OzOne wrote:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20895100-2,00.html

Things sound worse than California burning a few months ago.

Very sad, indeed!

LP

"Lady Pilot" wrote
OzOne wrote:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20895100-2,00.html
Things sound worse than California burning a few months ago. Very sad, indeed!

Big deal! Forest fires and brush fires are natural events. They've been happening since
history began. The only thing that's sad about fires is people who think there shouldn't be
any. Duh! As a matter of fact some of the California fires are *caused* by people who are
environmentalists and keep the forest rangers and logging companies from clearing the dead
wood out of the forest. Lightning strikes and there's an instant blaze that can't be put out
because of all the undergrowth and dead branches.
Here in Florida the Seminoles used to burn off large patches of the Everglades on purpose
so they could grow things and so the deer and other wildlife that grazes could have some nice
tender grass and shoots to eat. The Indians didn't have to go very far to kill some game for the
table. Then the forest service banned the burning. So they ended up with grazing animals dying
off and huge fires that sprung up when lightning struck and burned out of control. There were
no green places to act as fire breaks and the dead grass and bramble built up provided plenty
of fuel.
I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but even I know what the problem is. It's stupid
people interfering with nature when they haven't a clue.....

Cheers,
Ellen

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in message
news:457b1542$0$97235
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??

Big deal! Forest fires and brush fires are natural events. They've
been happening since
history began. The only thing that's sad about fires is people who think
there shouldn't be
any. Duh! As a matter of fact some of the California fires are *caused* by
people who are
environmentalists and keep the forest rangers and logging companies from
clearing the dead
wood out of the forest. Lightning strikes and there's an instant blaze
that can't be put out
because of all the undergrowth and dead branches.
Here in Florida the Seminoles used to burn off large patches of the
Everglades on purpose
so they could grow things and so the deer and other wildlife that grazes
could have some nice
tender grass and shoots to eat. The Indians didn't have to go very far to
kill some game for the
table. Then the forest service banned the burning. So they ended up with
grazing animals dying
off and huge fires that sprung up when lightning struck and burned out of
control. There were
no green places to act as fire breaks and the dead grass and bramble built
up provided plenty
of fuel.
I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but even I know what the problem
is. It's stupid
people interfering with nature when they haven't a clue.....

Cheers,
Ellen

"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