On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:24:15 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
(Chris Lewis) wrote:


Because fire isn't very safe in built-up areas. It has a tendancy
to do things you don't want it to. Controlled burns sometimes
get out of hand.

I have a friend who used to be a smoke jumper and he said even in
their high trained hands, "controlled" is a time sensitive description.
One minute it is, the next is may not be.


It looks like there are some strong indications that illegals have
started at least some of the fires to create construction jobs for
themselves.

wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:49:08 -0400, Terry
wrote:

It looks like there are some strong indications that illegals have
started at least some of the fires to create construction jobs for
themselves.

It is funny that no matter what the argument is about, eventually it
gets to global warming and illegals.
I hear it was caused by a gay smoker with a Bush sticker on his SUV.

Who was hispanic and had just snuck across the Mexican border and had parked
the SUV on a patch of dried brush.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:36:03 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
wrote:

Ahhh, you aren't aware of the restrictions landowners are put
under by all the 'environmental' regulations, are you? Much of
the problem stems from the inability of landowners to properly
control the underbrush, grasses, weeds, and other flammable
vegetation. Their hands have been tied by the 'green' movement.

I agree "environmerntalSM" is a cult religion but there are
responsible ecologists

My comment wasn't directed at responsible ecologists.

I'm sure there were educated ecologists who wanted to do small
prescribed burns around those houses and the homeowners wouldn't
let them because they did not want the smoke and to have to look
at burned ground for a couple months.

Nope, that isn't the issue at all. The issue are is regulations
prohibiting mechanical clearing of the grounds of high brush and
tilling the ground for firebreaks where it would be appropriate.

Where on earth did you get that ridiculous idea?

From friends who were slapped with a 25000 fine for doing so.

So we have one anecdotal piece of evidence. We have no idea what,
exactly, your friends did to incur that fine.

They were cutting the high brush just prior to fire season on their two acre
property that abutted public lands where, on those public lands, some
species of lizard was given protection due to Sierra Club and other green
lobbying. Unknownst to them, and many other landowners, the state had placed
regulations on those area landowners requiring a 250 foot 'buffer zone' on
their properties next to the area abutting the public lands. Apparently the
only public notice of the regulatory hearing was in the only newspaper
published in that area; a small weekly newspaper to which they don't
subscribe.

But, as I said in my
other post, homeowners are absolutely required to keep brush trimmed,
and it's strictly monitored and enforced.

And yet you accuse me of being anecdotal? :-0

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:17:40 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:49:08 -0400, Terry
wrote:

It looks like there are some strong indications that illegals have
started at least some of the fires to create construction jobs for
themselves.

It is funny that no matter what the argument is about, eventually it
gets to global warming and illegals.
I hear it was caused by a gay smoker with a Bush sticker on his SUV.

Who was hispanic and had just snuck across the Mexican border and had parked
the SUV on a patch of dried brush.

They are stealing the relief food and water too.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...25looting.html

HeyBub wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Swimming pool, generator, pump?
With a fire that is not all that contained by multiple 1500 gpm
pumpers using tanker shuttles? Good luck.

Right, but the pumper trucks are for BIG fires. This guy said he and his
neighbor scurried about dousing little fires so they never became big ones.
Put out hundreds and hundreds of embers, they did.

Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. All depends on how many
come how quickly and what there is as a fuel source. If you're lucky
the number is small enough you have sufficient resources to stay even.

If not, ...

--

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:49:08 -0400, Terry
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:24:15 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
(Chris Lewis) wrote:


Because fire isn't very safe in built-up areas. It has a tendancy
to do things you don't want it to. Controlled burns sometimes
get out of hand.

I have a friend who used to be a smoke jumper and he said even in
their high trained hands, "controlled" is a time sensitive description.
One minute it is, the next is may not be.


It looks like there are some strong indications that illegals have
started at least some of the fires to create construction jobs for
themselves.

One report stated illegal immigration was down; near and around San
Diego, due to the fires.

A local here, suggested all illegals go to SD for work.


--
Oren

"If things get any worse, I'll have to ask you to stop helping me."

According to HeyBub :
I guess in a fire zone (everywhere but Alaska), the "authorities" could
require metal shingled roofs. Unless you build underground.

Alaska is no good. Earthquakes and tsunamis. By the time you
factor in all of the risky areas (left coast, east coast, and
everywhere else due to tornado, hurricane, fire, drought, ice
storm, blizzard or earthquake), you end up trying to park almost
300 million Americans in Churchill Manitoba.

Which the Canadians might not like. As a Canadian, I wouldn't
like...

Oh right, polar bears. That's no good either.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

According to Kurt Ullman :
In article ,
(Chris Lewis) wrote:

Because fire isn't very safe in built-up areas. It has a tendancy
to do things you don't want it to. Controlled burns sometimes
get out of hand.

I have a friend who used to be a smoke jumper and he said even in
their high trained hands, "controlled" is a time sensitive description.
One minute it is, the next is may not be.

Indeed. Four forestry students were killed a few years back when
the controlled burn set by professionals (and the students supervised
by professionals) got out of hand and cut them off. Yet, everything
was perfectly done by the book...
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:17:40 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:49:08 -0400, Terry
wrote:

It looks like there are some strong indications that illegals have
started at least some of the fires to create construction jobs for
themselves.

It is funny that no matter what the argument is about, eventually it
gets to global warming and illegals.
I hear it was caused by a gay smoker with a Bush sticker on his SUV.

Who was hispanic and had just snuck across the Mexican border and had parked
the SUV on a patch of dried brush.

Somebody with a circa '70's Chevy and a hot catalytic converter.
watch out for low-riders...

--
Oren

"I didn’t say it was your fault, I said I was blaming you."

wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:08:05 -0000, (Chris
Lewis) wrote:

Because fire isn't very safe in built-up areas. It has a tendancy
to do things you don't want it to. Controlled burns sometimes
get out of hand.


If it is that "built up" you should be able to control the fuel load
on the ground.

Tree-huggers won't let you. The forest service cannot, in the main, clear
the forest floor. So doing might disturb the habitat of the Three-toed
Salamander which is SO endangered no one's ever seen the critter.

Chris Lewis wrote:
According to HeyBub :
I guess in a fire zone (everywhere but Alaska), the "authorities"
could require metal shingled roofs. Unless you build underground.

Alaska is no good. Earthquakes and tsunamis. By the time you
factor in all of the risky areas (left coast, east coast, and
everywhere else due to tornado, hurricane, fire, drought, ice
storm, blizzard or earthquake), you end up trying to park almost
300 million Americans in Churchill Manitoba.

Which the Canadians might not like. As a Canadian, I wouldn't
like...

Oh right, polar bears. That's no good either.

Well, see, I'm in Houston. We don't have forest fires, tornadoes, tsunamis,
snow days, or earthquakes. We DO have hurricanes, but those are universally
viewed as an excuse to party.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:08:05 -0000, (Chris
Lewis) wrote:

Because fire isn't very safe in built-up areas. It has a tendancy
to do things you don't want it to. Controlled burns sometimes
get out of hand.


If it is that "built up" you should be able to control the fuel load
on the ground.

Tree-huggers won't let you. The forest service cannot, in the main, clear
the forest floor. So doing might disturb the habitat of the Three-toed
Salamander which is SO endangered no one's ever seen the critter.

Tree huggers? You mean those idiots who don't want to concrete over
every square foot of the country?

The real problem is there's too many god damn people on the planet.

In article
,
Smitty Two wrote:


The real problem is there's too many god damn people on the planet.

Feel free to leave at your earliest convenience.

On Oct 26, 5:29 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

"HeyBub" wrote:

Swimming pool, generator, pump?

With a fire that is not all that contained by multiple 1500 gpm
pumpers using tanker shuttles? Good luck.



Don't worry about that. Cigarette smokers are some of the most responsible
people on the planet. Be worried about arson.

But it only takes one. The big three in wildfires last time I looked
around were lightening, cigs, and arsons.

Right. Anecdotal but I have seen personally two fires started by
cigs. One I came on just as it was getting started in the barrow
ditch about 6 miles from the house. I had nothing to fight it with so
beat feet to a phone. The other was right on my property edge. I
wasn't aware of it until I saw all the flashing lights and trucks
chasing it up my fence row.

Fires started by cigs are common and smokers are _not_ "some of the
most responsible people....".

Harry K

on 10/26/2007 8:28 AM h said the following:
"Oren" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:38:28 -0400, h wrote:


"Cheri" gserviceatinreachdotcom wrote in message
. ..

Dave Bugg wrote in message ...

Ahhh, you aren't aware of the restrictions landowners are put under

by all

the 'environmental' regulations, are you? Much of the problem stems

from the

inability of landowners to properly control the underbrush, grasses,

weeds,

and other flammable vegetation. Their hands have been tied by the

'green'

movement.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

That's true Dave. Last year during the Tahoe fires, about the only
home that made it through the fire in one neighborhood, was that of a
homeowner that went against the regs and cleared much more than he was
*supposed* to.

Cheri



Okkaaay, so how about commenting about why these idiots live in these
areas
in the first place? There are lots of placed ill-suited to human
habitation;
Mississippi flood plain, a LOT of SoCal, tornado alley, and most of
Florida,
yet people continue to build there and the gubmint continues to bail them
out every single time. It's ridiculous that those of us living in sensible
places with no tornados, floods, mudslides, wildfires, hurricanes, etc.
have
to fund the constant re-building of those who insist on living where they
shouldn't. You want to live there, great, but I'm NOT going to pay for it.
Yes, we have the occasional flood here in upstate NY, but only the 10-20
homes of idiots who feel compelled to live right ON the river. Why should
they be allowed to do this and still get bailed out by the gubmint? While
it's great farmland, no one should have a house on the Mississippi flood
plain for just this reason. Crops, sure. Houses, not so much. Same with
much
of SoCal. It burns, it slides, it quakes, DON'T LIVE THERE. Duh.


Do you depend on your local "gubmint" to fix and repair roads in New
York (upstate) ? Who takes away downed trees from blizzards?



??? ALL roads everywhere are fixed by the gubmint, not just in NY. The last
time we lost a tree during a blizzard we chopped it up for firewood. But to
answer your question, the HOMEOWNER is responsible for downed trees. Idiot.
Plonk.




When hurricane Floyd hit NY back in Sept. 1999. It was the homeowners
with chain saws that cleared the local roads before the highway
department could get there. I was there with my chain saw, even though I
had a 50 foot Wild Cherry down in my yard. We dumped the wood on the
side of the road for the highway department to pick it up. There wasn't
much left after the fireplace owners took most of it away.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 15:39:55 -0400, willshak
wrote:

on 10/26/2007 8:28 AM h said the following:
"Oren" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:38:28 -0400, h wrote:


"Cheri" gserviceatinreachdotcom wrote in message
. ..

Dave Bugg wrote in message ...

Ahhh, you aren't aware of the restrictions landowners are put under

by all

the 'environmental' regulations, are you? Much of the problem stems

from the

inability of landowners to properly control the underbrush, grasses,

weeds,

and other flammable vegetation. Their hands have been tied by the

'green'

movement.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

That's true Dave. Last year during the Tahoe fires, about the only
home that made it through the fire in one neighborhood, was that of a
homeowner that went against the regs and cleared much more than he was
*supposed* to.

Cheri



Okkaaay, so how about commenting about why these idiots live in these
areas
in the first place? There are lots of placed ill-suited to human
habitation;
Mississippi flood plain, a LOT of SoCal, tornado alley, and most of
Florida,
yet people continue to build there and the gubmint continues to bail them
out every single time. It's ridiculous that those of us living in sensible
places with no tornados, floods, mudslides, wildfires, hurricanes, etc.
have
to fund the constant re-building of those who insist on living where they
shouldn't. You want to live there, great, but I'm NOT going to pay for it.
Yes, we have the occasional flood here in upstate NY, but only the 10-20
homes of idiots who feel compelled to live right ON the river. Why should
they be allowed to do this and still get bailed out by the gubmint? While
it's great farmland, no one should have a house on the Mississippi flood
plain for just this reason. Crops, sure. Houses, not so much. Same with
much
of SoCal. It burns, it slides, it quakes, DON'T LIVE THERE. Duh.


Do you depend on your local "gubmint" to fix and repair roads in New
York (upstate) ? Who takes away downed trees from blizzards?



??? ALL roads everywhere are fixed by the gubmint, not just in NY. The last
time we lost a tree during a blizzard we chopped it up for firewood. But to
answer your question, the HOMEOWNER is responsible for downed trees. Idiot.
Plonk.




When hurricane Floyd hit NY back in Sept. 1999. It was the homeowners
with chain saws that cleared the local roads before the highway
department could get there. I was there with my chain saw, even though I
had a 50 foot Wild Cherry down in my yard. We dumped the wood on the
side of the road for the highway department to pick it up. There wasn't
much left after the fireplace owners took most of it away.

I lived in Saranac Lake, NY for two winters (few miles from Lake
Placid ).

Always seemed to me the snow plows found the downed trees on public
roads first Employees could not get to work, thus needing to mandate
overtime for the un-lucky person.

Maybe a few locals carried chainsaws, not everyone. A downed tree was
good reason to call in to work


--
Oren

"The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!"

"Harry K" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 26, 5:29 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

"HeyBub" wrote:

Swimming pool, generator, pump?

With a fire that is not all that contained by multiple 1500 gpm
pumpers using tanker shuttles? Good luck.


Don't worry about that. Cigarette smokers are some of the most responsible

You are full of crap the smokers are most irresponsible jerks that toes
cigarettes out of windows while driving down the road and that is fact
I leave in New Jersey and we have at least two to three fires every
summer and there is no arsons on this part of hwy but traffic fling through
and I saw same thing in other places so don't gave people some bulls because
you are smoker


people on the planet. Be worried about arson.

But it only takes one. The big three in wildfires last time I looked
around were lightening, cigs, and arsons.

Right. Anecdotal but I have seen personally two fires started by
cigs. One I came on just as it was getting started in the barrow
ditch about 6 miles from the house. I had nothing to fight it with so
beat feet to a phone. The other was right on my property edge. I
wasn't aware of it until I saw all the flashing lights and trucks
chasing it up my fence row.

Fires started by cigs are common and smokers are _not_ "some of the
most responsible people....".

Harry K

wrote in message
...
I dont live in or near California, but I am constantly seeing
disasters in that state which in my opinion are due to stupidity in
construction. Why so the building inspectors allow buildings to be
built on steep hillsides? How many of these homes have slid down the
hills in recent years? From watching the news, it would seem that
there have been many. Now we have this firestorm. I do understand
that the firestorm is a natural disaster (except those intentionally
set according to the news reports).

The part that gets me is why are so many homes burning? We live in a
time when every wirenut in our electrical system needs to be approved,
and we can not even erect a simple shed without some sort of approval
to insure it's safe. Installing a wood stove involves a major amount
of paperwork, inspections, and most insurance companies won't even
allow them without a huge increase in the cost of the policy.

I do understand that we all need to be safe, and the average homeowner
needs to be inspected since most people do not know proper building
methods, and there are lots of professional contractors who want to
make an extra buck and use inferior materials or cut corners which can
be a safety risk. At the same time, some of these rules can be
rediculous and very nit-picky, causing added expense and hassles to
the home owner.

With that said, it seems that the biggest reasons for these major
fires in CA are not faulty wiring or causes INSIDE the home, but these
firestorms. Therefore, would it not make sense to require a certain
amount of open (mowed) space around buildings in areas prone to these
firestorms, or at least prevent them from burning the buildings.

It seems to me that the inspectors overdo it as far as small details
within homes but ignore the external causes. Not everyone is the
country is in a firestorm area, but those that are should be reqired
to maintain some space. This only makes sense.

And if you are so senseless that you don't understand the math of arsonists
plus one hundred mile an hour winds equals disaster, anything I say wouldn't
give you a clue as to what's going on.

This is a troll, right?

I thought so.

Adios. plonk

Steve