Re:California will begin backing intentional burns to contro...
by 2devnull on Friday June 23, 2023 @06:31PM
(#36453059)
We’re talking about California. Are you saying California is owned by the logging companies? That seems rather dubious.
I won’t say you’re incredibly incorrect myself, but maybe just simply incorrect?
Re:California will begin backing intentional burns to contro...
by cmh89 on Saturday June 24, 2023 @11:02AM
(#36459264)
>We’re talking about California. Are you saying California is owned by the logging companies? That seems rather dubious.
Most of the forested land in California is owned by the federal government, who has historically managed the land based on the priorities of natural resource extractors like logging companies.
This article is about the PNW, but it functioned the same way in California
https://wou.edu/history/files/2015/08/Ron-Vorderstrasse.pdf
>I won’t say you’re incredibly incorrect myself, but maybe just simply incorrect?
You're complete lack of knowledge on this subject doesn't make me incorrect. Please go do some reading and come back with an intelligent argument.
I'm sorry, this is just incredibly incorrect. Forest management on the federal level is owned by logging companies. The drive to put out fires, even in remote areas, is driven by a desire to not lose acres that could be logged. It's taken activist decades to convince the Forest Service and the BLM to do controlled burns and we *still* put out naturally-ignited fires in remote areas.