High Sierra Topix

Foamfinger...I agree. Some of the blame can be placed on some of the homeowners themselves. But a vast majority of the blame can be placed squarely on the doorstep of those who would not allow precautions to be taken in the name of "the environment". The Sierra Club has been resisting the thinning of forests for years. The regulation of not allowing homeowners to clear pine needles from their property is absolutely ridiculous! In my brief research, I uncovered the possibility that the Bush administration might have underfunded the thinning programs that WERE in place, further exasterbating the problem.

mountaineer wrote:In my brief research, I uncovered the possibility that the Bush administration might have underfunded

You're kidding, right? :retard: Pointing fingers at this event belongs first and foremost at the schmuck who cast aside a ciggy, or started a fire without need, or wanted a hot weenie for lunch. Second (and finally) it belongs with a piss-poor history of forest management because of foolishness (and strident agendas) on both sides of the political isle (which you brought into the discussion). Save the righteous indignation for the Daily Kos. Why not throw in Republican blame for not going forward on the Kyoto Accords (which was soundly rejected by our Congress, by the way)?

Yeah, the Angora fire is a result of those that voted for Bush, and Bush himself. :retard:

I hear the spot where the fire was started was used for late night parties etc. by kids too. A local maybe?

I can see people coming up to there cabins for the weekend and not wanting to deal with smoke from a controlled burn and only wanting to take in the fresh mountain air and views. Not my opinion. Also, if they couldn't rake needles from there yards they had the option of planting grass as a defensible space which the TRPA would allow.

SteveB wrote: Why not throw in Republican blame for not going forward on the Kyoto Accords (which was soundly rejected by our Congress, by the way)?

Yeah, the Angora fire is a result of those that voted for Bush, and Bush himself. :retard:

Why blame the Republicans when the kyoto accords did not receive a single vote from any democratic senator, either? Kyoto lost unanimously -- not a single vote from any senator in either party. That is as non-partisan as you can get. It was a deeply flawed treaty as written and the Senate was correct in rejecting it. Even al gore now concedes the kyoto treaty was poorly written.

It was clinton that slashed the Forest Service budget all during his administration. It has been generally increasing under Bush.

.

The Governator fired Robert F. Sawyer for actually trying to implement greenhouse gas reduction:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printeditio ... &cset=true

Republican doubletalk and lip service to environmentalism is not just at the federal level.

I was thinking with the TRPA trying to protect the lake from runoff from development no matter the size from cutting one tree down to a dozen or more, I'm guessing it will be years recovering from the fire now with the runoff from burned over slopes and the ash working its way into the lake. Your thoughts?

dave54 wrote:It was clinton that slashed the Forest Service budget all during his administration. It has been generally increasing under Bush.

Actually, in Clinton's last year, the Fire preparedness and Hazardous Fuels reduction budgets dramatically increased. This was based on input he requested from the Sec of Ag and Interior. The report they submitted became known as the National Fire Plan. Based on increased funding recommended in that report, literally hundreds of additional firefighting resources were added to California's Federal wildland fire agencies.

Bush has maintained that funding through his administration, even with increased spending on the military side.

All the sniping aside (including my own), what does this come down to? Here's my thoughts, and please feel free to correct me (without any trolling foolishness):

1) Historical management policies have proven, in the long run, to be ineffective at best, and damaging at worst.
2) Current rules & practices in the Tahoe Basin are flawed, and need to be reworked.
3) Until development is radically (?) curbed in the Tahoe Basin (and other similar bioregions), the problem will continue.

Do we need to develop new laws regarding acceptable landscaping techniques? What landscaping practices should be implemented that would help minimize the rapid burn we've seen in the recent burn and past burns? Will limiting (or ending) further development work to solve the environmental issues, or will limiting casual development just lead to development practices by even bigger Fat Cats that are even more destructive (ie, graft, payoffs, PAC lobbying, etc)?

And perhaps more importantly, what will it take to get more forest-friendly NABs and county Boards installed to curb what most citizens will recognize as destructive?

I was reading in the 'Nevada Appeal' today and they had a story that more or less said the TRPA wasn't totally the bad guy. I have heard you could not take any trees down on your property around the lake, not sure how far from the lake this is covered, but according to the story, if you had the fire department determine you had hazard trees that you could remove them. Also, there was a meeting scheduled earlier this month and 5,000 notices were left at peoples houses I believe the story said and only 80 people showed up for the meeting. The article even mentioned a stoey about one neighbor who had a good defensible space and offered to help his neighbor out. The neighbor lost his place.

It will be interesting to see where they thinned a few years back, how the fire reacted there.