Trump threatens to pull federal funding for California wildfires

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,665
Location
The Golden State
Trump threatens to pull federal funding for California wildfires over 'gross mismanagement'

There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor. Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!

Does someone need to fill the ignoramus in chief in on who manages the national forests?

The California Professional Firefighters President is trying.


"The president’s assertion that California’s forest management policies are to blame for catastrophic wildfire is dangerously wrong," California Professional Firefighters President Brian K. Rice said in a statement on Saturday.
 
Werbung:
Wild fires are a natural state out there.
The mismanagement is letting people build where fires are GOING to happen.
Wildfires have gotten much worse the last couple of years.
Yes, allowing homes to be built in the chaparral is a part of the problem.
The town of Paradise has existed for many years. Now, it is gone.
Most of the wildfires start in the national forests, not on state land. There is actually very little state land in California anyway. Blaming the State of California for the mismanagement does not match up with the facts.
 
He couldn't pull funding for the actual fighting of fires. That would be unconscionable. CA owns only 3% of the forest acres. So it's largely the 40% land owned by families, timber, and reservations that would suffer if FEMA funding is pulled.

These are the details of CA forests.
https://ucanr.edu/sites/forestry/California_forests/

Of the approximately 33 million acres of forest in California, federal agencies (including the USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service) own and manage 19 million acres (57%). State and local agencies including CalFire, local open space, park and water districts and land trusts own another 3%. 40% of California's forestland is owned by families, Native American tribes, or companies. Industrial timber companies own 5 million acres (14%). 9 million acres are owned by individuals with nearly 90% of these owners having less than 50 acres of forest land.
 
Wildfires have gotten much worse the last couple of years.
Yes, allowing homes to be built in the chaparral is a part of the problem.
The town of Paradise has existed for many years. Now, it is gone.
Most of the wildfires start in the national forests, not on state land. There is actually very little state land in California anyway. Blaming the State of California for the mismanagement does not match up with the facts.
The state could ban development adjacent to these lands. And yes there is more destruction since you are developing property into previously vacant areas. Govt just cant say no to developers at any level.
 
The state could ban development adjacent to these lands. And yes there is more destruction since you are developing property into previously vacant areas. Govt just cant say no to developers at any level.

Sure, the state could ban development in fire prone areas, in earthquake zones, in flood planes, and maybe it should. There still would be a lot of existing development in dangerous areas, though. The town of Paradise, for example, has a history going back to 1877. It survived quite a while before a devastating wildfire wiped it off the map.

There are many reasons for the extreme and intense wildfires we've seen in the west the past few years. Development leading to fire suppression is just one of them.
 
Sure, the state could ban development in fire prone areas, in earthquake zones, in flood planes, and maybe it should. There still would be a lot of existing development in dangerous areas, though. The town of Paradise, for example, has a history going back to 1877. It survived quite a while before a devastating wildfire wiped it off the map.

There are many reasons for the extreme and intense wildfires we've seen in the west the past few years. Development leading to fire suppression is just one of them.
Yeah but its like blaming the bear fir being a bear after he gets a camper for dinner
 
Fires are naturally occurring things not some extreme or unusual event.
If you choose to put yourself at risk you are like the camper who pitches hus tent in the take out aisle of the bears forest.
Oh, I see.
The thing is, bears are a normal part of camping, and black bears often try to get campers' food. Sometimes they succeed. These fires are different. They're more like a man eating rogue Kodiak bear invading Yosemite and eating campers while they lay in their tents. It's an unprecedented and intense sort of wildfires that wipe out whole communities. Normal, small wildfires are actually a good thing as they clear brush and kill destructive insects. These fires are something quite different. At least two towns in California have ceased to exist due to the fires. Firefighters have coined a new and descriptive term, "firenado."
 
Lagboltz said:
He couldn't pull funding for the actual fighting of fires. That would be unconscionable.

He doesnt care about anyone so I wouldnt doubt he would do this!!

He is an unreal bastard making this country look bad!!


CALIFORNIA NEEDS HELP!!
 
Werbung:
He doesnt care about anyone so I wouldnt doubt he would do this!!

He is an unreal bastard making this country look bad!!


CALIFORNIA NEEDS HELP!!
If looking bad is record employment for everyone including minoritues and a robust economy is looking bad ill take it.

But no fear the donkeys are already klilling it.

Why do they hate prisperity so ?
 
Back
Top