From: atropos@mac.com   
      
   On Dec 22, 2025 at 9:55:28 AM PST, "Rhino"    
   wrote:   
      
   > On 2025-12-21 10:22 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:   
   >>  On Dec 21, 2025 at 6:05:26 PM PST, "Rhino"    
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>  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.   
   >>   
   >>  The state is actually required by law to do that and hadn't in years,   
   >> despite   
   >>  calls from residents complaining about it.   
   >>   
   >>  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.   
   >>   
   >>>  Also, keeping the reservoirs filled would be handy, ESPECIALLY during the   
   >>>  Santa Ana   
   >>>  winds.   
   >>   
   >>  The state is now claiming against all science and just plain common sense   
   >> that   
   >>  the empty reservoir is irrelevant because having an extra 117 million   
   >> gallons   
   >>  on hand would have made no difference when the hydrants ran dry.   
   >>   
   > Huh? Weren't the hydrants getting their water FROM that reservoir? If   
   > so, the emptiness of the reservoir is EXTREMELY relevant!   
      
   No, the hydrants were supplied by an auxiliary 3-million gallon tank, which   
   ran dry after eight hours. The 117-million gallon Santa Ynez reservoir was   
   empty the entire time, having been inexplicably drained to repair a hole in   
   its cover. Extrapolating from how long the auxiliary tank lasted, the   
   reservoir would have provided 936 hours (39 days) worth of water to fight the   
   fire.   
      
   But Gavvy says nope. Nothing to see here.   
      
   >>>  Oh, and hiring a fire chief for his/her skill rather than to win   
   >>>  Diversity Awards would be better.   
   >>   
   >>  Even before we get to that, we should start by electing a mayor based on   
   >>  competency and ability rather than skin color and genitals.   
   >>   
   > Agreed!!!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)