From: no_offline_contact@example.com   
      
   On 2025-12-21 4:17 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   > BTR1701  wrote:   
   >> moviePig  wrote:   
   >   
   >>>> . . .   
   >   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > While moviePig is being an unsympathetic jerk here, I will comment that   
   > humans should not live surrounded by these forests subject to wildfire   
   > and will expect to be burned out at some point.   
   >   
   > In this case, given that the decision had been made decades ago to allow   
   > this home construction, then there was no choice but to use mechanical   
   > means to smother the fire and not to allow it to smoulder till it became   
   > a threat to human life, despite consequences for conservation. Too late   
   > for that consideration as the presence of human settlement had forever   
   > changed the forest.   
   >   
   > But the town doesn't have to be rebuilt where it is subject to wildfire.   
      
   You could also turn that around and observe that cutting back the   
   underbrush near people's houses would actually be a clever idea to   
   minimize the risk of fire to those newly rebuilt homes. Also, keeping   
   the reservoirs filled would be handy, ESPECIALLY during the Santa Ana   
   winds. Oh, and hiring a fire chief for his/her skill rather than to win   
   Diversity Awards would be better.   
      
   --   
   Rhino   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)