Running out of money to fight wildfires at the peak of the season, the U.S. Forest Service is diverting $600 million from timber, recreation and other areas to fill the gap.
The nation’s top wildfire-fighting agency was down to $50 million after spending $967 million so far this year, Forest Service spokesman Larry Chambers said Wednesday in an email.
Couldn't Forest Service Chief Thomas Tidwell get on the phone, a la Kathleen Sebelius, and ask for donations? Common Chief!
Back to the story.
Chambers says the $50 million the Forest Service has left is typically enough to pay for just a few days of fighting fires when the nation is at its top wildfire preparedness level, which went into effect Tuesday.
There are 51 large uncontained fires burning across the nation, making it tough to meet demands for fire crews and equipment.The politico commenter I referenced at the beginning, goes on to say...
Homeowners have insurance. People who want to get off the grid and move into the woods can't expect the Federal Government to save them. Fighting wildfires isn't in the Constitution.
38 comments:
Of course, they could allow selective logging to keep these national forests clear of undergrowth and dead trees.
Or they could just allow the fires to burn, which does the same thing.
Proggy is off to watch SVU.
It is true that the government (a least here in CO) won't allow the cutting of standing dead beetle kill on national forest land. It's ridiculous and dangerous for the people who own homes that back up to national forest.
Think of all the jobs that could be created if our silly government would allow the cutting of beetle kill.
Our government is us, and we are retarded.
Gather up some baby animals with third-degree burns, and go calling on an old rich lady, and your money problem is solved.
Cody Jarrett said...
Of course, they could allow selective logging to keep these national forests clear of undergrowth and dead trees.
Too practical. Not an option. Plus there's a chance it would enrich some Koch somewhere.
practicality is the enemy of liberalism.
"Let it burn."
That's what they said about those dance clubs back in the 70's.
And they all disappeared in a disco inferno.
It, of course, would be a different matter if some of those fires consumed the vast marijuana plantations on those lands.
Media reporters will immediately try to find someone whose house is burning or something in that line in order to get a "human interest" story that they can dramatize and sell. Also they drive to the site which generally means that there will be people living along the road. No people, no road.
However, forest and grassfires do a lot more damage than that, and the damage is just beginning when the actual flames are doused.
@ Mitchell the Bat.
I got a chuckle out of that.
I don't know what the answer to this is, but I know there are a hundred places in the budget to get another $1 billion without hurting anything. I also know that forest fires are a horrible thing to be unlucky enough to live with or soon after.
For three decades I loved hiking and camping the hundreds of beautiful trails in the mountains north of Los Angeles. The area has a long rich history of prospecting and recreation, and furnished much of my life with richness, and beauty, and created an invaluable sense of gratitude for God and nature over the years. It was the backdrop to my life, and some deep friendships. It did the same for thousands of others like me.
Over the last 5 years there have been devastating fires throughout those mountains turning sylvan woodlands, canyons and peaks that once were full of mystery, complexity and richness into bald burnt piles of dirt, robbed of virtually everything that made them wonderful. Al that is left is memories. I have those, but so many people have been robbed of all that wonder.
Of course, the burning has always periodically happened through the millennia in these mountians, and the flora is uniquely adapted to recover eventually, but for those of us living here now and all those millions for the next couple generations it is lost - completely gone.
Nearly every one of these fires was cause by one lone purposeful arsonist, and none were naturally occurring. I don't know how a single person can be more destructive than that. I think it's just about the worst thing a person can pull off, and nothing can ever be done to prevent it. It's unfortunate and a little strange how many of the very worse things people can do to each other are also things we are virtually impotent to prevent.
The problem is they do not let it burn enough...before they become unmanageable infernos. Forests in the west should be allowed to burn more often, but smaller cooler fires that take out under brush but leave the trees alone.
Hey, historians learned enough new things after a grass fire at the Little bighorn Battlefield to change opinions of what happened there.
Just say it's in the interest of scholarship.
(no, Choom would never be able to convince anybody he thought that...)
Living up here in the middle of "fire country" here are some random thoughts.
There are rarely any homes or significant structures in the National Forests. So quit bitching about that.
Most fires in the National Forests are caused by lightening strikes. We have about 20 spot fires going right now on Fed and private lands. Most of those are allowed to just go ahead and burn since they will be contained by the natural terrain (lava beds, rivers) and are generally scrub, juniper or manzanita. Burn baby burn. It is the natural thing to do. But try to control it so it doesn't leap into marketable timber or into habitated areas.
The really BIG fires in the National Forests in big timber country do require attention since the forests are generally surrounded by small touristy types of cities and once the fire gets OUT of the Federal lands it is Katey bar the door on containing the fire.
The FEDS do not generally fight structure fires, in our area. In fact they will stand down and watch houses burn because they can and they are not in their jurisdiction. That is the area of duty of our local fire depts, ALL of whom in our area are volunteers or Cal Fire.
California just instituted an annual fee to cover the costs of structure protection in the areas of THEIR jurisdiction. Because MY house is in a VFD District, I am not subject to the fee. Plus we weren't stupid enough to build our home in the middle of a forest. However, if you have built your home in the lovely piney wood areas you SHOULD pay something extra for the coverage.
If the Feds and the State would allow thinning and underbush clearing the fires that do burn would not be nearly as bad. They won't because some stupid bird might be disturbed or something.
There was a fire in our general geographic area that was HUGE about 20 years ago.
Recognized as one of the worst fires in California history, the Fountain Fire scarred the landscape, destroying a total of 64,000 acres and more than 300 homes in the Sierra Nevada, about 40 miles east of Redding. It required 4,000 firefighters and other workers to bring the raging wildfire under control on Aug. 28, 1992, eight days after it began.
The Feds would not let anyone cut down the dead trees or clear the underbrush after the fire. The areas that were under private control DID clear, clean and replant. Today, you can still tell which areas were Fed and which were private. The Feds are a pile of debris ready to burst into flames again. The private land is wooded and cleared of underbrush. It looks like a parkland and you can often see Bambi strolling around with his Mom.
Conclusion.....the Federal Government has no clue on how to manage forests (or much of anything else)
I'm surprised that the caterwaul blaming the fires on global warming hasn't gotten more traction. CO2 feeds trees, fattening their girth and thickening the undergrowth. What's needed is a healthy carbon tax to enrich DC so that they can "do something."
The problem is DC is too busy burning money, they dont have enough left over for putting out fires.
Its counter to their nature... if you will.
"The private land is wooded and cleared of underbrush. It looks like a parkland and you can often see Bambi strolling around with his Mom."
I love a clear shot.
Many of Colorado's worst fires have all been started by people. The largest fire in the state's history, the Hayman fire, was started by a disgruntled US Forest Service Employee. The High Park fire was more than likely human caused. I remember that day - not a cloud in the AM sky and the fire started in the morning before the thunder and lighting arrived.
The highly populated areas in the Dillon/Frisco valley are surrounded by national forest land and vast acreage of beetle kill pine. The trees are dead and it's a tinderbox. The trees are so weak they fall over without warning, sometimes killing hikers.
Fires rejuvenate and are part of nature - but it takes painful decades to recover. Just look a Yellowstone.
Some common sense management could help mitigate the eventual destruction, esp in highly populated areas that are sitting ducks. I know of homeowners in Frisco who would gladly clear the dead trees without payment!
As an aside, I would never live in the foothills of CO because of the ever-present fire danger.
Sadly, areas in the higher, wetter areas are still going to go up in flames because the gov won't use common sense.
edutcher, Come on, you can be better than that.
DBQ points out a key aspect. There is a much different perspective between those who live in the West compared to those who live in other parts of the country. I also know many who live in fire country have little empathy for people w/ fancy homes on the ocean wiped out by hurricanes. C'est la vie.
CARDIOLOGIST: Mr. Gideon is having attacks of angina that could lead to a massive coronary.
JOE GIDEON: Oh, shit! I gotta get to rehearsal. I'm fine. What do doctors know?
CARDIOLOGIST: About angina? A little more than show people.
-- All That Jazz (1979)
They creating this mess by siding with the EPA and the envirokooks in letting these areas overgrow for decades and won't allow any clearing of timber or lands to manage these area properly. The government is the enemy of people in almost every way and they want us to feel bad because they are running out of our tax money to spend on these fire situations that are exacerbated by them.
Our government is us, and we are retarded.
I've got little to do with it, and it isn't my government anymore. All of one person I have voted for is currently serving in some capacity in government, U.S. Rep. Daniel Webster (R), serving his second term as a backbencher in Congress. And I didn't even vote for him last time around. (I was in a different district in 2010.)
That's right, I voted for zero winners last time around. And the time before that I only voted for one winner. I don't remember how I did in 2008, but most of my candidates lost.
Which is why next time around I'm going to stay the Hell at home. There's no point in voting when you know that only one party CAN win.
I don't believe staying home is ever the answer, no matter what.
I don't believe staying home is ever the answer, no matter what.
Showing up to vote for losers who would be horrible if elected helps how?
And for that matter, I am in a gerrymandered Federal Congressional district: There is no chance in Hell that anyone other than a Black Democrat will win that election. I'm in an increasingly blue county, where Republicans are increasingly having trouble winning law-and-order elections in off-Presidential years. And given that Florida will NEVER vote for a Republican for President again, especially after the Republicans give thirty million Mexicans citizenship (we got a lot of Mexicans in Florida, and we'll have a lot more after Boehner gets done), there's no point in voting for President either.
That leaves state-wide elections. Republicans still win those because we have those in non-Presidential election years, and about half of Democratic voters are too stupid to have any idea that elections ever happen otherwise. Else, the state would be solid blue.
And at the state level, we're getting rich crooks buying office, corrupt politicians worming their way into office, and the occasional person that can find their ass with both hands if you give them a two hand head-start. Seriously, Rick Scott is a thieving butt-plug of a governor, but hey, he's a Republican, so it's all good, right!
No, there's no goddamned point in voting, and I'll be staying home in the future. I can vote for Republicans that are going to fuck me in the ass, or I can vote for Democrats that are going to fuck me in the as and then piss on me. I'm getting ass-raped either way. Fuck them, and fuck their elections.
Icepick - well, that's what the left are counting on. I believe the system is so corrupted and the cheat machine so fully up and running that it doesn't matter. I will still always show up to vote.
I will always vote for the lesser of two evils.
I should've made myself more clear, Ice--I wasn't saying you should go vote, I was only saying what I think for myself.
You're fully capable of deciding what to do for yourself.
Although I wonder if my saying I personally think staying home and not voting is bad...I wonder if Crackers feels that's anti-American.
I always vote, even when my candidate is not likely to win. I want my candidate to get enough votes for his or her ideas to be taken seriously.
I will still always show up to vote.
I will always vote for the lesser of two evils.
Still voting for evil, though. I held my nose and voted for McCain, even though he's the most corrupt non-Democrat in Washington DC.
I voted for Romney even though he wasn't going to do a goddamned thing differently, policy-wise, than Obama.
I've voted for Republicans for Senate and Congress even though that means voting for Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, who can't wait to give the country away.
I'm not doing that again. There's no point in it, and I can spend the time doing something much more useful, like pounding sand.
AHow, O how, did I know?
PS For once, I agree with Jerry Plunkett on something.
I always vote, even when my candidate is not likely to win. I want my candidate to get enough votes for his or her ideas to be taken seriously.
How'd that work out in 2012?
How'd that work out in 2012?
Pretty good, actually. My district reelected Darrell Issa. I sense that within a couple years he may challenge the Democratic monopoly on CA Senate seats or run for Governor.
I live in California....there is no point to voting in a Statewide or National election. Local people and positions, yes. National. It is a joke. The whole process is so corrupt there is NO point in participating until the GOP and others get serious about voter fraud.
Not ONE person in 50 some Districts in Philadelphia voted for Romney. Really....NOT..EVEN...ONE...PERSON. Riiiiiiight.
Of course, they could allow selective logging to keep these national forests clear of undergrowth and dead trees.
No way... if they did that, then they could develop a new reveneue stream without taxation by selling the rights to log timber in national forests. We can not do something like that while we also shutdown revenue streams like the mining of coal on private lands and drilling of oil in federal lands. Besides, the burning of forests is not manmade emission of carbon and thus not a cause of Global Warming.
Icepick - there are some lovely beaches. ;)
AprilApple said...
Icepick - well, that's what the left are counting on. I believe the system is so corrupted and the cheat machine so fully up and running that it doesn't matter. I will still always show up to vote.
I will always vote for the lesser of two evils.
That makes no sense considering not only are they getting what they want, but they constructed it to be that way. They will lie, cheat, and steal to get elected and they devised the whole thing. It isn't want anyone wants, but that's what we all got. After six decades of leftist indoctrination and inculcation, plus 15 trillion dollars spent by largely democrat administrations and the party itself to hide and cloak it's racist past by handing out freebies to keep blacks and other minorities paid and voting for them into infinity, then you end up with this. A don't think a republican will be elected to the white house for a long long while. Also, you can see the leftists infiltrating many red states and taking over to turn them purple and then to blue. Texas is in their sights currently.
El Pollo Raylan said...
How'd that work out in 2012?
Pretty good, actually. My district reelected Darrell Issa. I sense that within a couple years he may challenge the Democratic monopoly on CA Senate seats or run for Governor.
Pollo, you live in the 49th district? I didn't know you lived in San Diego?
Meth: I live in O'Side.
Post a Comment