Today as I listened to Randi Rhoades (and if I misspelled her name I could care less) she told the granddaddy of all lies about the Forest Service. I could not believe my ears as she claimed that the Forest Service helped cause these fires in California by choosing to put out fires in the past as they burned thus not clearing out the fallen trees and old growth.  Is it possible that she could be so stupid as to have forgotten the last 25 years of environmental organizations meddling in Forest Service affairs?

Any fire that the Forest Service contained was first of all on land near homes and private property, something I believe we pay our taxes to ensure. Secondly, those areas they do let burn are those areas that fit certain parameters.

From a US Forest Service Website: "Q:  If fire suppression leads to bigger fires, why not just let them burn?"

"A: Where lightning fires are burning within desired parameters, those incidents can be managed for the beneficial effects of fire. However, that is not appropriate to every situation. The growth of the wildland-urban interface in the last 50 years means that lives and homes are at stake if a forest catches fire. The Forest Service does not “just let them burn”, every fire receives an appropriate management response. Fire will burn when conditions in the forest and the weather are right for it. However, fire is important part of the forest ecosystem. Some oaks and pines, for example, need fire to crack their seeds and regenerate. Suppressing fires had the unintended consequence of building up vegetation, debris, and other flammable materials on the forest floor. Add to this mix, drought and the crowded conditions in the forests. Once ignited, severe forest fires can occur. Unnaturally dense forests contribute to big fires. For instance, where 50 years ago only a few hundred trees grew on an acre, today thousands of trees are crowded in the same space. Multiply that by millions of acres of forests and you get the “combustible” picture. For another, many urban areas are being situated closer and closer to forested landscapes for their aesthetic and economic values. There is inherent danger in building homes in or near forestlands. People are not the only victims of forest fires: wildlife loses their habitat, hillsides erode into and silt up rivers, burnt mountains allow floods and floods wash away homes and businesses."

It is people like those who claim membership in the Sierra Club who are to blame for many of these fires. Thinning of old growth is a proven solution to big fires. But as in the Black Hills in 2001 the Sierra Club has gotten involved with the mountains around L.A. too and now their hard work is coming home to roost. While lighting, arson and downed power lines are thought responsible for starting these most recent fires, years of legal entanglement with the Sierra Club has kept the U.S. Forest Service from doing their job. Black Hills info can be found here: http://www.deadwoodmagazine.com/article.php?read_id=174

The Forest Service as wanted to get in there and clear that old tinder (yes tinder, as in tinder box) for years. Restrictions placed on them by legislation and law suits have prohibited much of the needed clean up, that along with the belief that lumber companies involved would be profiting in some sinister way from doing much of the work.

As people continue to buy this line of bull crap from environmentalist about how the land is sacred and can not be touched this will continue to happen. We must manage the forest as we manage any other piece of land. Farmers  are well schooled in soil conservation because it is in their best interest to ensure they do not strip the soil of the nutrients needed for the next crop. This is the same with the water supply in this country as we scramble to ensure Atlanta does not run out of water in the next 90 days. But mention doing something proactive to stop raging fires and you might as well take out a gun and pop a cap in Smokey the Bear's head or pull the trigger on Bambi's mother yourself.

Perhaps this latest tragedy of lost of homes, fortune and life will weigh heavy enough on the hearts of Sierra Club members and other such organizations that they will come to the table with a new outlook on the necessity of true management of the forests and not just pay lip service to their members that want to save the spotted owl.  Logging, forest management and recreation can all benefit from a healthy forest.

Randi claims she fact checks all her stuff before she runs with a story but she sure didn't on this one. Perhaps she needs to ask a question from a professional once in a while instead of relying full time on the internet for her answers. Oh she touts this machine for her fact checking and information gathering but as we all know, garbage in = garbage out...

This time the Sierra Club put the garbage into cyberspace and Rhoades was there to shovel it out and onto the airwaves for her faithful to hear and repeat... I thought Rush had the mind numbed robots....

But what would I know; I'm just an Average American.