From: nobody@nowhere.com
On 12/21/2025 3:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> moviePig wrote:
>> On 12/21/2025 9:20 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>> On 2025-12-20 11:37 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> The area where the Palisades Fire initially started was in Topanga Park--
>>>> state land-- a week before the wall of fire that consumed the town.
>>>> Plaintiffs
>>>> attorneys were finally able to obtain-- via court order-- a document
>>>> from the
>>>> State of California's parks Department entitled "Topanga Park Wildfire
>>>> Mitigation Plan", which states:
>>>>
>>>> The intent of this wildlife management plan is to provide a
>>>> framework for
>>>>
>>>> (1) Preventing unwanted wildfire events through fuel
modification
>>>> and planning, and
>>>>
>>>> (2) Protecting unique landscapes and enhancing wildlife
habitat
>>>> through vegetation management.
>>>>
>>>> Recognizing that fire is nature's way of creating renewal in
forest
>>>> lands and occasional burns are necessary to preserve
ecosystems,
>>>> unless specified otherwise, State Parks prefers to let Topanga
>>>> State
>>>> Park burn in a wildfire event.
>>>>
>>>> Topanga State Park has 26 special status plant species and 21
>>>> special status animal species. The area covered by Topanga
State
>>>> Park has not burned in more than 50 years. To restore the
natural
>>>> fire frequency and chaparral habitats, Topanga State Park
should be
>>>> left to burn within reasonable public safety limits and
outside
>>>> of fire
>>>> exclusion zones. State park officials, not fire officials, will determine
>>>> what reasonable public safety limits are.
>>>>
>>>> Avoidance Areas-- Avoidance areas are where no heavy
equipment,
>>>> vehicles, or flame retardant are permitted to be used to fight a
>>>> wildfire.
>>>>
>>>> This is why, when LAFD brought in bulldozers to work the remaining
>>>> hotspots
>>>> after the January 1 fire was mostly extinguished, a state park
>>>> official vetoed
>>>> it and told them no further work was allowed due to presence of the
>>>> endangered
>>>> milk vetch plant. A week later, under high winds, the smoldering area
>>>> reignited and became a blazing inferno that consumed Pacific Palisades.
>>>>
>>>> The neighborhoods of Casta la Mare and Palisades Highlands
>>>> lie along the southern border of Topanga State Park. These
>>>> neighborhoods are at significant risk during a wildfire
event. When
>>>> wildfire poses a threat, suppression techniques, especially
with
>>>> heavy equipment, are the main concern due to their effect on
>>>> special status flora and fauna and should be avoided in these
>>>> areas.
>>>>
>>>> So they *expressly* acknowledge the danger to these residential areas and
>>>> nevertheless made it official state policy-- written down in a policy
>>>> manual--
>>>> that little to no firefighting equipment or techniques would be
>>>> allowed to be
>>>> employed in those areas in the event of a wildfire. They purposely
>>>> prioritized
>>>> the survival of some weeds and rodents over the property and lives of the
>>>> residents of the area.
>>>>
>>>> Avoidance areas should be shared with Incident Command but
>>>> measures should be taken to keep the information confidential.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, we don't want the public-- especially the residents of
>>>> these
>>>> neighborhoods-- to know we're sacrificing their homes and perhaps even
>>>> their
>>>> lives to preserve a weed whose absence no one would even notice if it
>>>> disappeared tomorrow.
>>>>
>>>> What happened on January 7th was a direct result of Gavin Newsom's
>>>> state park
>>>> policy on dealing with wildfires. Apparently to the residents of the
>>>> Palisades, it was reasonable to Gavin Newsom's administration to let
>>>> the whole
>>>> town burn in order to save some scrub plants.
>>>>
>>>> When Gavin runs for president, anyone who challenges him, should throw
>>>> this in
>>>> his face and make him explain why his government let 7000 homes burn
>>>> and 12
>>>> people die by turning away firefighters and forbidding them from
>>>> putting out
>>>> the fire when they had the chance in order to protect an ugly weed.
>>>> And while
>>>> they're at it, ask why he set up such an idiotic system in the first
>>>> place
>>>> where park rangers have veto authority over trained firefighters at
>>>> the scenes
>>>> of dangerous wildfires.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I don't suppose further digging would find documents authored and signed
>>> by Newsom that prove beyond reasonable doubt that he KNEW there was a
>>> grievous risk to property and life and still prioritized plants and
>>> critters. THAT would be real slam dunk on his career and maybe even put
>>> him in the slammer. But weasels like Newsom always think about plausible
>>> deniability and leave their signatures off things that could bite them
>>> in the ass. At best, some underling is made the fall guy while the Big
>>> Cheese just pretends to be appalled at what the flunkie did.
>>
>> If "plants and critters" are never "prioritized", say goodbye to them.
>
> Wherein moviePig explicitly endorses the idea that at least sometimes it's
> appropriate to let people die if it means some rodents might otherwise
> perish.
Pssst, try addressing what I said, sans "wherein explicitly etc. ..."
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
