While I do not dispute those two: not clearing the brush and decreasing funding to the LA Fire Department contributed to the fires, I believe there are other reasons too. 1). Illegals and/or homeless deliberately setting fires (most likely paid by the government to do so), 2). Incompetence of the LA FIRE DEPARTMENT regularly checking the fire hydrants, 3) California and LA Government working hand in hand/conceding to environmental groups to divert the water to save the smelt, 4) desire by the government of CA. and the U.S. government to support the depopulation agenda and the 15 minute cities agenda, 5) the desire to destroy evidence of criminal wrongdoing doing-destruction of homes with underground tunnels supporting the pedophilia and child trafficking, 6) destruction of economy via destruction of small and large businesses, including the entertainment industry, restaurants, malls, etc. further destroying California economy and leading to billions of Federal government aid to California. This conceals mismanagement and money laundering. 7) Construction will now be centered on creating a “village” for the Olympics, while confiscating property of those who lost everything and had their home owner's insurance pulled several months ago
I don’t know. What will they get monetarily? California is bankrupt, trying to cover up their money laundering, scams and leftist acts that brought California down. The perfect storm has destroyed California completely in a matter of hours in order to hide the depravity, corruption, lack of leadership/mismanagement. The illegals will be given priority above the citizens.
Trust me the majority of Californians did not vote for any of these nut jobs who claim to be in power. We all know about the steel and how much of it went on, they are all going away soon.
I think this guy is wrong, as a Californian and a nature lover. To my knowledge "brush" clearing was never a thing except in municipalities. Dead "brush" is an essential part of the ecosystem. Nobody "stopped" clearing anything. Brush is food for the forest. It is shelter for the critters. A healthy forest is full of dead material. An unhealthy forest is a park. A park has very little brush, but also far less bio diversity. It was always excepted and understood that fire is the natural way that brush gets cleared (every 50 years or so on average) By getting burned in place, the brush gets converted to ash and char which fertilize the ecosystem. So, as far as I can tell, it is a ridiculous "talking point."
Forestry management, before the environmentalists infested it, involved the government giving leases to logging companies. The companies would log their designated area, plow a circle around it when they were done, and burn it with all the slash and undergrowth (which was good for the soil). Then they replanted. Thirty years later you couldn't tell it had been logged. The logging crews were all obligated to do fire control if a wild fire broke out. The fires were put out immediately. There was no such thing as a firenado.
When the environmentalists took over, they eliminated the logging industry, and changed their policy to "let it burn." My source is an ex-logger who lost his job when the thriving logging industry was closed down in his area.
Interesting. You make a good point. But, I see logging as something else all together. Basically, the density of the planting creates an unnatural forest which deprived the undergrowth of sunlight which leads to a loss of biodiversity. I'm all for logging and clearing in the way you mentioned. And to add to your point, large swaths of the central sierra nevada mtns are nothing but dead trees (supposedly due to a beetle from asia). Those trees absolutely need to be logged to salvage all that lumber and to reduce mega fire threats. Thanks for sharing.
They had this down to a science. Trees were a renewable commodity. "The density of planting" was, no doubt, optimal. What they replanted was the evergreens, which grow somewhat slowly. But what would happen is that alders, which are rapid growing, would spring up. The evergreens would grow up through them, shading the alders, which would then die off providing nutrients to the evergreens. it worked, the forests were healthy, and fires were controlled.
I am sorry but I have land both in WA and also here now in the south. If I have a lot of undergrowth, guess what, they have to go. If you want to have a hellscape of burning problem like we saw in Oregon and Washington. Now, the south here, Arkansas especially would do control burn and the forest is healthy, beautiful and full wildlife. Want to get run over by deer, come to Arkansas. Want to see the best birds, come to Texas. Instead of ghostly dead forest burned to white everywhere in Oregon and WA, keep the forest healthy by getting rid of fuel.
They are failing at their jobs and it seems to be intentional.
Now, number 5 is huge. Yes, it's very deliberate.
Let the lawsuits begin.
People crack jokes about Arkansas, but guess what? Arkansas clears brush regularly and has controlled burns to avoid wildfires. And we wear shoes too.
I also heard Arkansas was going to get some paved roads and indoor plumbing real soon now...
It’s about time. My outhouse is caving in.
Howls. Oh I know.
LA is comparable to Sydney, and many other areas in Australia, having an environment that is susceptible to bush fires.
Failing to carry out necessary hazard reduction is criminally negligent.
That's why I said sue the bastards.
Damn straight,fren, but would the corrupt legal system achieve a fair result?
True. Don't know.
He's right on everything except the voting part. They steal the election every time to stay in power.
Right, Dominion elected Newsom.
He's wrong about his haircut
😂😂👍🏻
I was thinking the same.
While I do not dispute those two: not clearing the brush and decreasing funding to the LA Fire Department contributed to the fires, I believe there are other reasons too. 1). Illegals and/or homeless deliberately setting fires (most likely paid by the government to do so), 2). Incompetence of the LA FIRE DEPARTMENT regularly checking the fire hydrants, 3) California and LA Government working hand in hand/conceding to environmental groups to divert the water to save the smelt, 4) desire by the government of CA. and the U.S. government to support the depopulation agenda and the 15 minute cities agenda, 5) the desire to destroy evidence of criminal wrongdoing doing-destruction of homes with underground tunnels supporting the pedophilia and child trafficking, 6) destruction of economy via destruction of small and large businesses, including the entertainment industry, restaurants, malls, etc. further destroying California economy and leading to billions of Federal government aid to California. This conceals mismanagement and money laundering. 7) Construction will now be centered on creating a “village” for the Olympics, while confiscating property of those who lost everything and had their home owner's insurance pulled several months ago
Can some of these people initiated a class action lawsuit of a lifetime? There's a lot of very smart people who could do this.
I don’t know. What will they get monetarily? California is bankrupt, trying to cover up their money laundering, scams and leftist acts that brought California down. The perfect storm has destroyed California completely in a matter of hours in order to hide the depravity, corruption, lack of leadership/mismanagement. The illegals will be given priority above the citizens.
It's a major scam. I am wondering how any of these politicians or demons would be able to stay alive.
I say put the mayor, the governor, the fire chief in one of the planes dropping water, and push them out over the fire.
Great idea.
I am sure there's more, but I have heard two tv evangelists already said this about both East and West coast
https://x.com/ChristIsComing5/status/1877095599985574163/photo/1
Trust me the majority of Californians did not vote for any of these nut jobs who claim to be in power. We all know about the steel and how much of it went on, they are all going away soon.
Hopefully soon they will all be gone.
I think this guy is wrong, as a Californian and a nature lover. To my knowledge "brush" clearing was never a thing except in municipalities. Dead "brush" is an essential part of the ecosystem. Nobody "stopped" clearing anything. Brush is food for the forest. It is shelter for the critters. A healthy forest is full of dead material. An unhealthy forest is a park. A park has very little brush, but also far less bio diversity. It was always excepted and understood that fire is the natural way that brush gets cleared (every 50 years or so on average) By getting burned in place, the brush gets converted to ash and char which fertilize the ecosystem. So, as far as I can tell, it is a ridiculous "talking point."
Forestry management, before the environmentalists infested it, involved the government giving leases to logging companies. The companies would log their designated area, plow a circle around it when they were done, and burn it with all the slash and undergrowth (which was good for the soil). Then they replanted. Thirty years later you couldn't tell it had been logged. The logging crews were all obligated to do fire control if a wild fire broke out. The fires were put out immediately. There was no such thing as a firenado.
When the environmentalists took over, they eliminated the logging industry, and changed their policy to "let it burn." My source is an ex-logger who lost his job when the thriving logging industry was closed down in his area.
Interesting. You make a good point. But, I see logging as something else all together. Basically, the density of the planting creates an unnatural forest which deprived the undergrowth of sunlight which leads to a loss of biodiversity. I'm all for logging and clearing in the way you mentioned. And to add to your point, large swaths of the central sierra nevada mtns are nothing but dead trees (supposedly due to a beetle from asia). Those trees absolutely need to be logged to salvage all that lumber and to reduce mega fire threats. Thanks for sharing.
They had this down to a science. Trees were a renewable commodity. "The density of planting" was, no doubt, optimal. What they replanted was the evergreens, which grow somewhat slowly. But what would happen is that alders, which are rapid growing, would spring up. The evergreens would grow up through them, shading the alders, which would then die off providing nutrients to the evergreens. it worked, the forests were healthy, and fires were controlled.
I am sorry but I have land both in WA and also here now in the south. If I have a lot of undergrowth, guess what, they have to go. If you want to have a hellscape of burning problem like we saw in Oregon and Washington. Now, the south here, Arkansas especially would do control burn and the forest is healthy, beautiful and full wildlife. Want to get run over by deer, come to Arkansas. Want to see the best birds, come to Texas. Instead of ghostly dead forest burned to white everywhere in Oregon and WA, keep the forest healthy by getting rid of fuel.
Don' t be sorry.
Lol, to the downvotes.