Zinke blames 'environmental radicals' for deadly California fires
Source: The Hill
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke blamed environmental radicals for the California wildfires that have killed at least 77 people, saying they stop forest management practices that could have prevented the fires.
Days after touring the damage of the Camp Fire, the deadliest in Californias history, Zinke went on Breitbart News Sunday and declared its not the time for finger-pointing on the causes of the fires.
But minutes later, he put the blame squarely on environmentalists, contending that they stood in the way of clearing brush, doing prescribed burns and other actions.
I will lay this on the foot of those environmental radicals that have prevented us from managing the forests for years. And you know what? This is on them, Zinke said.
Read more: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/417489-zinke-blames-environmental-radicals-for-deadly-california-fires
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,576 posts)or just raking them?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)IADEMO2004
(5,551 posts)Hassler
(3,369 posts)Puppyjive
(498 posts)I worked for the Forest service and we were constantly being sued. We tried to be good stewards of the land , but the environmentalist kept suing. We tried to do thinning to prevent wildfires from reaching private residences, but they continue to sue. I had heard that one particular lawyer who sued us had said it was easy money. Makes me sick. I believe in environmentalism, but not radical shit.
ZZenith
(4,115 posts)jpak
(41,756 posts)Do tell.
Hells Canyon Preservation Council. They have been suing the National Forests for quite some time. The Forerst Service gets blamed for it and has to deal with the fallout from loss of jobs and wildfires. Seen it first hand.
modrepub
(3,488 posts)routinely files lawsuits in certain circuits because their reimbursement rates are among the highest in the country. It's frustrating because half of their objections appear to be focused on generating billable hours and not accomplishing anything to better the environment.
As far as the forest management goes, whatever Zinke et al envision has to be able to generate a profit. If government has to somehow heavily subsidize the whole enterprise, pay people to go in and thin out the trees then fix any environmental problems logging creates then their "model" doesn't work. I've heard people bring up allowing loggers in to clear brush and small trees but this type of material isn't profitable; they're interested in much bigger trees.
PufPuf23
(8,750 posts)at the professional level as a District Silviculturist and Logging Engineer/Timber Sale Planner.
Now there are efforts made and projects to address fire pre-suppression by the Feds and State but not enough. The Whiskeytown National Recreation Area (where the Carr Fire near Redding started) has a 30 plus year program of prescribed burning to address a natural fire ecosystem (that had no commercial forest, rather chapparal and transition forests) yet all the effort was nothing in the face of nature and converging events. The planning process is highly politicized. Logging is opposed by reflex. Once there were lawsuits for virtually every USFS land management project but now there are less lawsuits because the groups have been co-opted into the planning process. There are a multitude of NGOs, Tribes, etc. included in the planning process that also recieve Federal grant funding for their existence. Concurrently fire fighting has become a huge industry in itself. It is a shame that there is not more funding for vegetation management.
The recent large fires in California started and mostly occurred outside the commercial forests but in the chaparral and oak woodland transition forests, specifically where human development has expended into highly fire prone and ecologically fire dependent ecosystems.
Here are some examples:
http://kymkemp.com/2018/10/29/trinity-collaborative-supports-fuelbreak-plan/
https://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/components/reports/sopa-110510-current.html
https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=51215
https://forestproud.org/2018/04/03/living-with-fire/
edit to add: Zinke sucks.
htuttle
(23,738 posts)IcyPeas
(21,839 posts)Initech
(100,029 posts)red dog 1
(27,757 posts)Zinke should shut the fuck up!
Haggis for Breakfast
(6,831 posts)He's doing nothing more than perpetuating another RW myth. In CA, the majority of forest lands are managed by the FEDERAL government. Blaming the State is intentionally disingenuous. He should take that stupid Stetson off his hat and shove it up his pompous, self-righteous ass.
There are now 80 people dead and hundreds missing. THAT should be the ONLY priority.
I am so sick of this lack of humanity and empathy by the RW that I could puke blood.
red dog 1
(27,757 posts)not "radical environmentalists"..because it was Shitler who cut funding for Wildland Fire Suppression in the Fiscal Year 2018 budget.
In fact, he cut it by more than $118 million
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016220441
gilligan
(194 posts)He used that statement back in 2017. He says this shit so a big company like Georgia Pacific can come in and rape the land.
Forest management my ass. More like extraction capitalism. See Yellowstone, the redwoods etc. while you can folks.
WheelWalker
(8,954 posts)raking away on a penitentiary forest work crew.
on steroids.
BlueInRedHell
(100 posts)Coventina
(27,052 posts)Environmental radicals have kept us from addressing the real effects of climate change.
Radicals who do not believe in science, and who think the world is 6000 years old.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,131 posts)You can do all the forest maintenance in the world, but sparking wires are going to start fires., especially during times of drought.
sinkingfeeling
(51,436 posts)jpak
(41,756 posts)Yup
Maxheader
(4,370 posts)Judi Lynn
(160,424 posts)The almighty Zinke believes himself to be God of Everything That's Outside and Its Future.
underpants
(182,585 posts)Delay. Divert. Attack.
shanny
(6,709 posts)El Mimbreno
(777 posts)for our outgoing misrepresentative, steve pearce, who says we are short on water because there are too many trees in the forests.
gop science?
malaise
(268,664 posts)OK!