Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Was up in Yosemite this past weekend...staying with some friends just west of the Rim Fire area. Took a lot of pictures but none do justice...kinda like trying to describe the Grand Canyon to someone...

...close to 400 sq miles obliterated. Largest fire ever in the Sierra's, 3rd largest in state history.
Notable was the rugged terrain...45-85% grades, rocky rivers/creeks...the firefighters were having to use mountaineering (rock climbing/rappelling) methods to access in many areas...topping off trees extending sideways from mountains (suspended from ropes). Simply unbelievable.

The resulting damage to the region will continue for many decades.

Lotta rumors about the still unidentified person who started the fire. Allegedly a hunter with an illegal fire on Jawbone Ridge. Thing is...Jawbone Ridge is mostly rock, little brush, virtually a strip with only a 10-50' path along a 1500' cliff. Nobody goes there. Nobody hunts there (not only does the wildlife avoid it...lack of food/foliage...would be a PIA to pack out the kill.).
Locals heard the responsible was a relative of one of the local fire district commanders...

Anyway...but for Chizzang and his tree-hugging friends suing to stop fire control measures including routine thinning and burning to reduce the fuel loads...this fire would have never happened.

Another Hippy Fail.

Funny - once the fire reached the National Park itself, it died down considerably.

Why? No logging in the first place. Active fire management, which allowed for many low-level fires to clear out the understory, and left the big, more fire-resistant trees.

Areas hardest hit have been logged, allowed to grow back without any planning. Communities grow up around them, and they are the biggest opponents of fire control measures - opposing planned burns, refusing to thin areas around their houses, etc.

We saw the same thing with the deadly Yarnell Hill fire - the 19 Hot Shots died trying to defend a town where 75% of the houses had not followed any type of fire prevention steps.

travelinman67 wrote:Was up in Yosemite this past weekend...staying with some friends just west of the Rim Fire area. Took a lot of pictures but none do justice...kinda like trying to describe the Grand Canyon to someone...

...close to 400 sq miles obliterated. Largest fire ever in the Sierra's, 3rd largest in state history.
Notable was the rugged terrain...45-85% grades, rocky rivers/creeks...the firefighters were having to use mountaineering (rock climbing/rappelling) methods to access in many areas...topping off trees extending sideways from mountains (suspended from ropes). Simply unbelievable.

The resulting damage to the region will continue for many decades.

Lotta rumors about the still unidentified person who started the fire. Allegedly a hunter with an illegal fire on Jawbone Ridge. Thing is...Jawbone Ridge is mostly rock, little brush, virtually a strip with only a 10-50' path along a 1500' cliff. Nobody goes there. Nobody hunts there (not only does the wildlife avoid it...lack of food/foliage...would be a PIA to pack out the kill.).
Locals heard the responsible was a relative of one of the local fire district commanders...

Anyway...but for Chizzang and his tree-hugging friends suing to stop fire control measures including routine thinning and burning to reduce the fuel loads...this fire would have never happened.

Another Hippy Fail.

Hunters caused that fire and you know it.

D1B wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:Was up in Yosemite this past weekend...staying with some friends just west of the Rim Fire area. Took a lot of pictures but none do justice...kinda like trying to describe the Grand Canyon to someone...

...close to 400 sq miles obliterated. Largest fire ever in the Sierra's, 3rd largest in state history.
Notable was the rugged terrain...45-85% grades, rocky rivers/creeks...the firefighters were having to use mountaineering (rock climbing/rappelling) methods to access in many areas...topping off trees extending sideways from mountains (suspended from ropes). Simply unbelievable.

The resulting damage to the region will continue for many decades.

Lotta rumors about the still unidentified person who started the fire. Allegedly a hunter with an illegal fire on Jawbone Ridge. Thing is...Jawbone Ridge is mostly rock, little brush, virtually a strip with only a 10-50' path along a 1500' cliff. Nobody goes there. Nobody hunts there (not only does the wildlife avoid it...lack of food/foliage...would be a PIA to pack out the kill.).
Locals heard the responsible was a relative of one of the local fire district commanders...

Anyway...but for Chizzang and his tree-hugging friends suing to stop fire control measures including routine thinning and burning to reduce the fuel loads...this fire would have never happened.

Another Hippy Fail.

Hunters caused that fire and you know it.

Just like they did the Wallow and Sunflower fires in Arizona

dbackjon wrote:

D1B wrote:
Hunters caused that fire and you know it.

Just like they did the Wallow and Sunflower fires in Arizona

Fucking conks.

travelinman67 wrote:Was up in Yosemite this past weekend...staying with some friends just west of the Rim Fire area. Took a lot of pictures but none do justice...kinda like trying to describe the Grand Canyon to someone...

...close to 400 sq miles obliterated. Largest fire ever in the Sierra's, 3rd largest in state history.
Notable was the rugged terrain...45-85% grades, rocky rivers/creeks...the firefighters were having to use mountaineering (rock climbing/rappelling) methods to access in many areas...topping off trees extending sideways from mountains (suspended from ropes). Simply unbelievable.

The resulting damage to the region will continue for many decades.

Lotta rumors about the still unidentified person who started the fire. Allegedly a hunter with an illegal fire on Jawbone Ridge. Thing is...Jawbone Ridge is mostly rock, little brush, virtually a strip with only a 10-50' path along a 1500' cliff. Nobody goes there. Nobody hunts there (not only does the wildlife avoid it...lack of food/foliage...would be a PIA to pack out the kill.).
Locals heard the responsible was a relative of one of the local fire district commanders...

Anyway...but for Chizzang and his tree-hugging friends suing to stop fire control measures including routine thinning and burning to reduce the fuel loads...this fire would have never happened.

Another Hippy Fail.

These fires wouldn't be a big deal if conks didn't fucking destroy practically every forest, wetland, prairie, lake, river, stream, pond, swamp and beach with their pollution, cattle farms, mega farms, oil and chemical factories and logging operations.

Tman - what the fuck were you doing during your hiatus? Sniffing glue? You're a dumbass now.

Tman + Glue Sniffing = Forest Fires

Aren't there a lot of illegal pot farms in the area operated by illegal aliens for the benefit of the Mexican drug cartels? And isn't it likely the fire was started by these squatters?

blueballs wrote:Aren't there a lot of illegal pot farms in the area operated by illegal aliens for the benefit of the Mexican drug cartels? And isn't it likely the fire was started by these squatters?

Negatory, Barbells. According to Tman, no flora or fauna could survive in such rugged terrain.

So wait... what did I do..?

Chizzang wrote:So wait... what did I do..?

Its your fault that one of Tman's pin-head hunter friends let his campfire get away.

Because, hippies...

dbackjon wrote:Funny - once the fire reached the National Park itself, it died down considerably.

Why? No logging in the first place. Active fire management, which allowed for many low-level fires to clear out the understory, and left the big, more fire-resistant trees.

Areas hardest hit have been logged, allowed to grow back without any planning. Communities grow up around them, and they are the biggest opponents of fire control measures - opposing planned burns, refusing to thin areas around their houses, etc.

We saw the same thing with the deadly Yarnell Hill fire - the 19 Hot Shots died trying to defend a town where 75% of the houses had not followed any type of fire prevention steps.

idiot

grizzaholic wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Funny - once the fire reached the National Park itself, it died down considerably.

Why? No logging in the first place. Active fire management, which allowed for many low-level fires to clear out the understory, and left the big, more fire-resistant trees.

Areas hardest hit have been logged, allowed to grow back without any planning. Communities grow up around them, and they are the biggest opponents of fire control measures - opposing planned burns, refusing to thin areas around their houses, etc.

We saw the same thing with the deadly Yarnell Hill fire - the 19 Hot Shots died trying to defend a town where 75% of the houses had not followed any type of fire prevention steps.

idiot

Let's hear your argument, you fucking dick.

blueballs wrote:Aren't there a lot of illegal pot farms in the area operated by illegal aliens for the benefit of the Mexican drug cartels? And isn't it likely the fire was started by these squatters?

Ok John McCain

grizzaholic wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Funny - once the fire reached the National Park itself, it died down considerably.

Why? No logging in the first place. Active fire management, which allowed for many low-level fires to clear out the understory, and left the big, more fire-resistant trees.

Areas hardest hit have been logged, allowed to grow back without any planning. Communities grow up around them, and they are the biggest opponents of fire control measures - opposing planned burns, refusing to thin areas around their houses, etc.

We saw the same thing with the deadly Yarnell Hill fire - the 19 Hot Shots died trying to defend a town where 75% of the houses had not followed any type of fire prevention steps.

idiot

Nope - 100% accurate. If you think otherwise, then you are the idiot.

dbackjon wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
idiot

Nope - 100% accurate. If you think otherwise, then you are the idiot.

So logging is worse than just letting trees stand???? Some logic you got there.

grizzaholic wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Nope - 100% accurate. If you think otherwise, then you are the idiot.

So logging is worse than just letting trees stand???? Some logic you got there.

Old growth forests are fire-conditioned - space between trees, light understory. The big trees are much more fire resistant in the bark, plus branches are well off the ground. Fires burn quickly, less hot, and usually just clear out the undergrowth.

When you clear-cut, you create an open patch where the trees grow densely, fighting each other for resources - you get a thick patch of trees that burn hot, and torch upwards.

Once an area has been logged, it either needs to be manually replanted, with appropriate spacing, or continual thinning has to be done. If on national forest land, Congress has to appropriate money to do the thinning, which must be done every 10-15 years until the forest achieves a mature height. Thinning should be done on private property as well, but most land-owners don't do it.

dbackjon wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
So logging is worse than just letting trees stand???? Some logic you got there.

Old growth forests are fire-conditioned - space between trees, light understory. The big trees are much more fire resistant in the bark, plus branches are well off the ground. Fires burn quickly, less hot, and usually just clear out the undergrowth.

When you clear-cut, you create an open patch where the trees grow densely, fighting each other for resources - you get a thick patch of trees that burn hot, and torch upwards.

Once an area has been logged, it either needs to be manually replanted, with appropriate spacing, or continual thinning has to be done. If on national forest land, Congress has to appropriate money to do the thinning, which must be done every 10-15 years until the forest achieves a mature height. Thinning should be done on private property as well, but most land-owners don't do it.

This is absolutely correct... the same considerations are in play for the pine forests of SE GA that are used for pulp, paper, and wood for construction. My dad used to operate a naval store operation and consulted with the paper companies, forestry service, and land owners regularly about that.

grizzaholic wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Nope - 100% accurate. If you think otherwise, then you are the idiot.

So logging is worse than just letting trees stand???? Some logic you got there.

When I have "rim fire" a little bit of Vaseline helps to soothe the burn.

Ibanez wrote:When I have "rim fire" a little bit of Vaseline helps to soothe the burn.

Homo or no homo.


Really Raul, and you wonder why we wonder.

dbackjon wrote:

Ibanez wrote:When I have "rim fire" a little bit of Vaseline helps to soothe the burn.

Homo or no homo.


Really Raul, and you wonder why we wonder.

Who wonders?

BLM and The Forest Service were good at managing fuel loads until Int. Secty. Babbit codified the radical (thoughtless) "environmentalist" policy of preventing timber thinners from using their "harvest" for "beneficial use"; a policy STILL embraced by radical Interior bureaucrats today. Massive burns like the Rim Fire could be reduced by utilizing harvesters to thin and remove for "beneficial use" (profit) rather than wasting hundreds of millions of tax funds paying property owners and anyone willing to thin while the harvests rot away in slash piles. ...Once again, an illogical, damaging, and wasteful practice born from the idiotic liberal hatred of capitalism. SMFH

travelinman67 wrote:BLM and The Forest Service were good at managing fuel loads until Int. Secty. Babbit codified the radical (thoughtless) "environmentalist" policy of preventing timber thinners from using their "harvest" for "beneficial use"; a policy STILL embraced by radical Interior bureaucrats today. Massive burns like the Rim Fire could be reduced by utilizing harvesters to thin and remove for "beneficial use" (profit) rather than wasting hundreds of millions of tax funds paying property owners and anyone willing to thin while the harvests rot away in slash piles. ...Once again, an illogical, damaging, and wasteful practice born from the idiotic liberal hatred of capitalism. SMFH

Good lord you're a nut ball...
Firstly that is inaccurate information about Babbit
He was the FIRST interior Secretary to EVER use consensus-based environmental restoration projects

He invited Ranchers and Corporations and Conservationists and environmentalists into all land based management decisions / Of course the corporations didn't like that because they had to actually say (in printed documentation) what their intentions were instead of just paying off a few politicians

He was a HALL MARK appointee (period)

Secondly wasn't Babbit followed by Gale Norton?
Yes: Gale Norton was perhaps the most dishonest and corrupt Interior secretary of all time... Negotiating With Royal Dutch Shell while working for the Federal Government only to be followed by her felony entanglement in the Abramoff scandal
as if that wasn't enough:
Followed by her ridiculous attempt at sabotaging of the Endangered Species act and falling on her face, then writing an article titled "The Endangered Human" FUCK ME... are you kidding

Then after she was fired she went to work strait away for Royal Dutch Shell (of course)

Babbit was a genius and a saint compared to Norton....

[quote/]
Good lord you're a nut ball...
Firstly that is inaccurate information about Babbit
He was the FIRST interior Secretary to EVER use consensus-based environmental restoration projects

He invited Ranchers and Corporations and Conservationists and environmentalists into all land based management decisions / Of course the corporations didn't like that because they had to actually say (in printed documentation) what their intentions were instead of just paying off a few politicians

He was a HALL MARK appointee (period)

Secondly wasn't Babbit followed by Gale Norton? [/Quote] This has nothing to do with Gale Norton, ESA, Jack Abramoff, Royal Dutch Shell, Rush Limbaugh, or Watergate, Cappy! Babbit was a radical who attempted to erase over a century of natural resource management projects. Destroying dams, revoking mining permits, canceling foresting leases, and on, and on...in no way were his proposals "consensus" based.