Celebs blaming humans for SoCal fires

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I saw a show on PBS awhile back about I think it was Yellowstone park and how they deal with forest fires. Some guy in charge (the head ranger or the fire marshal or something) basically said they could do controlled burns every year and it would significantly reduce the chance of massive forest fires. The only drawback was that every year when they would do the burns the people around would be irritated by the smoke. The had some sort of town meeting and it was amazing how many people living near the park came to bitch about how they didn't want to be inconvenienced by the smoke every year (even though it could prevent their houses from possibly burning down).

...
That is typical.
In Laguna Beach... residents fought and won against county and state plans to build a run-off system that would channel rain water from the hillsides. Reasoning... "It would destroy the natural beauty of the hillside to have concrete rain channels traversing the hillside".
Well... a few years later... the rains came and the hillsides came down due to saturation and buried their homes.
go figure.

Cosmo wrote:

...
That is typical.
In Laguna Beach... residents fought and won against county and state plans to build a run-off system that would channel rain water from the hillsides. Reasoning... "It would destroy the natural beauty of the hillside to have concrete rain channels traversing the hillside".
Well... a few years later... the rains came and the hillsides came down due to saturation and buried their homes.
go figure.

I understand that pretty much everywhere you live an act of nature could easily wipe out your home (whether it is an earthquake, wildfire, ice storm or blizzard, tornado, hurricane or Tsunami). But if you are going to live in a very high risk area you should at least take steps to minimize your level of risk. The quote above is a prime example if you are going to live in a mudslide area, have systems in place to prevent mudslides. If you are going to live in a high earthquake or tornado area, make sure your house is built to withstand those events.

810wmb wrote:

when faced with decisions or thoughts about the big picture i always go to my old standby that has never failed me -

"what would jamie lee think?"

Of course attack the messanger instead of the message. She is right though. People in So Cal know that that area is prone to large brush fires during the dry season, so what do they do build entire communities dead smack in the middle. I feel terrible that these people are loosing their homes and their belongings, but at the same time you have to ask yourself why the hell would anyone want to live there. Why would humans knowingly build communities in a location that is prone to large brush fires.

Had this magnitude of fire occurred 20 years ago it would just be forests and dried up brush burning. No loss of property, no chance for loss of life, but now since we have to build on every square inch of land we place ourselves right in the path of Mother Nature's fury.

I'm currently reading a book about what would happen to the earth if all humans where to up and disappear one day. The author makes a great point that the Earth will eventually recalim what once once hers. That statement holds true in this case. Mother earth is just reclaiming her land.

810wmb wrote:

first, it's a joke...

second, why all the fuss about Katrina?

mother earth was just reclaiming her land...all those people choose to live there

The fuss was not over the flooding but rather in the manner which the local, state, and fedearl government handled the diseaster.

mammasan wrote:

The fuss was not over the flooding but rather in the manner which the local, state, and fedearl government handled the diseaster.

yes, i know this, but why should the fed gov't (bush) be raked over the coals because the people basically got what was coming to them?

Cosmo wrote:

...
Lemme guess... because he's the PRESIDENT.

so fucking what?

so he should be held responsible for people getting wiped out?

he's responsible for the fires too, right?

Keiran wrote:

Are you reading "The World Without Us" by
Alan Weisman?

Yes and it is a great read. I'm about 3/4 of the way through.

810wmb wrote:

yes, i know this, but why should the fed gov't (bush) be raked over the coals because the people basically got what was coming to them?

To me if the government tells me that the levees protecting my home are going to hold up then I expect them to hold up. It is not like the average citizen would have the training to go inspect them him or herself.

810wmb wrote:

all i hear is how he's drunk with power etc....

local and state had MUCH more to do with not getting people out in time. he couldn't make them evacuate people. so when he stays within his power, it's still his fault.

if they would have gotten people out in time, there wouldn't have been such a mess.

the theme of this thread is basically, if you build in a forest, don't bitch when yr house gets burned up

what's the difference with people bitching when they got flooded, when they live in a flood prone area?

I stated that Local and State government where equally responsible. Also just because people decide to live in flood plain doesn't mean we leave them there to starve and dehydrate when a flood comes. We do our best to get them out of there and help them. All levels of government failed in getting the help those people needed when they needed it.

Cosmo wrote:

...
No funding. No one wants to pay for that. Even if the tax was called, "The Tax Specifically Used To Pay For Control Burns So People's Houses Don't Go Up In Flames Tax" and actually did exactly that... no one would go for it. Especially, the people who don't live on the hillsides... they don't give a shit about them.

I remember in college out there, it was all of the dirty hippies who took a day off of putting spikes in trees to protest controlled burning because they claimed it would seriously ham the environment.