Senator Aanestad takes the Luddites on Regarding Fire Protection
Posted by: Aaron Park | 08/30/2008 3:49 PM
Senator Sam Aanestad, a conservative and someone whose district takes in a massive amount of the areas that burned earlier - had a few things to say about fire protection. Sam Aanestad was there when the Luddites crashed a fire summit - deriding it as a meeting to benefit "big timber".
Senator Aanestad sees the problem clearly and provides an excellent thesis into the problem of wildfires as posted by the Sacramento Bee
Meantime - Charlie Brown left the fire summit before the Sierra Club showed up to crash it. The Sierra Club has endorsed Brown - suggesting that Brown's departure was conflict avoidance.
Would Charlie Brown stand up to the Sierra Club in favor of fire protection? Given how he changes his tune at out-of-district fund-raisers, I submit that the answer is no. The Campaign ethics of Charlie Brown
Anyone who claims that wildfires are much smaller now than they were before comprehensive fire-suppression policies were enacted after World War II obviously didn't set foot in Northern California this summer and didn't talk to old-timers who say this fire season is the worst they've ever experienced.
If he had set foot in my district, or anywhere in California for that matter, he would have found a pattern of thousands of fires caused by lightning strikes that charred well over 1 million acres, destroyed hundreds upon hundreds of homes, took the lives of 15 people and cost California taxpayers well over $1 billion to fight.
But some people are blinded by the same smoke and ash that stung the eyes and burned the throats of hundreds of thousands of my constituents and other Californians who suffered miserably at the hands of catastrophic wildfires this summer. In short, they will never open their eyes to the true reality and catastrophic wildfire threat facing California today.
I strongly support the management of our precious forests to save what we have left for future generations. And I clearly understand that there are those who are opposed to the removal of one dead leaf or pine needle from the forest floors. We can both cite studies, good and bad, to reflect our viewpoints.
But catastrophic wildfire doesn't listen to studies. In the words of Stephen Pyne, a professor in the School of Life Sciences at Arizona State University, "Fire isn't listening. It doesn't feel our pain. It doesn't care - really, really doesn't care. It understands a language of wind, drought, woods, grass, brush and terrain, and it will ignore anything stated otherwise."
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger understands this threat. It's why he created the California-Nevada Tahoe Fire Basin Commission following the devastating Angora fire that destroyed hundreds of homes. The final report delivered by this commission, and the recommendations approved by the governor, prove that thinning of the forests can and does prevent catastrophic wildfire.
The report found that fuel reduction treatments that had taken place on Tahoe Basin lands since 1995 had a dramatic impact in stopping the Angora fire. The report states that "parcels that had been treated exhibited modified fire behavior, including reduced ember production, and reduced heat and smoke allowing firefighters to be more effective. ...
"Treated parcels also served as fuel breaks, allowing firefighters to safely protect structures and slowing fire spread. Eyewitness accounts, firefighter interviews and post-fire on-site inspections indicated a significant reduction in fire intensity when fire entered treated urban lots."
Allowing private timber interests to do what they do best, clean and thin our valued forest lands, isn't a unique or radical idea. It had been standard accepted procedure in forestry management up until about 30 years ago, until concerns about endangered species and clear-cutting led to a new policy called "hands off." The forests were to remain untouched by human hand, and for the most part, they have been.
Although the intentions behind this policy were good, the results have been devastating. It's often said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and these "hands off" and "let it burn" policies led to thousands of acres of forestlands filled with dead and dying trees, undergrowth and other fuels.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that a simple spark was all it took to ignite the worst summer of wildfires witnessed in modern history. As a result, this so-called "environmentally friendly" policy has left us with fouled streams, unhealthy air, burned wildlife and a forest landscape that resembles the moon.
I challenge the Sierra Club or any other group committed to the preservation of our valuable forests to realize the damage caused by current forestry management policies. How many more burned homes, lost forests and emergency room visits do we need? Pointing fingers won't save our forests from destruction. We both share common goals. Let's find a common solution.
Senator Aanestad sees the problem clearly and provides an excellent thesis into the problem of wildfires as posted by the Sacramento Bee
Meantime - Charlie Brown left the fire summit before the Sierra Club showed up to crash it. The Sierra Club has endorsed Brown - suggesting that Brown's departure was conflict avoidance.
Would Charlie Brown stand up to the Sierra Club in favor of fire protection? Given how he changes his tune at out-of-district fund-raisers, I submit that the answer is no. The Campaign ethics of Charlie Brown
Anyone who claims that wildfires are much smaller now than they were before comprehensive fire-suppression policies were enacted after World War II obviously didn't set foot in Northern California this summer and didn't talk to old-timers who say this fire season is the worst they've ever experienced.
If he had set foot in my district, or anywhere in California for that matter, he would have found a pattern of thousands of fires caused by lightning strikes that charred well over 1 million acres, destroyed hundreds upon hundreds of homes, took the lives of 15 people and cost California taxpayers well over $1 billion to fight.
But some people are blinded by the same smoke and ash that stung the eyes and burned the throats of hundreds of thousands of my constituents and other Californians who suffered miserably at the hands of catastrophic wildfires this summer. In short, they will never open their eyes to the true reality and catastrophic wildfire threat facing California today.
I strongly support the management of our precious forests to save what we have left for future generations. And I clearly understand that there are those who are opposed to the removal of one dead leaf or pine needle from the forest floors. We can both cite studies, good and bad, to reflect our viewpoints.
But catastrophic wildfire doesn't listen to studies. In the words of Stephen Pyne, a professor in the School of Life Sciences at Arizona State University, "Fire isn't listening. It doesn't feel our pain. It doesn't care - really, really doesn't care. It understands a language of wind, drought, woods, grass, brush and terrain, and it will ignore anything stated otherwise."
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger understands this threat. It's why he created the California-Nevada Tahoe Fire Basin Commission following the devastating Angora fire that destroyed hundreds of homes. The final report delivered by this commission, and the recommendations approved by the governor, prove that thinning of the forests can and does prevent catastrophic wildfire.
The report found that fuel reduction treatments that had taken place on Tahoe Basin lands since 1995 had a dramatic impact in stopping the Angora fire. The report states that "parcels that had been treated exhibited modified fire behavior, including reduced ember production, and reduced heat and smoke allowing firefighters to be more effective. ...
"Treated parcels also served as fuel breaks, allowing firefighters to safely protect structures and slowing fire spread. Eyewitness accounts, firefighter interviews and post-fire on-site inspections indicated a significant reduction in fire intensity when fire entered treated urban lots."
Allowing private timber interests to do what they do best, clean and thin our valued forest lands, isn't a unique or radical idea. It had been standard accepted procedure in forestry management up until about 30 years ago, until concerns about endangered species and clear-cutting led to a new policy called "hands off." The forests were to remain untouched by human hand, and for the most part, they have been.
Although the intentions behind this policy were good, the results have been devastating. It's often said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and these "hands off" and "let it burn" policies led to thousands of acres of forestlands filled with dead and dying trees, undergrowth and other fuels.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that a simple spark was all it took to ignite the worst summer of wildfires witnessed in modern history. As a result, this so-called "environmentally friendly" policy has left us with fouled streams, unhealthy air, burned wildlife and a forest landscape that resembles the moon.
I challenge the Sierra Club or any other group committed to the preservation of our valuable forests to realize the damage caused by current forestry management policies. How many more burned homes, lost forests and emergency room visits do we need? Pointing fingers won't save our forests from destruction. We both share common goals. Let's find a common solution.
CATEGORY:
4th Congressional District Race
Women's right to vote didn't exist until they fought for it. Blacks rights for equality didn't happen until...
The Colfax Kid is Nuts, right?
In fact all who attended the Colfax City Council meeting are Nuts, right?
Aaron, are you going to show to the next Colfax City Council meeting to make a vigorous rebuttal. Or do you only offer up whacked out blog posts re global warming and creation care folks?
The Bible says do not cast your Pearls unto swine. This poste has nothing to do with the most recent Colfax City Council meeting. When you make comments such as the one you just made - it makes me wonder if you should have a colleague diagnose you.
As to Rick Warren - he is an interesting case of having one foot on one side and one on another. Leehog - I and the other evangelicals that signed a letter to the contrary (I did not sign the letter, but I agree with Colson, Dobson et. al.) have a right to disagree with Warren.
Warren's error was not the concept of Creation Care - I have never attacked that concept at all - he problem is that he did not think through what he was signing on to. Warren is basically endorsing the current system of eco-regulations with what he has done.
The current system is inane and insane and needs to be reformed.
The Fire summit is a great example of Charlie Brown folding his tent rather than telling the Sierra Club they are wrong for trying to interfere with Fire protection. Since Rick Warren seems to be endorsing the current system of Eco-Controls, his stance on fire protection and his apparent alliance with the Sierra Club et. al. is dead wrong.
Once again Leehog is in full campaign mode with the cheap shot brush.
WWCBD? Will Charlie stand up to the Sierra Club and tell them to stop preventing forest clearing and thinning?
WWCBD? Will Charlie set me on fire by issuing an effigy denial or will he admit to his anti-war activity?
So Aaron, are you planning to go to the next Colfax City Council meeting and announce that you represent Tom McClintock, Chuck Colson, and James Dobson? And that the Colfax Kid that was heartily applauded was stone cold Nuts and the audience that heartily applauded him was stone cold Nuts.
Or are you going to simply hang out here in the safety of Red County Placer and take cheap shots at Warren and the Colfax Kid.
Dollars to donuts you will just do the cheap shot bit here.
What a man you are...
Lee - leave a 10-year old kid out of it.
Good grief, I believed a lot of things when I was 10 that have changed by now.
AND - this post is about fire protection, which is setting Charlie Brown on fire.
For Aanestad, this issue isn't really about forest fires. It's about lumber companies and developers. A quick glance at the contributor list for aanestad's 2006 State Senate campaign reveals one lumber company and devlopment outfit after another. Dozens and dozens of them.
As long as both sides are honest then meaningful dialogue can occur. But when one side is dishonest and claims they are all for protecting forests from fire (in small print: by cutting them down or building subdivisions in them first) then this will go nowhere.
The Sierra Club is on the other side of this issue. They advocate that most fires--whether caused naturally or by humans--should be allowed to burn out on their own though they do support fire control where life or property are at stake provided there are efforts to renew land damaged by the fire-control efforts. Basically they want to revert to nature's forest management plan. In essence this will limit development in forested areas or if you do develop don't expect anyone to do too much to save your property. But at least their position is transparent. You can read all the details here: http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/fire.asp
The solution, as always, needs to be somewhere in the middle. When Brown left the meeting early (as reported by Aaron) he was signaling that he doesn't agree with the extreme views of the Sierra Club on this matter whether they contribute to him or not.
Meanwhile, McClintock's ignorant views on global warming represent a real danger to the nation should he be elected to Congress. Only Luddites (this word has been used incorrectly on other posts on this website) like Aaron and Tom can ignore all of the evidence and continue to cling to Worldnet Daily as the source of all knowledge on the subject. A ten-year-old boy has a better understanding of the issue than these guys. Well, maybe he's just more honest.
Meanwhile, It's Day Four of the McClintock Per Diem Watch.
Bob
Bob - if we follow your logic, someone who takes any money from any company or cause should immediately recuse themselves from anything related to it. Nice.
The rest of this comment belies tremendous arrogance on your part. Charlie is in really good hands.
Agreed, Mr. Park, about Bob's obsession with who gives money to people in politics. It seems to be a staple of his arguments. I read the link Bob. I'd wager the Sierra Club and normal people would disagree on what fires "pose an unreasonable threat to property, human life or important biological communities." The Sierra Club does not have much of a track record caring about property -- and even risk to human life -- in these wild areas. Of course, the important biological communities part is always a very big deal to them.
And Bob, how do you know what Charlie Brown was signaling by leaving this Fire Summit early? He explained his motivations to you personally? Oh, I thought you were some anonymous interested citizen while I am a lackey for the McClintock campaign. My mistake.
That, or you're speaking for Charlie Brown without the authority to do so. Which is it?
Hector,
I don't know for sure why Brown left. Do you? Aaron had a theory he was willing to share--but I'll be he doesn't know for sure, either. My theory is just as good as his. Why didn't you attack him for his theory?
I don't support the Sierra Club fire management position. I live in a forest so this issue really matters to me. I said the answer is somewhere in the middle. And if you guys continue to say that where a candidate gets his or her money doesn't matter then there's no hope for you. It does matter.
When I was a Navy Officer in command of a unit I had to take training and sign policy letters on conflict of interest. It's amazing to me that we have the system of campaign finance that we have. It's loaded with conflicts. People are human. Some will be able to resist pressure and accept money from special interests without acting on their behalf. Others won't be able to do that. It does matter and to say it doesn't is either naive or disingenuous.
Bob