have burned in a surface fire that consumed the grass understory but left the large trees intact, other forests would have burned in a mixed severity fire that removed everything in some spots and little to nothing in other spots. Add some variability in the burn outlines within and between seasons, variability in weather to alter burn patterns between years, and a few other major variables like insect pests, and you get the general forest type and stand age mosaics that are indicative of a natural system.

Now look at chaparral. Historically, it is thought to have had a fire return interval of 50 to 80 years, but now burns much more frequently. Why might that be? Certainly climate change might be a partial cause, if that is leading to lower average humidities, stronger winds, higher daytime high temperatures and higher nighttime low temperatures. But consider the ignition source issue for a second...unless chaparral is being struck by lightning at a significantly higher rate that it was historically, how are these fires starting? Could a higher return interval also be due in part to more frequent ignitions as a result of the population in the area (and all the things people bring)? Could the introduction of non-native grasses like cheatgrass favor ignitions with typical tinder-like growth forms? Consider the fuel loadings...if, as Domenici says, Americans are no longer willing to accept management of fuel loadings with fire (perhaps they'd prefer using prayer, or something else about as useful), then fuels WILL build up to such an extent that fires will be more severe, will ignite more readily from more abundant ignition sources, and will be harder to control. So look at chaparral in California-the area has been invaded by non-native annual grasses that INVITE fire in the hottest, dryest part of the year, every year, the area has been heavily settled by people who are averse to management of fuels in a cost effective manner (compare the cost of letting an acreage burn whenever a fire blows through to the cost of 100 years of suppression on the same acreage), and those people, intentionally or unintentionally, increase the potential local ignition sources. Over time, this will cause a vegetation shift from chaparral to annual grassland. Public policy and settlement patterns are going to have to change to reflect those realities.

Pombo and Domenici have to concede that were Bush's Orwellian forest management plan implemented, thinning the public forests to reflect historic fuel loadings would DEFINITELY entail all the environmental damage associated with logging, and would take something on the order of 90 years to complete nationwide. That puts us, in most of those forests, with up to 90 years of fuel loading, RIGHT BACK IN THE SAME SITUATION WE'RE IN NOW! The only cost effective means to manage the forests is to allow fire and insect infestations to resume their historic role as natural thinning agents, and to kick the cost of suppression back to municipalities and local governments so that they have incentive to change zoning and building patterns. Then you get regulations enforcing defensible zones around homes and businesses, less wildland-urban interface, and the problem shrinks to a manageable level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 22nd 2020, 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC