default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Logout|My Dashboard

Letter: Environmentalists are not helping our national forests

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, August 31, 2013 12:00 am

It’s been some years since I read a report on national forests and the danger of mega-fires due to neglecting forest undergrowth. Seems our environmental nuts feel that clearing out this undergrowth wouldn’t be “natural,” especially if the evil species of mankind had anything to do with it.

In this article it had quotes from the early settlers of this country that described the forests as park-like — even manicured. Why? Because the Indians used this undergrowth for building and heating their lodges, cooking their food, etc. The early settlers continued this practice. The article said that if the environmentalists succeeded in keeping man out of wilderness areas, as they have, there would be fires the size of whole states. And with that kind of fuel from the undergrowth, there would be nothing our brave firefighters could do to stop it.

Like the majority of liberal ideologies, the extreme environmentalists who push junk science — like global warming — on us always end up harming or killing the very things they say they’re trying to save. But they mean well, they say. Tell that to the people in the Sierras whose lives and homes are threatened by “enviro-crazies’” regulations.

These “experts” tell us that the greatest enemy of the earth is humankind. For once, I agree; they’re called environmentalists.

Ron Portal


Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • Frederick Goethel posted at 8:38 pm on Mon, Sep 2, 2013.

    Frederick Goethel Posts: 51

    Fire ecologists (i.e. environmentalists) have been advocating allowing natural fires to burn since the seventies. It is the man made fires that need to be stopped, as they are not natural.

    The irony in this letter is that the National Park Service is not allowing much fire fighting in Yosemite, as they recognize the need for such fires. It is the National Forest Service that is working in double overtime. The reason is simple...fires cause a loss of timber that they can sell. So, in reality, it is not the environmentalists that are causing the extinguishment, but the capitalists. And, as for clearing out the under brush etc, it is an impossible task without fire...there is simply too much acreage to do it with any technique other than fire.

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 3:48 pm on Mon, Sep 2, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    I know the feeling, Mr. Paglia.

    I've been there before when a now infrequent commenter enjoyed calling me "Ms. Collateral Damage."

    Tragedies occur, and fortunately my family has not been subjected to things like hurricanes, floods, wildfires, earthquakes, etc.

    But when one trades the downside to living in areas subject to these occurrences they MUST know the possibilities that exist.

    I was listening to an interview on NPR the other day with a woman who owns a bar in Groveland. Asked if she ever considered giving it up and moving to an area free from the hazards of fires like the Rim fire, she responded, "Absolutely not!" I don't care how many times we have to rebuild, we are not leaving. We couldn't imagine living anywhere else."

    If someone wants to call me heartless, fine. Heartless would be forcing this woman and others like her to move somewhere else.

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 3:39 pm on Mon, Sep 2, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488


  • Kevin Paglia posted at 4:57 pm on Sun, Sep 1, 2013.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2106

    My College background was in Forestry (outdoor recreation) and it was emphasized the need for BALANCE. Many things in nature NEED fire as Ms. Bobin said. It opens ground up for fresh growth, allows seeds to germinate and even recycles nutrients back into the growth cycle. BUT when mankind interferes and suppresses fires to the point that wildfires don't happen then we get the result of the Rim fire or The Yellowstone fire in 1988 (I was fortunate to get a behind the scenes look at the long term affects of the fire). Wiki has a great write-up on Yellowstone fire as well.

    Mankind need to learn to work WITH nature not against it.

  • Kevin Paglia posted at 4:52 pm on Sun, Sep 1, 2013.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2106

    "If they lose property in the process we can only say that they knew the risks."

    Careful Ms. Bobin. When we still posted under made-up user names I made a similar statement and the anonymous liberals attacked me for being heartless and a horrible person.

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:50 am on Sun, Sep 1, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Ron...would love to have a link to this "article," or at least a clue what the publication was.

    Seriously...the forests were "groomed?" Perhaps by previous fires?

    Did you know that forest fires are beneficial and are natures way of renewing the forest? That sequoia's cannot reproduce without fire?

    The fact is that humans have chosen to insert themselves into this environment.

    If they lose property in the process we can only say that they knew the risks.


Recent Comments

Posted 12 hours ago by Eric Barrow.

article: Letter: Ron Portal’s letters repeat the…

Ed the US economy is currently the strongest economy in the world. Do you wonder why you still need to play it down or is it that you are j…


Posted 15 hours ago by Shane Marcus.

article: Letter: I enjoy ‘Words to Live By’ in t…

Its not the sin that is in the world, but the sin that is in everyone of us.


Posted 15 hours ago by Mike Adams.

article: Steve Hansen: Driving through the gaunt…

Traffic laws are not much of a deterrent since ticketing rarely occurs. Sure, those who get ticketed think it's a deterrent, but that war…


Posted Yesterday by Steve Schmidt.

article: Steve Hansen: Driving through the gaunt…

I would suggest suicide as a reasonable alternative to a trip to Phoenix. There are worse things than death and that flea pit is one of th…


Posted Yesterday by Steve Schmidt.

article: Steve Hansen: Driving through the gaunt…

Yup Brian. That would be never. I am a gun owner and a vocal supporter of the Second Amendment both here (on numerous threads) and in rea…



Popular Stories



Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists