"Edgar" wrote
Let me get this right. You are saying that burning off and clearing areas in
the Everglades was not interfering with nature but letting the grass and
bramble build up to be a fire hazard is OK??

I'm not sure what your asking, Edgar. I'm saying the Seminole tribe was part of nature.
They lived with nurtured and respected the land. Being there and burning small fires to
green up some patches of land benefited wildlife with diverse habitat and made it more
difficult for larger fires to take hold. They didn't overcrowd the land. They had a positive
effect on it. Small groups of people used to live as one with nature. Animals could run away
from small fires but got destroyed by the huge fires.
The overcrowding we have today is harming nature. People who say leave the forest and
grasslands alone, don't clear them, don't do controlled burns are denying that small groups
of people were as much a part of nature as small groups of rabbits or alligators.
I said it wasn't a good idea for the forest service to ban burning for clearing small patches
of land. In other words controlled burns. Instead they banned it completely. This allowed the
unnatural (Indians are part of nature remember) build up of dead grass, brush etc. over several
seasons and when lightning struck it was Katy bar the door.
So what does the forest service do when huge out of control fires start? They do what they
call back burns. In other words controlled burns. The same thing they told the Indians they
couldn't do. But the horse is already out of the barn when they do it. At least when the Indians
did it the horse was still in the barn. Duh!

Cheers,
Ellen

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Edgar" wrote
Let me get this right. You are saying that burning off and clearing
areas in
the Everglades was not interfering with nature but letting the grass and
bramble build up to be a fire hazard is OK??

I'm not sure what your asking, Edgar. I'm saying the Seminole tribe
was part of nature.
They lived with nurtured and respected the land. Being there and burning
small fires to
green up some patches of land benefited wildlife with diverse habitat and
made it more
difficult for larger fires to take hold. They didn't overcrowd the land.
They had a positive
effect on it. Small groups of people used to live as one with nature.
Animals could run away
from small fires but got destroyed by the huge fires.
The overcrowding we have today is harming nature. People who say leave
the forest and
grasslands alone, don't clear them, don't do controlled burns are denying
that small groups
of people were as much a part of nature as small groups of rabbits or
alligators.
I said it wasn't a good idea for the forest service to ban burning for
clearing small patches
of land. In other words controlled burns. Instead they banned it
completely. This allowed the
unnatural (Indians are part of nature remember) build up of dead grass,
brush etc. over several
seasons and when lightning struck it was Katy bar the door.
So what does the forest service do when huge out of control fires
start? They do what they
call back burns. In other words controlled burns. The same thing they told
the Indians they
couldn't do. But the horse is already out of the barn when they do it. At
least when the Indians
did it the horse was still in the barn. Duh!

Cheers,
Ellen

OK. I thought you were saying that _not_ burning it off was interfering with
nature. But what you say above is fine by me