^^ This is correct.The Conservative wrote:This is what happens when you don't allow controlled burns to occur. We can blame the arsonists all we want, and they deserve some of the blame, but this was allowed to get out of control because of the laws CA has on the books. They don't do control burns as much as they should, so in turn CA is a tinderbox waiting to happen, as proof of this topic.
No, it's not... it's an area attached to a region or itself that is right next to a forest. Again, look at the map, look at where the majority of the fires started... in a forest area.Speaker to Animals wrote:It's actually erroneous. I can tell neither of you live surrounded by national forests. They usually contain wildfires and let them burn out on their own for that very reason.
If you look at the news, you will note that the coverage of developed areas, vinyards and neighborhoods engulfed by fire. That's the story. Not wildfires in the national forest, which happen every year.
^^^ That's not the forest.
In CA they were so behind on that in 2013 it wasn't funny...now they were even further behind, this was just waiting to happen.Speaker to Animals wrote:Dude, some gif has nothing to do with this. This is a story about wildfires in developed areas. The national parks already let natural wildfires take their course as it is, so your point is doubly wrong. You do not live anywhere near national parks. You have no idea what you are talking about.
I am surrounded by national parks. Wildfires happen every year. They let the undergrowth burn.
Who in CA runs the fire department, please regale us with your experience and knowledge.Speaker to Animals wrote:Has nothing to do with the state government.
The Conservative wrote:Who in CA runs the fire department, please regale us with your experience and knowledge.Speaker to Animals wrote:Has nothing to do with the state government.
Absolution Style by Premium phpBB Styles
