Sunday, October 11, 2015
Guess verified /// Edit: Not quite.
During the extreme fires this summer I noted the dramatic difference between BC and Wash. North of the border fires started but remained small. Here in Wash all fires exploded wildly. I made several guesses. One of them has now been exactly verified:
The U.S. Forest Service wants more controlled burns in Washington forests to help make them more resistant to summer wildfires. But ... rules administered by the state Department of Natural Resources are a roadblock to this fire prevention approach in Washington. The state rules that keep this firefighting tool from being used more often in Washington include rules aimed at keeping smoke from driving into communities. That is why the Forest Service has carried out burns on far fewer acres in Washington than in Oregon, Montana, Idaho and California.The state Destroyer of Natural Resources is the worst enemy of forests. It prevents farmers and firemen from fighting fires, it "protects" "endangered" species by burning them. Its sole goal in life is to burn everything. Maximum chaos, maximum evil. Monsters, monsters, monsters. = = = = = Later: I looked back at what I wrote before. In fact I didn't include more controlled burns among the guesses. I thought about it, but the forest density looked the same so I didn't write it. I was correct in assuming that government made the difference, but not in listing the exact difference. ¶ 10:38 AM
