From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   BTR1701  wrote:   
   >Dec 21, 2025 at 6:05:26 PM PST, "Rhino" :   
   >>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.   
      
   >The state is actually required by law to do that and hadn't in years,   
   >despite calls from residents complaining about it.   
      
   This is the fundamental issue. In nature, fire would have routinely   
   cleared away underbrush, improving the health of the forest and   
   preventing its complete destruction. In fact, the plants being   
   "protected", if truly beneficial to the ecosystem, would have come back   
   naturally. But this is no longer natural forest as people live there, so   
   mechanical means are required to clear umderbrush and smother smoldering   
   fires, because unnatural landscapes inadequately managed are subject to   
   total destruction.   
      
   How to manage a forest properly that requires management has been well   
   known for decades.   
      
   >They go around fining residents who don't maintain their brush according to   
   >legal standards, but they themselves don't bother to obey the law.   
      
   >Just one more reason Newsom and Bass will be destroyed in court over this. I   
   >can't even imagine the billions the government will be on the hook for. It's   
   >just too bad we can't throw them in prison for this debacle.   
      
   Why not? A high-ranking government official made a willful choice to   
   allow a smoldering fire not to be suppressed before severe damage would   
   result. That's criminally reckless behavior if not depraved   
   indifference.   
      
   >>. . .   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)