Bob Blakely wrote: > There are many areas out here where doing a controlled burn requires an act > of Congress - no, make that a commandment from God. Almost everywhere, > there's some species loosing it's battle with evolution. In these places, > there can be no burns or (sometimes) even dry brush removal for fear of > destroying some multi-legged creature's habitat. There are those that will > tie it all up in the courts for years, demanding and challenging > environmental impact statements and such. Eventually, it gets destroyed > anyway, but no one discusses the great habitat loss from wildfires vs. the > controlled (smaller) habitat loss from prescribed burning. I'm a hunter and > there's nothing I want more than pristine forests and wild areas stocked > with the largest variety of healthy populations of all sorts of creatures, > but not doing everything possible to prevent this wild fire crap that > happens year after year is ridiculous. > > Regards, > Bob...
Yep. That's a huge issue on the left coast (BC too, it's not just the US). Frankly, certain aspects of the environmental movement have effectively prevented intelligent management of the great western forests, and ensured that wildfires are as destructive as possible, through championing excessive habitat protection that prevents controlled burns and underbrush removal. That said, certain tree species actually need periodic burns to keep the forest healthy. -Adam Who will note a conflict of interest here, at least somewhat. My father's company does waterbombing in Canada. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
