Quote:
but you have to admit that drawing any sort of environmental equivalency between Alaska and California is myopic, at best
Some of that is true and a good point. They are different. But they both are areas that exhibit high chances of burn.Quote:
You're not going to correct 50 million acres in 4 years, regardless of your budget. While fighting fires. Alaska does not have the santa anas or diablo winds. Nor the agricultural lands. Nor the severe droughts. There's a whole list of difficulties here that you don't have in Alaska.
We have millions of acres of beetle kill forest that often have 90% of the forest full of dead wood stacked on itself. This affected our area as I grew up. It is a tinder keg. The only reason it is not a high risk is the lack of people and structural damage - and that they have active burn plans in place in addition to educating home owners to clear the surrounding land for burn control. They have to be very aggressive due to the lack of ability to fight a fire, which is something California doesn't have. We still lose over 500,000 acres a year fairly often.
The State of Alaska is responsible for managing controlled burns on Federal Land, they work with the federal government (BLM) and have an extensive plan, and have had for decades. Also they have high levels of education in place. So stating that they can not do anything about it is false. Alaska has the highest portion of federally owned land out of any of the states, well it is larger than any of the other states, they own an area larger than Texas. In addition to having the largest amount of land, and the smallest population per square mile. I lived in that area, so I know it best as a comparison, and how aggressive they are in fire control and education. That includes telling home owners to have large burn areas around their houses, like what is being proposed in the link right here:
FTFY.Quote:
Oh and FYI, nearly every politician 'NOW' in the state runs on a platform of implementing fire management practices. The state just dropped a twelfth of Alaska's entire budget on a five year fire prevention program.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-p...901-story.html
They JUST, as in, this September, 2 months ago, did this. After the report, from February. With such a long history of poor management, I think it is fair to knock them for it. Why did it take so friggen long?
Billions given over decades. Lives lost over decades.Quote:
There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor," Trump tweeted. "Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests.
It isn't as if these fires are new. The problem has been there forever, before people were there. If they had done the work 20 or 30 years ago, consistently, it wouldn't be a problem now. If you want some one to blame, as you seem to, it is past Californian administration of this problem.
Why 4 years? If we want to talk myopic... Alaska knows they have 30 years of huge potential fires left due to this, with the amount of deadwood. This popped up in the late 1980s, when I was growing up there. They put the plan into place then. California has always had these problems. The plants and animals are adapted to it. But they still didn't do some of the things that are desperately needed.
Yours argument was, and correct me if I am wrong, that: Trump was wrong to knock California for not addressing the problem in the past. And that he is a bad man for not saying something you wanted him to say in a tweet, and because of that fuck him and fuck everyone who supports him.
My argument is that, if Alaska can have had a plan in place for decades, with controlled burns and education, WTF can't California have one?
The problem is still how it is handled and managed on the state level, and since I know little ol' backwards AK can do it, why didn't progressive California do it? The answer is not the federal government is blocking them - because Alaska does it just fine. It is that they didn't do it until now.
I included it deliberately Steve, since that is part of the problem. I understand that. I am not going to hide it or pretend it doesn't exist to make my point or to paint a better picture for my argument. As I showed above, and it was part of my point, Alaska can work with the federal government to make this work. I also linked to the study, which you seemed to not have read as I predicted, that would have detailed items that would have strongly supported Trump's position. And mine.Quote:
It's right in your quote ffs, you know the part you didn't bold.
But lets look at your words:
Quote:
"Just remember that on November 10th 2018, the President of the United States took time to pander to his base about how "mismanaged" California is due to large forest fires. He didn't mention the 200,000 people who have been evacuated and displaced due to the fires. He didn't mention the people who have lost their lives. He didn't mention the amazing fire crews who have been working around the clock in dangerous terrain to stop the fires."
Trump also said:Quote:
But seriously, fuck this guy and a big fat fuck you if you support him.
So, yeah, he did. You are quite solidly wrong, and really can't spin out of it.Quote:
More than 4,000 are fighting the Camp and Woolsey Fires in California that have burned over 170,000 acres. Our hearts are with those fighting the fires, the 52,000 who have evacuated, and the families of the 11 who have died. The destruction is catastrophic. God Bless them all.
* Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 10, 2018
I can make my point while including a full picture, and you made a point by either being ignorant or excluding information.
Now that you have bitched about something the president didn't say, as a required virtue signal, but in fact he did, do we really need your judgement on who is an expert at something they don't know anything about?Quote:
if there's something you can know nothing about and pipe up as an "expert" you're the easiest bet in town
You started this reply because you make these absolutely horrid proclamations on here:to anybody who comes onto this forum, and you are either ignorant or deliberately omitting information so you can insult them.Quote:
....and a big fat fuck you if you support him.
If a random guy comes on here, you know what, there is a 50% chance you just insulted him. Based on your misrepresentation of the facts, your feelings, and your need to virtue signal on this little forum.
It seems like you and Gordon are happy chasing people off of here by insulting a large portion of the political spectrum. I suggest not making BS claims in the first place - and to respect others. It might be a nice change for once.
Small addition: To be clear, my position is Trump is correct to bash California for years of mismanagement, if tacky and just plain mouth vomit like normal. And also he did say the things almost exactly the things your little virtue signaling self said he needed to do. In both of those areas your initial comment was incorrect.