In California, why don't they just cut the trees down to stop the fire?

Question

In California, why don't they just cut the trees down in a RIVER-LIKE path to stop the fire? Lets face it, there is ONLY ONE way to stop the California fire, CUT IT. If there are no trees or brush in the way, there's not going to be any fire now is there?
The funny thing is that I heard that they don't wan't to kill the endangered watchama-call-it Frog when they cut down the trees,m so they make it against the law to cut the trees? But Ironically because they don't the forest burns down and the endangered frogs die anyways? Right? And the Californians Houses burn down because they weren't allowed to cut thier grass and shrubs and stuff because they could possibly kill some sort of endangered rat and if they did cut their lawns, then they would be put in jail for one year and get fined $100,000/ Right?!.
Do Democrats want the forests to burn down? After all, they make laws not to cut the trees which is the only way to stop the fire, PREMANENTLY.

I was just thinking. If a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, then why not get rid of it. If there are 2 clifs and a big pile of sugar at one end of it and an ant colony as big as Mount Everest at the other end, whe spend your time killing the ants with little cans of ant poison when you can just take away the weakest link of the only chain connecting the 2 high clifs surrounded by water and kill the ants by starving them to death.

...why spend your time...


not whe
WOOPS bad spelling.

OH AND REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR PRACTICALLY FOREVER. Cut the trees, make a path so the fire will never spread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you people realize that after one of those really bad forest fires, the ground becomes soo scorched, that nothing will grow there and live there for years and years.

Geoff C,

Yes but that fire would be soo small compared to the other fires, that it would be like putting out a match compared to putting out a fire in a fire place.

I'm not saying clear cutting out forests, HA, I'm just saying make a paths everywhere so the whole darn thing doesn't burn down. Do you have any idea how much of our forest burns down each year? Try the whole state of New Jersy, I heard that on C-span 2. Besides we could use the wood for making houses and stuff instead of buying lumber illegally from china.

raichasa,

What seeds? The ground and dirt like over one foot down also got burnt to a crisp. If you think any of those seeds survived then you are nuts.

The fact is that if it were me, I would make a fire break big enough that the fire couldn't ever possibly spread, umm... that way the whole entire forest wouldn't burn down. Oh and since that whole area is soo forest fire prone, then why not turn it into a logging area and stop Tree-Logging areas all across the rest of the United States where forest fires don't exist. An example is I live in GA, and my grandmother lives in front of a logging area where they grow these pathetic dinky little 15-20ft tall pine trees and cut them down. You Californians are soo wastfull and pathetic letting all of those BEAUTIFUL "GIANT!!!!!!!" trees go to waste (and not use then for their wood) when YOU KNOW FOR FACT that one day they will burn down in that fire prone area.____

OK, I think found the answer that I'm looking for.

Answer 1

because the trees are so beautiful!

Answer 2

Have You ever cut down a tree? They don't exactly go down easily- or quickly either. And if you don't REMOVE them right away- they dry out & can burn even FASTER!!! So standing in front of a wall of Fire that's moving 15 or 20 MPH- with a chainsaw, calmly cutting down trees -might NOT be the best of ideas to slow an inferno... And as for not "caring" about the existance of endangered Species- consider this; One well "placed" Pandemic in the World- could see US going on the Endangered Species List...-and SO WHAT if there were no trees to cower behind- because we'd cut them all down..? THAT would solve ALL our problems...-"PREMANENTLY..." :(

Answer 3

because clearing brush, making roads to thin out the forests, and making everything off limits is the enviro nazis agenda. So what if mismanagement of the wilderness is making fire so bad, So what if its unhealthy to have so much old growth forrest. Hug a tree, the jumping mice need the room. Thinning the forests is a way to regenerate the forest. Allowing natural fires to burn is good for the forests. letting everything grow and litter the forest floor is a good recipe for disaster.

Answer 4

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are not a moron and that you are only making a joke.

First of all, many of the fires occur in areas of coastal sage and desert brush. There are trees, such as live oak, but even without a single tree, there would be plenty of wilderness to burn.

Second, California has removed thousands of trees from the mountains where a natural enemy, a beetle, has killed them and turned them into kindling. We were weren't concerned about removing food from the mouths of the poor beetles.

Third, Californians living next to wilderness areas aren't prevented from clearing the land near them, they are ENCOURAGED to keep the fire danger down.

Fourth, what river-like path do you think a fire is going to take? Do you know where it might go so we can clear a path ahead of time? Or are you seriously suggesting that it is faster for firefighters to cut down and clear trees during a fire emergency than it is to dump water and chemicals on the fire?

Wildfires are a fact of life, of nature in California. Long before the first stucco house, there was fire. But Californians don't want to live in a concrete jungle without trees or plant life anymore than you do. So we do what we can to live in this beautiful place. Where we are smart enough to know that the Democrats can't be blamed for everything.

EDIT for your additional spread of misinformation: the burn areas will have growth by next May. Many California native plants are actually spurred into growth by fire. Their seeds lie dormant until heat-activated. Just give it up now, please!

California is not New Jersey. Cut all the paths you want, but a fire pushed by a 100 mile an hour wind doesn't give a damn about a firebreak.

Argh, why do I keep returning to this stupid post!

From the LA Times "A Landscape Born to Burn", October 29, 2007:

"Shrubs re-sprout. The smoke causes long-dormant seeds to germinate, giving birth to a riot of wildflowers that won't be seen again until after the next wave of flames.

"This is an extraordinary story of adaptation to fire," says Jon Keeley, a U.S. Geological Survey scientist and chaparral expert. With an air of wonder, he adds that no other place in the world has as great a variety of native plant species dependent on fire."

http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/scimedemail/la-me-specialessayemail28oct28,1,5631824.story?page=2

Answer 5

They do this already it is called a fire break in most places where wildfires are a problem they have already cut them in to help if a fire starts but the problem is that when the wind blows it blows embers that jump the break and start the fire on the other side.

ADDITION: North Carolina practices this method they also do controlled burns to get rid of the under growth that helps fire spread.

Although those fires are small when the embers blow they get big fast and also you are talking about miles of fireline for them to monitor for such embers. Beleive me this is how they spread.

Answer 6

Actually I have often wondered on a really out of control fire, why not use an air-fuel bomb? It would remove the oxygen and put out at least most of the fire and allow them to win by conventional means. But it would definitely cause destruction and would have to be used with descretion. Air-duel bombs have the destructive power of a small nuclear. Such might be considered to use against hurricaines while at sea. I suppose real experts have reasons for not.

Answer 7

are you talking about logging because no one would ever log near a fire it is just too dangerous and it would take too long, an feasible alternative would be controlled backburning. but if we didn't have global warming, maybe the fires would be less extreme so why don't we cut CO2 emissions like the scientists are telling us we have too.

so what are you proposing saving the Forest by turning it all into wood chips???

Answer 8

Deeee wow George, that's a good idea, eehhhh can you send some shovels, redwoods don't come down easily. Since california is such a small place, you can stand on the border and see the ocean ..cause it's such a small place...well if you're on the mexican or oregon border...and next to the beach.

Answer 9

That's like cutting your limbs off to avoid breaking an arm or leg again.

Answer 10

dam you conservatives and your logic






note the sarcasm.