it is important to note that the guy who chopped down the trees around his house was on a very big property from memory he cleared 270 trees out of 40,000 .... the real devastation in these recent wild fires in Victoria was in mountain towns and hamlets where the fires raced from house to house after coming up over a ridge .. so they were small blocks not rural holdings so it was a matter of getting down the mountain or making it to a sports field
*http://tinyurl.com/dlbgfx **http://tinyurl.com/aj782u* On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Francis Drouillard <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Feb 19, 2009, at 8:26 AM, mex sara wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Francis Drouillard <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> I see that the anti-green crowd is blaming environmentalists for the >> horrific fires in Australia. (I don't believe that any more than I >> believe elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 are the cause.) That same >> nonsense is gaining traction here in California, particularly against >> the California Coastal Commission. >> > > interestingly there are pro's and cons on both sides ... reduction burning > is not > really the issue in these particular fires they were a combination of > several > extraordinary events coinciding ... which i am sure you would have read > about > > the really big issue is that there is a policy of stay and defend .... the > insurance > companies encourage this as does government policy mainly because some > people > wont be evacuated unless you arrest them so they have gone with a policy of > teaching people how to defend and survive .... which is fine normally but > in > these recent fires well they were fire storms on a 46 degree day with > sudden high speed winds > the built up fuel is of course an issue but more importantly the rules > which say you cant chop trees down around your house > > > Even Eucalyptus trees? I recall seeing those in Oakland burst like kitchen > matches from a viewpoint 8 miles away in Sausalito during the 1993 fires. > Around here we have strict rules on the type of trimming that must be done. > The essence of the rules are that trees and shrubs must stay under a plane > starting from your home that slopes up at about 30 degrees as you move away. > > Despite the claims of those that place private property rights over > environmental health on state lands, clearing brush and trees from around a > home is required by Calfire before a building permit is issued. Beyond that, > and only within the Coastal Zone of California, the Coastal Commission > permits further tree cutting only if doing so is the least environmentally > harmful alternative to a proposed development. If it's feasible to move your > planned home 25 feet to save a tree they will require you to change your > plans accordingly. Whenever that happens, the extreme curmudgeons howl about > their property rights being trampled. > > this story tells it better than i can > > *http://tinyurl.com/cl44dm* > > > Yikes! Judging by the photo, the Sheahans cleared every tree within a 1/4 > mile radius of their home. Image what would happen to the environment when a > canyon full of homes clears that much to protect their homes. > > My question -- any push-back yet from Aussie environmentalists? I'm >> interested in what they have to say as we're going to have to push >> them back here a bit too. > > > well science is with them statisics apparently show that the burn offs are > more detrimental than effective and that fire breaks are more effective .... > they wont need to fight back > as there will be a royal commission into it [ i think thats the same a > senate hearing/ commission for you ] and the status quo will be vindicated > whatever that is at the time > > > All chatter and no change? How refreshing. > > *http://tinyurl.com/alsse7* > > > i think that you have to differentiate the forest from the people ... while > it is lovely > to live with forest right up to your back door it is a huge risk ... i have > lived in places where bushfires are inevitable and everyone belongs to the > fire service and everybody trains > my view if you live in a bushfire prone area you have to clear around the > house > > > My current view is that developers shouldn't be allowed to build in > wildfire prone canyons and other areas. Same goes for flood plains and fault > lines. > > the roads must be cleared along their sides even if that means the bush > isn't 'close up' for the tourists [who don't want to get out of their cars > and actually walk though it go figure ] so there is an escape route if that > is unacceptable then houses shouldn't be built > > i don't know if hazard reduction makes a difference or not but i do know > that clearing > gutters of fuel and having a decent distance tween the house and the bush > and having a generator pump and access to lots of water does > > i agree with the article above ... don't want to be shark bait don't swim > at dusk > > > That gal's a real hoot. > > ..... you have to be prepared the survivors who stayed and defended at if > you like the ground zero of > these fires ... remembering that it had 130 kilometer front and the wind > was gale force > i read somewhere it was the same tnt thingy as 15 nuclear bombs [ as > hiroshima ] > had spent the $3000 or $ 4000 to build double brick and steel bunkers into > earth > had generators and copper sprinkler systems on their roof > there was an interview with a very sweet hippie guy with survivor guilt > whose neighbors laughed at him going to the expense ... they died > > > Sad. Very sad. > > it is worth noting that while nobody has died a large part of the rest of > the country has been experiencing devastating floods some places have had no > road access for a month > and many many people have lost their homes > > *http://tinyurl.com/ckqa35 > > *in our neighborhood * > * > *http://tinyurl.com/dma5ga* > > > Ugh. What a mess. Hope you aren't under water. > > During the last week we received about 1/4 of our normal annual rainfall. > Up until then a severe drought was a serious possibility. Drought is still > possible as we've only got another 3 to 4 weeks to our rainy season, but > things are looking much better. > > "Sins of Commission" is one of the more recent (and egregious) >> example of what I mean: >> >> <http://sinsofcommission.com/> >> >> It seems to be an organized effort with links to the Pacific Legal >> Foundation and prominent attorneys that make a living finding ways to >> circumvent laws intended to protect our environment. >> > > > that info was interesting ... it is a bit late so i don't understand > exactly what you mean > > i'll have another look tomorrow > > > > Among other things, the director is using "Michael Moore" methods to blame > wildfires on the California Coastal Commission. Another of his more > despicable acts was to attribute illegal acts by rogue building officials in > LA County on Peter Douglas, Executive Director of the California Coastal > Commission. > > Now, Peter Douglas is one tough, hard-nosed bureaucrat, but he does > everything by the book. Everything. He's transparent, honest and accessible. > If we had more state employees like him and his staff, California wouldn't > be in its current financial straits. (Recall, you're reading this from a > conservative small government Republican.) > > Hope you can figure out how to capture some of that water and that the > ashes from the fires make many a Phoenix for you guys. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
