From The Daily Caller
Trump Takes Steps To Prevent Catastrophic Forest Fires, Including More Logging
7:22 AM 12/24/2018 | Energy
Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor
- President Trump issued an executive order allowing agencies to do more to prevent massive wildfires.
- The order came one day after Trump signed GOP-backed wildfire legislation.
- Wildfires have burned more than 8.5 million acres this year.
President Donald Trump moved forward with policies aimed at preventing catastrophic wildfires while the media breathlessly covered the government funding battle.
Trump issued an executive order Friday to allow for active management of forest and rangelands, including thinning and removing debris from millions of acres of federal lands.
The order also calls on federal officials to streamline regulations and permitting processes to allow the harvest of at least 3.8 billion board feet from U.S. Forest Service lands and 600 million board feet from Bureau of Land Management lands.
That represents a massive increase in timber sales from federal lands. For example, loggers harvested 2.9 billion board feet from Forest Service lands in 2017, according to federal figures. But even Trump’s increased allowance for loggers is still about one-quarter of what was harvested in 1973.
Trump also asked federal officials to do more to maintain roads into hard-to-reach areas where fires can spread. (RELATED: The Government Shut Down, But Trump Will Keep National Parks Open)
Western Republicans welcomed Trump’s order. GOP lawmakers said that a change in policies was sorely needed after the devastating 2018 wildfire season, which saw more than 8.5 million acres burned.
“While litigation activists thwarted forest management reforms, the Senate also failed to pass legislation to help minimize forest fires,” Utah GOP Rep. Rob Bishop, chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, said in a statement.
“As a result, parts of the West were left in ashes. We cannot ignore these systemic issues any longer,” Bishop said.
Trump issued the order one day after signing the $867 million farm bill that included provisions allowing foresters to more quickly remove dead and diseased trees that increased fire risks.
Environmentalists railed against Trump’s executive order, characterizing it as a “gift” to the logging industry that would do little to prevent wildfires.
“It won’t work, and we know that,” Denise Boggs with the group Conservation Congress told The Sacramento Bee. “All the fire ecologists are saying the same thing: You can’t log your way out of this situation.”
“Logging in the back country is just a gift to the timber industry,” said Boggs, adding the order didn’t mention global warming or thinning around communities in wildfire-prone areas.
Democrats and environmentalists tend to blame global warming for the increasingly massive western wildfires. Republicans, however, argue more active management of forests through thinning, clearing of dead and dying trees and logging is needed to prevent wildfires from getting out of control.
“This executive order will save lives and communities throughout the West!” the Congressional Western Caucus tweeted Friday.
Thank you @realDonaldTrump for ensuring that necessary fuel load reduction and forest management policies are implemented that will mitigate the frequency and intensity of wildfires. This executive order will save lives and communities throughout the West! https://t.co/QcXz29FkqR
— Western Caucus (@westerncaucus) December 21, 2018
Wildfire management, usually not a national issue, became a hot topic against after the Camp Fire became the deadliest in California’s history, killing 88 people and destroying thousands of buildings.
Outgoing Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke blamed environmentalists for the increasingly devastating fires in the western U.S. — environmentalists often sue to keep federal officials from removing trees or conducting prescribed burns.
“However, this issue will only be fixed through congressional action,” Bishop said.
“The House and Senate must work to implement statutes that protect our environment and the many communities across the country who live every day with the threat of wildfire,” Bishop said.
Bishop is reportedly one of several candidates being considered to replace Zinke. Zinke will resign by the end of the year.
Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter
Go Trump , a true champion of both Conservation and commonsense.
I wonder just how many administrations it will take for this to work it’s way through the courts. It will probably take longer than Mann v. Steyn.
From the article: “President Donald Trump moved forward with policies aimed at preventing catastrophic wildfires while the media breathlessly covered the government funding battle.”
Trump should tell the Democrats he is not going to sign any bill that does not contain funding for the southern border wall. Nancy better make a deal or she isn’t going to get anything she wants until she funds the wall. The Democrats will start getting nervous here in the next week or two. Stick to your guns, Donald. Shumer and Pelosi will eventually fold. Shumer says if Trump wants to fund the government then Trump should give up the wall. Trump should say to Shumer that if Shumer wants the government open, he should fund the wall. What’s more unreasonable, shutting down the government in an effort to increase security on the southern border, or shutting down the government to make the U.S. less safe by not funding security measures for the southern border. My choice for most unreasonable is those who want to make the U.S. border less safe by refusing to build a wall.
As for forest thinning being a give away to the forest industry, what’s wrong with building up the logging industry?
Make Logging Great Again!
The President can afford to hire his own security; I wonder if Schumer and Pelosi can as well? The President had his own transoceanic capable plane before being sworn in; Schumer and Pelosi didn’t. All those things that impact the President also impact every member of Congress, and I bet they are much less equipped to deal with the impact.
Philip, correct again, if I was Trump, I would not buy a 20 million dollar NY apartment WITH a doorman, that would cost too much.
Agreed again! Obama had no body guards prior to public service, you got me there. The most powerful position in the world should not deserve protection, agreed. Trump needing to spread his money over an entire apartment building to afford a doorman, you got me there again. Man, you are good!
JPP, do you know anything about construction? Do you know what a “change order” is”? What Trump had was a history of disputing change orders, which was demagogued into not paying his suppliers.
As I wrote, Trump was in an unusual situation, serving both as project manager and the end customer. That meant he could not pass overcharges, which is what change orders can be, to someone other than his shareholders on that project and himself.
So you are claiming that he should not have disputed certain change orders just to make Democratic party spinmasters happy?
Mr Peterson, have you posted on here before?
Only to whine about how Trump is ruining his world.
So they weren’t working for Trump, they were working for the contractor.
Did the contractor not pay them? Why not? Did Trump not pay the contractor? Again, why not?
That whole article is heavy on ‘dur, Drumph doesn’t pay his workers’ and ridiculously light on actual facts.
Not impressed by more Fake News
It really is fascinating how hatred towards the man has totally rotted away what little is left of your brain.
Agreed Philip, as a Canadian, hundreds of thousands of us invade the USA southern coasts every winter. Our goal is to undermine the USA with our Canadian (worthless) money we spend on mass. They are so stupid, they just keep accepting it, those FOOLS!! Bwahahaha!
Your Canadian snowbird spending habits make up one third of the economy of Yuma County, AZ. Come on down and join them before your winter really arrives. Also, you can join the growing number of snowbirds using the Mexican doctors, clinics, and dentists across the border. Your Canadian dollars support two regional economies in two countries. Well Done!
Logging, properly done, is no different than farming. You harvest trees. You plant new trees. As far as I can tell, you get forests of different ages near each other and that results in greater biodiversity.
One of my pet theories is that some land owners want to keep logging off federal lands because that would compete with their timber and reduce prices.
Your pet theory passes the test of Occam’s Razor, lol.
jpp is threadbombing with falsehoods and nonsense, again.
The Secret Service will receive their paychecks, at the beginning of January.
Government employees are paid on two week schedules, which the fake news press promptly mis-stated erroneously as preventing government employees from getting paid.
Trollops repeating absurd off topic nonsense to disrupt comment threads.
Government is defined as essential and non-essential services and employment.
Essential employees are to report to work as normal and will be paid normally.
Secret Service employees are considered essential.
Congress should meet Trump’s demands. After all this was a campaign promise that won an electoral victory. Did the Democrats promise weak border security?
I guess you don’t know that no Federal employee loses any pay during a shutdown. They get paid, WITH INTEREST, after the shutdown is over. The main thing is many don’t do any work during the shutdown. Now, the DOD is fully funded, so there is no shutdown there.
I suppose if they delay my SS check, they won’t pay me interest or penalties. They have got their priorities.
“I suppose if they delay my SS check”
You will get your social security check. Social Security is not affected by the shutdown.
Spoiler: They get paid, with interest. Doesn’t matter if they work or not.
As a former federal employee I went thru a few shutdowns and never received interest with my back pay. No furloughed federal employees have ever received interest with their back pay that I’m aware of.
And yet you got that pay, even though you did not work. There is the “interest”. Everyone else who take unscheduled days off gets no pay for not working.
I have a relative in government employment. He said that was a fairly new rule.
Having worked for a government contractor through a couple of shutdowns, I can say with certainty that the federal employees we worked with had no problems surviving that period, since they are the most highly paid workers in America. They also did not have to use up leave. Most of them had up to 6 months of leave stored up, anyway. We contract employees, OTOH, had to use up our annual leave. If the shutdown went beyond your available leave you were put on leave without pay. This is not a complaint. It is just fact.
“I sure do hope Trump realizes that the guys that protect him (Secret Service) don’t get their paychecks in this shutdown.”
I sure do hope Shumer and Pelosi realize that the Secret Service don’t get their paychecks in this shutdown.
They have protection by the United States Capitol Police (USCP).
“Additionally, they are charged with the protection of members of Congress, officers of Congress, and their families throughout the entire United States, its territories and possessions, and the District of Columbia. While performing protective functions, the Capitol Police have jurisdiction throughout the entire United States.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol_Police
That’s a funny picture, JPP.
Oh how nice picture. You´re an abstract artist. Wow.
Yeah, if the Democrats delay funding the southern border wall long enough, they will get to hear President Trump lambast them for being weak on national security at his upcoming State of the Union speech. Trump will have the attention of the whole nation. A nice big Bully Pulpit.
I have heard various dollar numbers being tossed around lately regarding the border wall so people on both sides of the issue are talking.
Trump is going to end up looking good and the Democrats are going to be looking bad if they don’t jump on the Trump Train and secure the border.
J. Philip Peterson says “Democrats can delay funding forever.”
Indeed! Cold blooded socialist democrats own this ‘shut down’ and are the sole cause of federal workers not getting paid. Their sick socialist supporters cheer them on, while attacking President Trump. Trump Derangement Syndrome, at it’s finest.
Yes. President Trump said he would gladly wear that mantle. But your words betray the true owners:
“Democrats can delay funding forever.”
Your words. Eat them and own them!
Ahhhh, evasion rather than admitting your own stupid mistake.
Your words betray the true owners:
“Democrats can delay funding forever.”
Your words. Eat them. You own them!
“Democrats can delay funding forever.”
I don’t think they can. Trump is not going to sign any funding bill that doesn’t include money for the southern border wall. If Pelosi wants to get anything done over the next two years, she is going to have to compromise on the wall.
Pelosi will wait until she has secured the House speakership and then she will be free to do a little dealing. Democrats and Pelosi want things. They are not going to get them if they don’t fund Trump’s wall.
I think Trump will win this argument.
I heard Julie Banderas say on Fox News today that Trump will never get the wall built. Don’t bet the farm on it, Julie.
As for Mexico paying for the wall. Let’s wait and see what benefits the U.S. accrues from Trump’s insistance that NAFTA be renegotiated. The U.S. is going to profit by this new deal to the tune of tens of billions of dollars per year.
Trump said this was one way to pay for the wall and it is. Of course, these tens of billons of extra dollars that will stay in the U.S. instead of going to Mexico won’t go directly to the wall, they will go to US companies who will pay extra taxes on the extra profits Trump made for them, and those extra taxes, that the US Treasury would not have gotten if not for Trump renegotiating NAFTA, will pay for the wall.
Assuming the Democrats and Pelosi will accept the new deal between the US, Canada and Mexico.
It will be interesting to see just how this all works out. My money is on Trump.
And we get to the real reason why JPP hates Trump.
Less free stuff for JPP.
On one hand, JPP blames Trump for the shut down.
On the other hand he brags about how his Democrats are willing to do whatever it takes to prevent the wall from being funded.
Goodness, look at that. All that wall free territory. And most of it doesn’t even have border patrols.
And yet, more illegals come up from Mexico then down from Canada, or land on the coast. It’s almost like Canada has its own immigration laws, and most of the US coast is both heavily populated and is surrounded by hundreds of miles of open ocean.
Yeah you are right j. philip. With a Democrat President a Republican Congress was to blame for everything including those paychecks not going out. Plus U.S. Citizens to DC could not enjoy outdoor monuments because those unpaid Government Workers had barricaded the Memorials, something the Democrats are unwilling to do to are border by the way. Those same workers logged some great overtime pay but why bring that up and ruin a good narrative.
But now it is all Trumps fault. Of Course it is. The stench of duplicity is all over this shutdown teeter totter.
P.S. if the Secret service is living paycheck to paycheck then we have a bigger problems than a short term shutdown.
Fortunately your average Secret Service agent is more professional than your average left wing troll.
I see the daughters of the doctor who wrote the “war hero private bonepsur Trumps'” get out of war letter, have said their father wrote the letter as a favour to old man Trump who he rented the building off. He never even saw Donnie. What a guy…. what a coward.
And Bill Clinton evaded the draft by going to England. Yes, it was a politically-connected “scholarship” – but he was thrown out of university overseas on charges of …(wait for it) … more rapes and sexual assaults! So, overseas, he was no longer “in school” and thus no longer eligible for the college deferment preferential treatment.
I see multiple reports of the incident, and none that deny Clinton “had sexual relations with” the woman involved, and none that establish your claim.
Actual evidence and reports, not the mere allegations and press-hyped claims used against Kavanaugh, for example. Even Snopes cannot establish their own rebuttal. They merely claim the reports are false, and then distract by making statements against a Cliinton’s subsequent European tours in 1969 after being thrown out of Cambridge. While continuing to evade the draft!
Once again, our favorite leftwingers prove that they will believe anything bad about those they love to hate.
Actually being successful in life is so grating on those who have done nothing noteworthy in their lives.
PS: Everyone of the people who made accusations against the recent Supreme Court nominee have been shown to have been liars.
The facts they claimed, simply don’t match up with known historical facts regarding the time and place.
The fact is that leftists believe that lying in order to defeat someone they don’t like is not just good, but downright noble.
“What I don’t understand is how this guy can play all the golf he plays with those bone spurs.”
Umm… I think the point is he doesn’t have bone spurs, but what he does have is a rather large yellow streak running dow his back.
“I see the daughters of the doctor who wrote the “war hero private bonepsur Trumps’” get out of war letter,”
Another case of the New York Times spreading Fake News. Right on the front page. The doctor is dead, the daughters supposedly are Democrats, and there is no corroboration of their claims. It even says so in the New York Times story.
Just one more leftwing smear against President Trump.
Best part is Fake News actually believe their lies, simply because they are the ones saying it.
Clinton, as does any politician the school pays to give a graduation speech, has also received honorary degrees from otherplaces he was paid to speak at, and from places the school wants to insult conservatives from their podium, aand from schools the school want favors from the president’s party.<pre. From Wikipedia, who does not list Oxford, by the way.
Clinton has received honorary degrees from a number of colleges and universities.
Institution Degree Date Citation
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill LL.D. 1993 
Queen's University, Belfast LL.D 2001 
University of Prishtina Doctor honoris causa 2003 
City College of New York Honorary LL.D. 2004 
Pace University Honorary degree 2006 
Tulane University Honorary LL.D. 2006 
University of Michigan LL.D. 2006 
Rochester Institute of Technology L.H.D. 2007 
Knox College (Illinois) L.H.D. 2007 
University of Hong Kong LL.D. 2008 
McGill University L.H.D. 2009 
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai L.H.D. 2010 
West Virginia University L.H.D. 2010 
University of Central Missouri L.H.D. 2011 
Mediterranean University Honorary LL.D. 2011 
University of Central Florida Honorary L.H.D. 2013 
University of Edinburgh Doctor honoris causa 2013 
University of Liverpool Honorary LL.D. 2014 
Loyola Marymount University L.H.D. 2016 
St. Francis Xavier University Doctor honoris causa 2017 
Other honors and awards
Schools have been named for Clinton, and statues do homage him. The Clinton Presidential Center was opened in Little Rock, Arkansas in his honor on December 5, 2001. He has been honored in various other ways, in countries that include the Czech Republic, New Guinea, Germany, and Kosovo. U.S. states where he has been honored include Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, and New York.
An honorary degree from Oxford is worth as much an award for integrity and honesty from Nigeria. Which Clinton has been awarded.
RACookPE1978, Clinton was not “thrown out” of Oxford for rape and/or assault. If you disagree with this fact, please post a link to the evidence of Oxford’s actions against Clinton.
RACookPE1978: ” From Wikipedia, who does not list Oxford, by the way.”
You are using Wikipedia?
You should know better than to use Wikipedia.
“The fact is that leftists believe that lying in order to defeat someone they don’t like is not just good, but downright noble.”
Too funny, coming from the guy who supports a president who has made lying on a daily basis his gift to the world.
Simon, I keep telling you, the definition of a lie is not “anything a leftist disagrees with”.
Keep up the good work. At this rate one day soon you will work your way up to “pathetic”.
They’re under DHS and considered “mission critical”.
Not true! Secret Service is considered essential personnel and is paid for regardless of shutdown.
SELLING them the rights to log is not a “giveaway”. It MAKES money for the government!
Pennsylvania makes boat loads of money selling timbering rights on state land as I have seen first hand, as do pretty much every other state and the Feds. And yet leftists continue to screech it is “giving away the people’s resources” over and over. Same with oil, gas and coal.
Trump, attempting to move in the correct direction, again.
WUWT breathlessly covers yet another Trump executive action not authorized by Federal law, continuing its breathlessly hagiographic Trump personality cult masquerading as a science website.
WUWT – “We’re all in for politcizing science because we really believe two wrongs make a right! If the warmists do it so should we, without the slightest sense of irony”
So you demonstrate a superior virtue by demonizing WUWT and Trump? Help me understand how this improves the situation.
“No need to demonize Trump, he does that all by himself.”
No, Trump doesn’t demonize himself, the Leftwing Media and the Democrats do that for him, just like they do every Republcian/Conservative. The reason the Left attacks Trump so much is because he doesn’t put up with their BS and lets’ them know it publicly, but the main reason they are attacking Trump is because he is systematically dismantling the Obama/Democrats socialist agenda.
The Democrat Socialists thought they were on a roll with Obama being elected and then Hillary following right behind and then Trump came in and upset the socialist/authoritarian applecart, and the Democrats can’t stand it and are throwing a fit over it.
I’m quite aware that in your opinion, anyone who gets between you and free stuff is demonic.
So now the real Peterson steps up and shows what he/she/whatever really is. He is here to spread his anti-Trump propaganda and stir up consternation on this site. It’s not like you are a new species around here.
Duane, much of the current procedure under the various environmental law was set in place by Jimmy Carter, with, taa-daa, an executive order. Using an executive order to undo an executive order is perfectly in order.
Duane, tell us something good Trump has done.
Quick. Or it will look like you are deranged.
– Helped North and South Korea to talk about peace. (While blocking China using North Korea as puppet state)
– Destroyed most of ISIS
– Went away from “Paris Accord” which is a scam and only the US should pay while China and India do nothing.
– Helped Saudi Arabia to crack down on their biggest criminal and corrupt sheikh
– Helps Poland to establish a good military partnership against Russia & EU
– Lowered Taxes for everyone (you know, this 1k “crubs”)
– Ended TTP
– Cracked down on EPA, removing regulations and more
– Pressed China in changing their policy with the tarifs. Steel- and coal business is running again.
– Closed NAFTA and changed it into something new, removed loopholes.
– Record low unemployment, rising tax revenues, companies invest more and more.
– Prison Reform
– Housing Reform
– reforming foodstamps (crack down on criminals faking foodstamp needs)
And i am not living in the US…
You don’t live in the US so you’re in less immediate danger of contracting TDS 🙂
Duane at 6:39 …
… shows an aggressive case of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).
A writer, Salena Zito, 27 months ago realized “When he makes claims like this, the press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.”
So for Duane and others with TDS, here’s the thing.
The President has accepted or recognized the issue. This is not a new issue but previous administrations have chosen not to address it. Trump’s approach is to force the issue to be addressed.
Duane claims what has been done is “not authorized by Federal law.” Who cares? That’s the literal thinker at classic best. The “serious” thinkers will now have to get busy. Whether they be an actual conservationist or an obstructionist, whether a lawyer, an office holder, or a “resist Trumper”.
So, we don’t know where this will lead, but we do know the conversation has begun. That’s a good thing.
Which is irrelevant, since “Federal Law” isn’t the pertinent authorizing agent, the Constitution is.
Looks like Duane is as ignorant of the constitution as he is regarding climate science.
The president is in charge of the Executive Dept. That means he gets to tell people in the Executive Dept. how to do their jobs.
I’m willing to bet Duane celebrated when Obama did the same thing.
Not true. Carefully examine what President Trump does and it’s very apparent that he abides by Constitutional constraints. The president has every right to refuse to sign a bill that he doesn’t like, even – especially – a funding bill.
The media didn’t miss the story they spiked it so they could run fake news stories that make the president look bad.
The stock markets didn’t start to drop until it looked like the Democrats were going to win the house.
Under Obama interest rates were kept at 0.25% for 7 years until December 2015 when it was raised to 0.5%.
Since Trump won the election
0.75% on December 14, 2016
1.0% on March 5, 2017.
1.25% on June 14, 2017.
1.5% on Dec. 13, 2017.
1.75% on March 21, 2018.
2.0% on June 13, 2018.
2.25% on September 26, 2018.
And has now announced that it will raise the rate to 3.0% the largest rise so far.
It has already wiped $4Trillion off of the markets.
J. Philip Peterson, …. and every one of the companies whose stock suffered the above noted “price drop” was in serious trouble because they could no longer provide the goods and/or services that they were noted for providing, ……… RIGHT?
And when the stock prices go back up, ……. those companies can get back to providing the goods and/or services that the public expects from them, …… RIGHT?
WOW, those stock traders are super powerful people cause they can “make or break” a company with a “simple” buy or sell order.
Actually, all of this started in 3rd week of October, a fact JPP will never admit. Fed jacking up interest rates multiple times has not helped, either, yet another fact JPP will never admit. Should I continue, or just watch and keep count as JPP refuses to admit facts that clearly exist? Maybe make a drinking game out of it?!?! New Years Eve is coming.
End of year, people sell stocks that are down and declare a yearend capital loss. Then, in January, they pick them up again a decreased price, or buy alternative stocks.
Market piranhas, making money the old fashioned way! Offset loss by claiming it against taxes owed, turn around and reacquire what will increase in value after the New Year at discount price or simply pickup what looks promising for the new cycle. Perhaps JPP should watch Trading Places to get a basic primer in economics, paying particular attention to the Bellamy Bros tutorial for Reggie Valentine on how the market works. At the least he will get an hour and a half of entertainment.
The Fed raises interest rates every time you turn around. Trump has nothing to do with that other than to complain loudly about the raises, although there is nothing he can legally do to cause the Fed to act in one way or another. The new Fed Chairman does seem to be a little disconnected from reality. I’m sure Trump now regrets appointing him.
Stock markets don’t do very well in the face of interest rate raises. And then there is the algo program trading that exacerbates movements to the upside and the downside; and you have a lot of people readjusting their investments at the end of the year, and there are worries over the Trump trade renegotiations, so there are a lot of reasons for the stock market to go down, not to mention that the stock market was at record highs and was due for a pullback.
We have now pulled back to levels where buying should resume because the economy is doing well and being in the right stocks is the place to be.
Sadly the stock market was at record highs before the dems stole multiple elections. Since then look out below.
no they don:
They did it not during the Obama Administration…. But they did it during Bush + Trump…. It was flat ZERO during Obama.
FED need supervision.
Trump is taking credit for the economy, which has done very well since Trump got into Office. Trump can also take credit for the stock market runup since it is his policies that are driving it. He is not responsible for the stock market decline, since the US economy is doing very well and the decline is due to conditions not under the control of the president.
The stock market decline is due to many things but one thing that is not a factor is a US economy doing poorly. The US economy is doing fine which means the stock market will start climbing again.
I heard someone say this morning on tv that about 85 percent of the stock trading was being done by computer algorithms. I think these trading programs ought to be outlawed. There are just too many unanwered questions about program trading. Most of the action takes place out of sight and out of mind.
There is no evidence that the Democrats stole any elections. That’s not to say they wouldn’t/haven’t tried, but as far as I know, there is no evidence of theft.
About 45 Republican incumbents retired before this election. Had all 45 run for one more term, there is a good chance the Republicans would have held control of the House. The Democrats also spent a ton of money on this election, so there are other reasons than theft for their wins at the voting booth.
Mr Abbott, you obviously have not been following what happened in Broward County.
Despite your delusions, there are many things that impact the value of the stock market.
The things Trump did over the last few years made the stock market go up.
Other things are now out weighing the good things Trump did.
Despite the recent drop, the DOW is still about 5000 points above where it stood when Trump took office.
Fascinating. When the market goes up, it does in spite of Trump. When it goes down, it’s Trump’s fault.
The TDS is strong in this one.
Real news story today: Dow Jones up 1086 points today.
Real news story today: President Trump and beautiful wife Melania surprise visit to US troops in Iraq.
Real news story today: Major news agencies criticize President Trump for not visiting US troops.
President Trump looks real good in the real news…. but a couple of news agencies look like petulant idiots for running their anti-Trump headlines as he and the FLOTUS were enroute to Iraq!
Even Fox ran with the “All Alone in the WH” headline with pic of DJT sitting alone someplace, all the while he was somewhere of the Atlantic, laughing at their stupidity. The winning, it just keeps coming. And lets us not forget, all the people screeching about the hazardous pullout from Syria were the very ones 2 months ago screeching we should pullout of the debacle of Trumps war in Syria. Funny how that works.
Real news, RECORD $850,000,000,000 in Christmas sales added to economy!
The media runs any story that makes Trump look bad either real or imagined. Once in awhile to get lucky like with the stock market story and they don’t have to run fake news for a change.
Oh by the way did you see the stock market rebound it over a thousand points today?. Biggest stock rebound in history? Suck on that JPP.
Once again JPP substitutes hatred for facts.
Interesting. A two year, near continuous increase in the stock market, just happened.
To be followed by 6 month decline that gives up about half that increase. The decline must have been caused by Trump.
You are so predictable.
I admit that amongst the left, Fox is known as that.
However the left have never been interested in reality, much less truth.
PS: To the left, anything less than total adherence to their agenda, is betrayal.
Thus by not being 100% anti-Trump all the time, Fox reveals itself as being a Trump lap dog.
Just like there is pure communism, everything else is a form of capitalism.
And with this comment you permanently cement your position as a partisan hack who refuses to accept reality. So glad you could play “How Big An Idiot Can JPP Show The World It Is”, Johnny, what are his parting prices?!?!?
And now you parge seal the cement enclosure of your TDS. Clearly you do not read or watch Fox, and I rather doubt you read or watch much of anything other than Radical Madcow on PMSNBC, going by what you post.
The new policy seems sensible.
I agree Crispin – this appears to be a sensible move that has been successfully practiced elsewhere.
Excerpt from the article:
“Democrats and environmentalists tend to blame global warming for the increasingly massive western wildfires. Republicans, however, argue more active management of forests through thinning, clearing of dead and dying trees and logging is needed to prevent wildfires from getting out of control.”
The “Democrats & environmentalists” position, blaming increased wildfires on global warming, is false nonsense for which there is no credible evidence – they blame everything on global warming, even global cooling.
The warmists’ predictive track record is perfectly negative – every scary prediction they have made has failed to happen – so nobody should believe these climate clowns.
If in fact it were sensible, it would only be so if it were funded. Instead, the forestry budget is getting slashed by almost half a billion vs. the 2018 budget.
I propose a program called Against Inadvertently Starting Of Fires (AISOF); example, strengthen/harden power lines.
More harvest of trees is likely a good thing for the country and the forests.
What is being newly allowed is not likely to prevent large fires.
One only needs to drive a few forest roads and hike to a few places to see the problems. Disclosure: I have.
Many places have trees of no commercial value, or of such little value the cost of harvest is greater than the value. Along many roads and trails the plants are so thick it is difficult to see beyond a dozen feet. If such an area is visited by a fire, there is plenty of fuel. Could that be changed? Maybe.
However, forest fires most often begin where the activities of humans are introduced, either directly involving fire or indirectly and unintentionally starting a fire. Think of a building that is not safely wired for lights or heat, or a vehicle that begins to burn and the driver steers to the side of a road and into dry grass.
Similar to the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (madd) program that is 10 years in effect, a very aggressive campaign against inadvertently starting of fires (AISOF) – you saw it here first – will do more to prevent fire than the additional logging. Note: I do support the logging.
We have gotten ourselves to the: Era of Megafires.
This is a 60-minute multi-media presentation that combines the research of Dr. Paul Hessburg (Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Forest Service) . . .
. . . in short, learn about the issue and do something.
Thanks for a real, coherent comment containing real, usable information. You got me thinkin’
I would have liked to have seen something in this EO about research-driven implementation of forest management to prevent disastrous wildfire. Setting a deadline of three months from now saying “the Secretaries shall identify salvage and log recovery options from lands damaged by fire during the 2017 and 2018 fire seasons, insects, or disease” doesn’t seem practicable, if done well.
“(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.”
Appropriations are key. Forestry need money to do this right. Thinning. prescribed burning and forest restoration are expensive. It will take time for funding to come from additional sales from logging.
Will urban planning and fire-resistant construction be addressed? They are key issues. So is what happens on non-federal lands, and non-forested lands, such as chaparral. Logging and post-logging practices are key – deregulating any of that or limitation of enforcement through stretched budgets is asking for trouble.
It sounds pretty on paper, but I have to wonder how many wildfire fire experts were involved in the formulation of the EO. Trump isn’t known for asking the opinion of those who are qualified to help him in his decisions.
“Trump isn’t known for asking the opinion of those who are qualified to help him in his decisions.”
Kristi, you don’t know that.
Trump may not agree with some of the others he deals with in government but I’ll bet you he knows what their opinions are on a subject. That’s the way he figures out who he should fire next. 🙂
He fires them because they do not do the job He hired them to do, in fact most of them actually worked against him.
In JPP’s world, Trump is the first president to ever fire someone who works for him.
He is not the first president to have aides plead guilty.
Trump tries to appoint a guy to (temp) AG that wrote a paper stating that from a certain perspective Trump had authority to do what he did … media (and hypocrites) goes nuts.
Dem appoints his brother as AG … media applaud, people like JPP fantasize about being part of the show, history is written glorifying the (amoral) family.
To take a low end play out your book JPP, Trump could have just had [pruned] instead…. Would you then applaud him and fantasize about being part of the show?
No. Bill Clinton had to pay several women many hundred thousands of dollars more (several times that 130,000.00) because Clinton actually RAPED them while serving as governor and state attonery general. He also lost his law license after a long court battle and perjury accusations. Trump’s accusers violated their non-disclosure voluntary! agreements signed when he was a private citizen about private affairs, using his attorney’s money.
Another point, all the participants on The Apprentice signed NDAs and were paid, just like Stormi. Funny how all the Never Trumpers immediately do a 180 and switch subjects when this is pointed out. NDAs with a payment are common throughout business, government and entertainment and they are legal. All points JPP will never admit.
“Kristi, you don’t know that.”
Sure I do. I know that he’s not known for it. That’s based on what people who’ve worked with him have said; it’s common knowledge. He doesn’t even read his briefings. Why, are you under the impression that he informs himself and weighs the opinions of others?
Asking someone’s opinion is far more productive and valuable than assuming you know what it is and the justification for it. That’s why a president has advisers, and one reason for a cabinet. Often it’s good to be informed by others, too. He can’t possibly have a good understanding about the pros and cons of all the decisions he makes. When you ask someone’s opinion you may find out in more depth why they believe as they do.
It’s lousy management practice to fire someone because they don’t always agree with you. It’s always good for an organization, especially a nation, for those with expertise to feel comfortable speaking their minds about important decisions.
“He can’t possibly have a good understanding about the pros and cons of all the decisions he makes.”
I think you are seriously underestimating Trump, Kristi. Don’t feel lonely, you have a lot of company. It’s probably all that leftwing propaganda that permeates the public square now that Trump is in Office.
Like I said earlier, My money is on Trump and on his instincts. From what I see, he has it about right, and I don’t think we could be in better hands right now. If you are a conservative, you are loving this guy.
NO ONE could have a good, thorough understanding of all the things about which a president has to make decisions. A good leader has to know his limitations.
“If you are a conservative, you are loving this guy.”
That itself is a problem. Whether someone likes a president shouldn’t depend simply on whether one is conservative or liberal, it should depend on being able to look past the partisanship. It also means looking at who he is as a person, not just the policies he makes, if one is going to “love” him; that love shouldn’t be so unconditional that it blinds people to the truth. But his followers have been taught to distrust the media regardless of how factual a story is, and that is very dangerous. How can Americans ever get a true picture if they will only believe what supports whatever they are told to believe? It’s true to some extent on the left, too, but the “fake news” idea isn’t so pervasive.
Trump could have gotten lucky and the “woman that accepted cash to commit sexual acts” could have followed in Marilyn Monroe footsteps and (presumably) died of an accidental overdose while the media looked the other way.
First off, the porn star has recanted most of her accusations.
Secondly, I just love how JPP claims to have knowledge of everything that is in those sealed documents.
Either he’s psychic, or delusional.
Wow, another lie from you. Perhaps you should learn how to read, then learn how to do basic research on a subject, then save up for a few years and buy a clue.
And yet another lie from you. Please keep them coming.
They have been doing this research for decades. They just weren’t allowed to implement their findings.
The research is not conclusive, there is still debate. Site, species, history, climate, fire severity and forest management factors all play roles. There needs to be more region-specific research. It’s not an easy thing to study, as it is often of necessity long-term, and natural wildfires are unpredictable.
It is certainly not at all conclusively shown that logging (clearing, thinning or post-fire log removal) decreases the risk of fires – there is evidence suggesting the opposite in some forests. This is one reason I suspect Trump was not fully informed. He should have said instead that forestry divisions should lat greater stress in their management decisions on fire prevention, leaving it to the foresters to decide which actions are best for particular locations. And he should have said, do research if it’s not yet adequate for the forest type.
I hope that the upper-level people who will be the major decision-makers implementing Trump’s EO will show wisdom in their expectations and application.
Actually, it has been shown conclusively that logging and controlled burns reduce the risk of big fires.
Your willingness to believe anything bad about someone you don’t like is once again, duly noted.
It is proven beyond any doubt that controlled burns are less expensive than fighting wild fires. Without controlled burns in the areas that we have problems with, there will be wildfires. You can find a patch of dirt, and dig down and find ash strips, as deep as you dig. As soon as enough fuel accumulates, the same adiabatic winds that dry it out, drive the fire into a fire storm. Any spark will set it off.
They were occurring long before people started to live in those areas, and will continue whether we do anything or not.
Our choice is whether we will have fires under favorable conditions, or under the worst possible conditions.
And that seems to be a tough choice for many people. It shouldn’t be.
That’s interesting. Conclusively? Everywhere? Have you even tried to read the published research? Maybe you can direct me to the literature that suggest the issue is settled. Conclusively. For all forested areas. I’ll make it easy, and restrict it to the western U.S.
Meanwhile, here are a few pertinent resources:
Post-fire salvage debate: https://learnforests.org/sites/default/files/Post.WildfireSalvageLogging.pdf
“However, we have only incomplete knowledge of how fire-dominated systems
operate. An adaptive approach is required that views interventions and
manipulations such as thinning and prescribed fire as “experiments.”
“From 2001 to 2007 over 24 million acres of federal lands have been treated by
federal land management agencies under the National Fire Plan and the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act. Treatment includes both mechanical thinning and/or
prescribed burning. Both the NFP and the HFRA have provided land managers
with the tools to achieve long-term objectives of reducing fuels and restoring fireadapted ecosystems.”
(Environmentalists are opposed to fire? “The Nature Conservancy, for example, has identified fire exclusion as a threat to biodiversity in 45% of the conservation plans in place for its protected areas.”)
“Significantly reducing fuel loading associated with the current condition of the forested landscape through active management would require huge capital investment and conflict with other existing environment regulations.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112717306412 This one uses modeling, purposely introducing a stochastic factor to represent future uncertainties such as those from timber harvest and wildfire. Interesting.
“One of my greatest concerns, however, is that despite the fact that we expect fire managers to practise “science-based management”, we do not provide them with enough of the science and technology they need to achieve what society expects of them. Forest and wildland fire managers will, in the absence of an adequate understanding of fire and its potential social, economic and ecological impacts and proven FMDSS they can use to enhance their decision-making, increasingly be forced to “risk manage” “by the seat of their pants”. ”
I’m beginning to get a sense of what might be needed, apart from more research. My ideas are a bit more nuanced from those of Trump. This has nothing whatsoever to do with how I feel about him.
Or, we could just go back to what we know works. Your approach is to piss away tax dollars on studies that only conclude another study is needed to understand the conclusions of the previous study of the conclusions of the study done on the conclusions of the study done to study the conclusions of the study about the conclusions of the study regarding the study of the conclusions of the study on forest fire occurrences towith the initial study of was unconclusive. That about cover it? More tax dollars to do nothing. Sorry, by 1965 US Forest Service and Forestry Services of the states severally already knew pretty well how to manage forest fire risk, then people like you showed up and screwed everything up. Yea, lets just go back to what works, far less expensive than endless studies that do nothing but suck up all available tax dollars.
I agree that prescribed fire is an important tool. However, it’s expensive, there aren’t funds set aside for it, there’s often a narrow time frame when it can be done safely, and sometimes pre-treatment is necessary because there’s so much fuel that even prescribed fire can become crown fire.
It all has to be viewed on a landscape scale, with a view to prioritizing areas near habitation. Beyond that, I believe there should be strategies to treat areas so as to slow wildfires, without having to treat huge tracts of land, which is simply unfeasible.
Post-clearing treatments are also important, as are the timing and geography of clear-cutting.
One problem with all of this is that so much land is privately owned and not subject to management standards used on federal land. Regulation of the whole industry is necessary to achieve comprehensive fire management goals. This is an example of regulation for the public good.
The Camp Fire would have been another CA fire no one cared about if it did not impact the people that lived there. If they choose to live there, they can either pay for undergrowth maintenance through property taxes, or do it themselves.
It is not expensive, when it is done regularly. Most of it can be done by volunteers, if they have some guidance, and are given basic communication tools. Under normal conditions the fire will run up slope, and burn itself out on the ridge line, if you do it when the winds are right. You don’t need to burn it all at once, because it takes years to recover enough to sustain a wildfire. Burn it in sections, and when wildfire season hits, you have sections with little to no fuel, that the wildfire can’t jump. You can contain it with minimal resources that can be drawn from local areas, instead of waiting for an army of fire fighters to all converge on remote areas.
The problem is the fuel and the katabadic winds. Take care of the fuel a valley at a time, when the winds and weather is favorable, or wait until it goes off under the worst conditions. And if you wait, all you can do is run and pray for rain, because it won’t be contained, as long as there is fuel, and a wind that is driving it into more fuel.
You apparently would rather piss away tax dollars on management approaches that may not work or are counterproductive, rather than finding out what does. What is needed is adaptive management, and to do adaptive management well requires taking data as management is happening, with later follow-up. It’s a type of research based on results of current management, and needs funding allocated to make it possible.
We know they work because they did. You are really this dense? I don’t buy that. No, you are far too much the ardent, articulate advocate to be that. You actually believe, and are intelligent. That is the saddest part. What a waste.
I’ve been reading the literature. The results are mixed, depending on the forest type, history, and other factors. It seems very straightforward to say, “Just clear the understory,” or “Clear cut the forest” but it’s not that simple. For one, there are very limited resources, so the resources that are available have to be used strategically. That means looking at the issue on a landscape level, since it’s impossible to thin or burn all the forest out there. For another, the buildup of fuel is so high in some areas that prescribed burning alone would result in crown fires that kill a lot of the desirable trees. Thinning is an ongoing process, you can’t just do it once. Invasive species are becoming more of an environmental and economic threat. Climate change is most likely having an effect, even if it’s not the primary factor in the increase in wildfires. The issue is complex.
I’ve done research on forests and I’ve worked with the MN DNR Forestry Division. I’ve seen many types of forest in the West with an ecologist’s eye, and I’ve recently learned a lot from reading about wildfire control. I has surprised me how much debate there still is about treatments to lower fire risk – different studies reveal contradictory results; the forest type seems to make a big difference. It’s a hard thing to research, because no one can predict when or where wildfires will happen, so treatment comparisons must be investigated on an ad hoc basis.
You can call me dense if you want to. I don’t really care. You have given me no reason to respect your opinion.
kristi – it is complex and confusing because it is being run from Washington D.C., and it is happening in remote areas, with low population density, and no political clout on a Federal Level.
What works in SoCal, doesn’t work in NoCal, Oregon, Idaho..etc. But Washington wants to direct policy based on the latest research and studies, which are mostly written by academics that is “one size fits all” for the consumption of federal bureaucrats. And are biased by a “fire bad”, “logging bad”, “people bad” philosophy.
In general the damper the conditions, thinning and logging works best. These areas tend to have valuable timber, so it benefits the economy of the area, and reduces the problems with overgrown forests burning to the ground (Yellowstone).
For dryer conditions controlled burns work the best. The timber is less valuable, and more difficult to access.
The most dangerous conditions are the ones that have dry vegetation and strong winds of dry air. The best solution is local control, with Federal assistance. The people whose communities will be devastated by these fires, care about it much more than they do in Washington. And they are “out and about” in the wilderness on a regular basis. That is why they chose to live there.
It is not rocket science, unless you work in Washington, and want to simplify a system that is made up of desperate elements that do not yield to bureaucratic oversight. Go out in the forest and dig a hole in the ground. The history is there. If it burned in the past, it will burn in the future.
Available fuel, seasonal wind patterns, and past history, is all you need to know. Unless you have a political axe to grind, and you want to use fire deaths to score political points.
” Trump isn’t known for asking the opinion of those who are qualified to help him in his decisions.”
Is that an argument against what I said? And is that the best you could find?
Maybe I should have stated it this way: among much of the population of his country, Trump isn’t known for asking others’ opinions. If you look at the statement logically, it doesn’t even matter if he does ask others’ opinions, as long as he’s not considered to be someone who usually does. This may not apply to building ice rinks, but it’s not apparent that he asks the experts based on his EO concerning wildfire: he is making sweeping directions for management where it’s not clear that they would be beneficial.
I don’t want to argue about Trump’s general wisdom, and probably shouldn’t have said what I did knowing it would trigger off-topic arguments. I have my opinions about Trump, but this is not the place to air them.
What a word salad kristi.
Run that by me again.
The left’s version of Modern Major General!
You made the claim that people who don’t like Trump have made the claim that he never listens to others.
clipe came up with a quote of Trump doing just that.
Your only response is to re-iterate what you want to believe. Again.
BTW, krisit, I just love the way you take the opinion of your friends and people who think like you, as being the opinion of the entire country.
What someone is known for, and what he actually does, are two different things.
The only friend with whom I regularly discuss politics is a Trumpist. So how is it I’m adopting the opinions of my friends? Makes no sense.
You can’t accept that I can think for myself, but you give little indication that you think at all, since your comments add so little to the conversation. You make assumptions about me, and echo the party line, and that’ about it. It’s become a game to me to reply to your inane assertions. Thanks for supplying me with plenty of material.
kristi? When at the bottom of a hole and you feel dirt falling on your head, STOP digging, you are doing yourself no good at all.
Kristi read how Trump got the skating rink 8n Central Park permanently fixed. He went to the New York Rangers and asked who builds the best rinks. He was advised a guy in Toronto. He hied the guy and built an NHL quality rink. Turn off your CNN.
Gary, I don’t listen to CNN.
John, Thanks for your earnest and thoughtful comment. I checked out the Hessburg presentation. He is not showing the full story.
Independently, I am familiar with the subject. I have worked in and around the forest industry since the 70’s. I have lived, camped, fished, hunted and worked in the Northwest all my life. Many of my family and friends work in and around the industry. Currently, I am a sales engineer selling dry kilns for lumber and visit many sawmills every year. I am sympathetic to their business success. I have read through these comments and it seems most people are poorly informed. Some, those with TDS, are even wacky.
These mega fires are simply caused by excessive fuel build up which is caused by artificial suppression of fires and/or lack of logging. What Trump is trying to reverse is management of western forests by bureaucrats in DC. I was at the Portland Sawmill Clinic in 1992 when Gore announced the the take-over and new harvesting regulations. He declared success because environmentalist and the forest industry were equally dissatisfied with it. What an idiot! https://www.c-span.org/video/?39332-1/northwest-environmental-issues Since that time, logging has shrunk by over 75%. Timber sales, when finally put out for bid are routinely challenged in a court. The spotted owl was never endangered. The industry has since moved to the southeast US where private forests are cultivated. There are practically no sawmills left in Arizona. Managing forests by burning in patches as Hessburg recommends will take a long time and squanders a valuable natural resource. Restore local control of forests. Replace activist judges. Challenge environmentalists with history and facts.
Ps. I don’t see how 1 degree C of global warming could cause mega fires. If fuel is growing faster, log more.
Pps. Most fires are started by lightening, not humans. I live in Bend, OR and during a typical August dry lightening storm 200 fires will start in the area. Most will go out on their own. And a couple won’t.
The Media did not ‘miss’ this story about how Trump overhauled the way Wildfires are to be prevented. The Media saw it, saw that it was a good idea and sat on it to protect the public and the Krazycats from reality.
97% of the comments I read here are thoughtful. You’re in the 3%.
“Heavy machinery “rakes” Finland’s forest floors after tree cutting, greatly reducing fire risks”
“Mikko Paunio of Helsinki, Finland is a science and policy adviser of the American Council on Science and Health. He has served with numerous national and international climate adaptation working group”
What truth was that?
“Sauli Niinistö has more credibility than Mikko Paunio”
Of course petal. And no reference; merely handwaving.;)
“Logging residues and stumps should be harvested as quickly as possible after the timber
harvesting, allow for seasoning on the site of harvestable residues. ”
ooh harvesting residues – how novel. branches, needles.
What’s appropriate in Finland or elsewhere in Europe is not necessarily appropriate in the western U.S. Very different conditions. The water table is high in much of Finland, for example. Temperatures are lower, growing season shorter. Soil disturbance can increase evaporation and erosion. Soil type and depth, regrowth, seed bank, invasive plants are other factors.
Forest management is complex. Even road maintenance has drawbacks through increasing likelihood of spreading invasive plants, which can in turn affect forest health and fire risk.
@ kristi – “Forest management is complex”
Yes. And failure to keep undergrowth under control bears its own fire risk.
Trump merely pointed out that Finland raked the ground after logging, he didn’t order the US to start doing the same.
He was ridiculed for the raking comment itself, despite the fact that it was a correct statement.
Once again JPP reveals that he is only interested in propaganda.
That Finland uses mechanized rakes to clear ground after logging was documented on this site a few weeks ago.
JPP – “Once an area is logged, it is less susceptible to the spread of a wildfire.”
Gone from it isn’t raked or harvested to less susceptible to wildfire.
So why doesn’t what is left of the understorey burn? If it has been logged it should dry faster.
Good forest management does include “raking” of the material.
You can check with a search engine and use an “images” tab to see the machines, quite large, that do this sort of thing. Trump, again, is correct;
It isn’t necessary to rake the forest floor. It is perfectly acceptable to simply burn off the remaining fuel. Do it in late autumn, so you don’t risk bushfires.
Doesn’t work to well when everything is scattered about. Fuel has to be concentrated to burn well.
If it’s too disperse to burn well, wouldn’t it also be too disperse to be a fire hazard?
I grew up in southern MS, pulp wood cutting operations would bulldoze limbs and brush into long windrows and burn them off, all as part of replanting pine saplings. Now all that material can be shredded/ground and used, progress marches on. Pretty sure this can work for other timber cutting operations. Pretty sure it is being done by some. All comes down to economics, cost balanced against profits. A concept the left absolutely hates and despises.
In fact, when I stayed in Yosemite National Park in September, 2017, there was controlled burning underway on the south side of the Park. There was also selective cutting of timber going on elsewhere there to decrease catastrophic fires.
In 2014 I observed selective timbering going on in Rocky Mountain National Park. The logs had been cut to specific lengths and were stacked upright along roads ready to be picked up. They looked like they were healthy trees ready to be hauled off to a sawmill.
So steps are being taken to reduce the impact of fires in national parks. If I read right, the big fires in California were mostly on private land where stupid regulations prevent safe practices.
All forests burn at some point to make way for new growth. If you live there it may be that your generation will be the one paying the price for that lifestyle.
“If it’s too disperse to burn well, wouldn’t it also be too disperse to be a fire hazard?”
I was referring to a recently logged area, which I think is when raking is done. Don’t know if Hivemind was referring to same. A recently logged area is not going to burn well, but that debris will add to the fuel load once the area grows up to the point it can be burned, and will make the fire hotter and more hazardous. So raking it is really the only way to remove it before it gets to that point. It’s not going to burn well unless raked (bulldozed) into piles.
Raking the debris works in Norway.
Finland, not Norway. Mis-remembered the article.
No, he didn’t. These aren’t new ideas, nor are the good ideas in all instances, and they are already practiced. All he did was call for an expansion of these practices, more logging, and less regulation. But if logging is to be done with fire prevention in mind, perhaps more regulation and oversight is necessary, since it obviously doesn’t help as it’s done now.
Not only that, but funding still has to be appropriated before any of his goals can be implemented. Some will come from more logging, but more logging means more management if fire prevention is going to be considered.
Basically, without increased funding, this could end up being simply a command to let people log more. In other words, good for business but not necessarily for destructive wildfire prevention.
Wildfires are natural and arent a problem except near communities prone to them. His order should be limited to thinning around communities in wildfire-prone areas.
Makes me smell a rat about who caused that fire. Follow the money.
That was an electric utility. Stop using electricity and you’ll be fine. Oh, and stop using timber. Concrete makes good tables.
The thinning / openings should happen near where people live, like in America. Read the paper to decide on if that happens. Conservationists don’t want any forestry, in fact they don’t want anything else than their own navel to revolve around. They rather let forests burn than log them. Carbon footprint, eh.
“While litigation activists thwarted forest management reforms, the Senate also failed to pass legislation to help minimize forest fires,”
In bushfire-plagued Australia, the Greens have consistently argued against mandatory hazard-reduction burns to reduce fuel build-up in forests and called for authorities to take into account “the environmental constraints and needs of our native forests”.
Incomprehensible to me that ‘idealism – politics’ wins above rational common sense.
This isn’t going to help California much. Most of the fires this year occurred in areas too dry for fire trees or other species that produce desirable lumber. For example the Camp fire burned through about 10 miles of land with very few trees and much of the area had burned a few years earlier. After it passed through that area it finally arrived in Paradise where the fire burned mostly brush close to the ground. many of the trees in Paradise actually survived the fire.
Mostly California needs to do is manual thinning and controlled burns to reduce fuel loads on the ground.
It didn’t have many (large) trees because it had already been logged.
The real problem in living in California is that the state has a history of prolonged droughts, some of them lasting over a hundred years. The wondrous green vistas we all love to visit are there only half the time in the thousand year view. In the current warm period droughts are getting shorter. Perhaps this is a signal of the end of the Holocene.
Interesting how global warming sneaks into every narrative these days. For years the established, monopolized, dishonest main media has trickled the fraudulent, global climate change, alarm into the subconsciousness of the people (Social Engineering). It has been taken as a fact by activists, such Denise Boggs and the group Conservation Congress. without question. 95% of the last 10,000 years has been warmer than anyone alive today has ever experienced, and much of it had lower CO2 levels than today. Watch climatologist Dr. Tim Ball
We had some disastrous floods in the UK a few years back, and by all accounts they were due to ‘environmentalists’ preventing watercourse maintenance. This is a wet climate and if watercourses are allowed to clog the next heavy rainstorm will be a disaster. The floods may not kill as many as the fires but they’re just as effective at destroying houses, especially the modern ones made of ticky-tacky.
Seems the USA wildfires may have a similar cause, in this case ‘environmentalists’ preventing fire control measures. These guys are basically a disaster wherever their policies turn up.
I do sympathize with those who claim that it is illegal for the Federal government to change the timber policies on Federal lands. I also sympathize with those who claim that current timber policies on Federal lands are both suicidal and illegal in large parts. That’s because both groups make compelling arguments that stand on a flawed premise — that there is some Constitutional construct that allows for a significant portion of our nation to be Federal lands.
The Federal government is specifically empowered to do several things in the Constitution, and for it to do anything else is forbidden in several places and reinforced in the 9th and 10th Amendments. The bulk of those allowed things are enumerated in the 18 Clauses of Article I, Section 8 — http://www.americanusconstitution.com/article1section8.html . [There are a few others sprinkled within the Constitution, but not many and not broad. IIRC, there’s something about the maintenance of Federal Courthouses in Article III. Anyone wishing to go spelunking and provide a list should certainly do so.]
Clause 7 states that the US may establish post offices and post roads — and I’d grant that interstate highways are “post roads”. Clause 17 states that the US is responsible for the District of Columbia. Clauses 12/13/14 establish an Army and Navy, which could be held to imply that military bases are legitimate Federal lands. Clause 5 establishes Federal Mints, so those could be legitimate Federal lands; it also provides “to fix the Standard of Weights and Measures” — and I’d be inclined to add in a substantial amount of Federal land under the control of the FDA for food safety inspections, laboratories, and even cultivation of standards to regulate the purity of food and drugs.
But I’ve seen nothing within the Constitutional enumerated powers that would require a Bureau of Land Management to regulate cattle grazing on Federal lands — because those lands should not be Federal. There shouldn’t be Secretary of the Interior regulations on forestry management for Federal lands — because those lands should not be Federal [who logs a post office, interstate, mint, military base, or FDA lab?].
Although I’m quite fond of most of our National Parks, National Monuments, and such……they’re an unconstitutional statutory land grab and should be devolved to the states unless a Constitutional Amendment is ratified to allow such a construct.
And, it is not to be forgotten, a large part of this mess has been driven by a policy of the US subsequent to the Civil War — that no state be accepted into the United States without ceding a large proportion of its land to the Federal Government. That would be the same Federal Government that has no Constitutional basis for controlling any such land. https://modernsurvivalblog.com/government-gone-wild/map-showing-stunning-extent-of-federal-controlled-land/
The huge red swath through WA, OR, CA, NV, ID, MT, WY, UT, AZ, NM, CO, AK…..post offices? military bases? FDA labs? Or unconstitutional land holdings?
And, just for an amusing side note……much of this is valuable, useful land. If you auctioned it off, how much of a dent would that make in our $22T National Debt?
In Arizona, only 17 percent of the land is private. The rest is taken up by national forests and tribal lands.
This is a great strategy we can apply to other fire situations…
The more buildings we demolish, the less will catch fire…
Yes, the fewer wI nd turbines we build the more money we will save…
Or the fewer wind subsidies we pay the more money will be available to spend on the poor, the national health service, etc etc etc…
I like your reasoning Griff
griff, you are correct, people who build houses in fire prone areas risk having their houses burnt down.
So they should be knocked down, or large areas cleared all around them, or they take their chances as they do now.
Not to mention earth quake prone zones and more recently volcanic prone zones that are also prone to tsunami, just as happened in Indonesia recently. Knock them down too Griff?
You forgot “flood plains”.
Yes, and while we’re at it, lets just depopulate Florida completely because of hurricanes,storm surges & small tornadoes & 3 months of 90*+ weather, but wait,we also should evacuate the whole Gulf coast because of the same weather events as Florida & after that we need to get those people out of Arizona Texas & New Mexico because they have flash floods,blizzards,& dust storms,ice storms, not to mention twisters & it also gets hotter than hell,100* plus in the summer & then while we all know about the ‘new normal’ droughts in California along with the wildfires,mud slides,Santa Ana winds,earthquakes & tilting hi-rises built on landfill,if we look north from there,Oregon & Washington do not fare any better because they have wildfires, blizzards,lots of rain,mudslides, dams waiting to break & many cities sit at the foot or near large volcanoes that have the potential to bury the cities if they blow up & over in Idaho all the way across to the Great Lakes they get snowstorms,blizzards & freezing temperatures & they have to shut down major highways every year,we just can’t be having that & we need to get those people out of those places for their own good,but it gets worse as the Midwest & the Plains have floods,ice storms & blizzards,& that bad ol’ Tornado Ally & then over into New York they get buried with lake effect snow & over on the Atlantic Coast anywhere from the Carolina’s all the way up to the Canadian Maritimes at any given time they could have a hurricane or a Nor’easter or they could get dumped on with snow or ice & -zero temperatures & Norfolk is sinking into the ocean.Oh yea, & all those islands out in the Caribbean they have to be emptied out & that includes Branson’s place & DeCrappo’s place cause they are in Hurricane Ally & worse,they ‘might’ ‘could’ tip over or ‘might’ ‘could’ sink or Neptune just ‘might’ ‘could’ visit some disaster on them then how would we feel.
Gosh Bubba, we just can’t be letting these people live in these places cause it might be detrimental to their health & well being,we gotta ban this.We just can’t having people live any old place they want to.We gotta control that.
Sweet Jesus !, I got a headache
I get so tired of hearing this shit that I want to scream. Where,pray tell, are we going to move 3 million people to where there is not going to be some kind of danger from some weather related event or some natural disaster at any given time of the year ? Banning people from living/building in some certain place is about as ridiculous as it gets… instead of focusing on one place look at the whole US. Where is the place where nothing happens ?
Wow, dead dry branches, leafs, needles and other debris lights and burns more easily and hotter than living, hydrated green plants. Who would have ever thought that?
Of course the logic here is utterly unassailable.
Remove stuff and/or burn it in-situ and Bingo! It won’t burn where it originally was.
Fan Tas Tic
But every time you burn or remove something from A Landscape, ANY landscape, you remove a load of other stuff. These are the nutrients that enabled plants and critters to grow & thrive in that landscape.
There are generally recognised to be 52 of those nutrients. Is ANYONE keeping count? Apologies for the shock this causes to folks who still believe what their primary school teacher told them – it really take ‘just a little bit more’ than water and carbon dioxide.
Have a drink. Eat some sugar
Candy. Soda-pop. Popcorn. Pizza. Corn, Rice, Wheat. Potato. Chocolate.
They all work well. You’ll feel better and when you wake up some hours later, you’ll have forgotten what the problem was and that the problem has gone away.
Repeat daily for best effect.
In our delusion that we are actually = Gods…
…we have been burning stuff for tens of millenia.
We have burned and destroyed the very land that gave us birth (Africa) so we moved out.
We went to the Med. Burned that.
Went to the Fertile Crescent. Burned that
Went to Australia, Burned that.
Went to China (Gobi). Burned that
Went to North Africa. Burned that.
Went to California. Work in progress.
In total so far, in our self proclaimed God like superiority, we have burned 33% of the Earth’s land surface area and are now installed in places that were/are climatically inhospitable. Almost anywhere/everywhere beyond 40 degs of latitude.
With the result that stoves, heating systems, electricity and air conditioners are no longer luxuries – they have become Life Support Machines. Without Technology, We Are Dead. History.
Some folks have realised that but, in the scrambled mush that the eating of sugar has turned their brains (and bodies) into – they really do believe that burning ever more stuff will save them.
Do any other critters behave like that? Do other critters burn their own houses and homes?
Have any other critters invented money or ‘trade’ especially.
=A device that ensures that should any resource become scarce, its value actually increases and it becomes ever more sought-after – thus ensuring its absolute total destruction. Other critters, resources going into scarcity have decreasing value and are thus ‘left alone’
Our system is one based on positive feedback and does the opposite.
As its near Christmas…
Is ‘running a country, state, government, civilisation, democracy, marriage, science, education’ any much different from driving a car?
I would point out that no other “creature” has to ability to think about anything, to “plan” anything. To do anything else but eat as much as possible, breed as often as possible, and then painfully die in the cold and dark – bleeding or starving, with broken bones, or infected with parasites and diseases.
You really do hate humanity, don’t you? Must make it easier to want to kill so many millions.
It’s a lack of refined sugar in his diet.
Just Wow. I have Never read so much b@llsh!t in my life.
Talk about a re-write of the history of man.
What a very sad individual.
On more than one occasion he has made the claim that man created the Sahara and other deserts by killing all the plants. The lack of plants caused the area to dry it. Not the other way around.
Do you have any evidence that we “burned” Africa, the Mediteranean, etc?
Or did you make that up as well?
No paleontologist or archaeologist that I have ever read has listed over burning as a reason for population migrations.
In fact, in regards to Africa and the Mediterranean, I’ve never heard anyone talk about the use of fire as a forest management tool. Ever.
Un-ban wood stoves in CA. Rural people there are generally poor and would gather up all the dead wood.
Again, as with nuclear power, this is just a step. The major step is curtailing nuisance lawsuits from envirotards. Stripping them of the ability to access American Tax Payer’s money to finance their anti-American lawfare is THE step that has to be taken. And block them from being able to use donated money, force them to use their own money and pursue then through RICO to ensure they use ONLY their own money. Would bring this crap to a screeching halt.
I agreed with your point.
The media is dead set against saying anything that puts Trump in a good light.
How dare Trump let loggers cut down trees!!! — says the man as he whips out his pencil and paper and begins writing on his beautiful wooden desk…
What was not mentioned is that many forests have a growth cycle where they reach a terminal stage and burn intensely. The trees are so highly flammable (cedar) and densely grown that it is inevitable that it will ignite somewhere in the summer drought and the fire runs for many miles. There is no such thing as permanent old growth forest if these zones. Dry periods occur most years.
Cleaning out dead wood makes no difference in a crown fire and thinning requires removing most of the trees to get crown spacing. It is either log it or burn it.
Where I am in southern BC interior there is almost no awareness and tremendous opposition to any logging.
The last major fires were 1910 and in the 1950’s. We are ready for the next one.
We need a massive increase in logging and the cutting of fire breaks.
Geez, you’d think the stuff that catches fire grows on trees. Get real people!
It’s a good start. Keep up the good work President Trump!
In Australia the Aborigines burnt the Bush regularly as an environment control, and they were a Stone Age race. Even they knew you can’t burn it twice.
For much of our forest land, it comes down to a simple choice: Let it be logged, or let it all burn.
As usual the greenies pick the wrong course of action and protest solutions that benefit both the forest and the private sector.
You also need to understand the risks living next to bushland and be prepared and on high fire risk days you might simply have to find safer alternative accommodation for a few days-
There is no global warming signal there but a cluster of fatalities as people with poor understanding of the fire risk get complacent wanting to live among the trees. Nevertheless controlled burning to reduce fuel load is a useful adjunct to prevent catastrophic bushfires but there’s been similar tensions with Greens and treechangers with that even though many Australian natives need fire to germinate their seeds.
Now get ready for the “bait and switch”. Environmentalists will reluctantly concede that fewer trees and controlled burns will reduce wildfires. However they will argue that controlled burns should only be done with a consideration of “appropriate safeguards”.
Firstly of course, you must consider if the area has any “vulnerable species”, so an ecological botanist and biologist should be there to over see the fire. Then you should consider if any native American sacred sites or artefacts may be in danger and so representatives of the appropriate department should be on hand. And so on and so on.
This means that for purely logical and non emotional reasons you will need to co-ordinate a dozen “experts” from 6 or 7 departments to ALL be available for several days before the burn can proceed. As this is borderline impossible, the burns do not happen and another wildfire ensues. The environmentalists then hold their hands up and say “But we support controlled burns. with the proper safeguards of course. So it’s not our fault”.
That is the Australian lesson. Do not let them do the same thing to America.
Apparently the man is everywhere influencing everybody which is quite a feat for those who think he’s a bit of a joke-
Makes you wonder who the joke’s really on.
President Trump stated November 19th
In just over a month he delivered policies that can alleviate the worst consequences of future wild fires, whatever the cause.
The who state that increasing severity of wild fires is down to climate change cannot deliver even in the unlikely the event of them being right. That is because, after over two decades of trying, they do not have the power to control global emissions. There are lessens for policy-makers in what can be controlled and what cannot. Despite not being Trump’s greatest fan, the President has shown far greater wisdom than the liberal climate alarmists.
But he slashed forestry funding. It’s easy to say, “Follow good forest management policies” to get people’s support and praise, but it’s meaningless is you don’t fund the policies you want in place. Almost half a billion cut from this year’s budget to the next.
You’re a beancounter…take a look at the kinds of things he cut.
No, he slashed waste in Forestry Service and has directed that accounting for spending be tightened, something he is pushing across the board on all USG agencies. No more politically driven crap, Forestry Service has been ordered to do their actual job, overseeing use of and maintaining infrastructure within forested Federal Lands. That includes, but is not restricted to, mitigating wildfire risk on Federal lands(Parks, Reserves etc etc). They get less money? They better spend what they get correctly. That is what you are against, accountability.
Nice try, but you don’t know me, and you know very little about forestry, you are simply making rotten assumptions. I’m against ignorance, bias and propaganda.
“Forestry Service has been ordered to do their actual job, overseeing use of and maintaining infrastructure within forested Federal Lands.”
This is just one job. The funds for this job were proportionally cut more than anything else, with the idea that what was left ($94 million) would go to passenger roads. This doesn’t help logging, forest management, or fire fighting. It’s completely antithetical to the policies set forth in the EO. Foolish.
No. That is the job. Making vegan dips feel as if their lives have meaning is NOT the job. Forest Fire Mitigation is the job environwackadoddles like you stand in the way of being done. Proud of yourself?
What’s your problem? Why do you make such idiotic comments about me? You think I’m standing in the way of forest fire mitigation? Why? How strange. Even the Nature Conservancy advocates prescriptive burning.
Logging is a good thing, a sustainable source of revenue. It has to be done wisely, though, or it ends up being more costly than it’s worth.
First you said infrastructure was the job of forestry, now it’s fire mitigation. You’ve got two down…maybe you can think of the others if you insult me enough. If that’s what helps you think, go to it. Whatever works. Or you could educate yourself, and read the budget I posted a link to, though even that doesn’t give a thorough picture.
You’re right that making vegan dips feel like their lives have meaning is not the job, I’ll give you that one. I’d argue that it’s not the job to make steak-eaters happy, either. Or even milk-drinkers, for that matter. Or bottle collectors, or sanitary workers, or hippos. But that all seems a little irrelevant.
The Forestry Service knows what works. You want to stop them from doing what works while you “study” the “issue”. And yes, maintenance of infrastructure on Forestry Service controlled lands is part of the job, it is also part of the “wildfire fighting” job they are directly tasked with. First thing involved in fighting a fire? Access. Can’t get there? Can’t do anything about it.. Mitigation, reducing what can create runaway wildfires. The green movement, in its various forms, has been putting in regulatory roadblocks, at municipal, county, state and Federal levels, for decades. Please take California, among several other states, where you can get dragged in front of a judge for the crime of clearing deadwood and brush on your own property. Districts are not allowed to cross line to help with a neighboring district because someone 1000 miles away is worried about their office budget. Please.
We know what works. Just do it. Spend the tax dollars where it actually helps people.
Despite having obstacles thrown in his path from all sides DJT continues to get things done that both sides of the political aisle have claimed for years they wanted to get done, and yet never did. THAT is precisely why establishment politicians hate him so much. The Criminal Justice Reform Bill is yet another example, this issue being a primary plank of the Democrat Party since the 1960s. And here DJT is the one that said do it and it got done. Makes one wonder, why didn’t Obama do it? And why did Clinton push through a bill that made the whole situation worse?
The Indian communities near where I live did control burns often to manage the forest for maximum large game production, which had the bonus of reducing forest floor fuels and avoiding or limiting catastrophic fires. Why would anyone believe anything that the radical enviro lobby has to say about forest management? They don’t give a shit about fires, nor are they any sort of experts on forest management. They simply don’t want logging, end of story, and they will tell any lie necessary to achieve that end.
Trump Tweets An Abhorrent Image Of Proposed Border Wall: ‘totally effective while at the same time beautiful!’ http://www.dailyamericanbuzz.com/2019/01/trump-tweets-abhorrent-image-of.html