See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Bloodthirsty Liberal » Only You Can Prevent Media Misinformation
2. Right Voices » Blog Archive » Open Thread
3. LATimes Endangers Firefighters with Bad Advice to Public | The Trash Dispatch
4. Michelle Malkin » Paging the Los Angeles Times Department of Corrections
5. angeles car los repair
6. angeles car los repair

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On October 29th, 2007 at 10:00 am, Marshall Russ said:

   Read the article at American Thinker by John Berlau,”The Environmentalist Fires”. More enviro-craziness at the root of the huge losses of property. Makes your hair hurt.

2. #2
   On October 29th, 2007 at 10:03 am, Tennessee Dave said:

   If you go to an emergency shelter:

   You can expect the shelter to provide food, bottled water, cots and blankets.

   That is, of course, if the shelter hasn’t been targeted by illegals who want to steal the supplies and re-sell them at a profit.

3. #3
   On October 29th, 2007 at 10:04 am, 30 pcs of silver said:

   Losers’
   Attempt
   To
   Inform
   Masses
   Equates to
   Sludge

4. #4
   On October 29th, 2007 at 10:05 am, 30 pcs of silver said:

   Hey, that didn’t come out right at all. Well you guys get my drift.

5. #5
   On October 29th, 2007 at 10:06 am, Mixer14 said:

   Don’t believe everything you read in the papers!

   I find it interesting that you should leave your fireplace damper open. Wouldn’t that aide the fire if it starts inside inside your house or let burning embers in from the strong winds outside?

   I know the article is written with the point of view that the danger is very imminent. I do wonder if the LA Times gives out preparatory advice for fire season earlier in the year - much like the St. Petersburg Times gives out at the beginning of hurricane season - and I wonder if it includes clearing brush, dead wood and leaves/pine needles from your property.

6. #6
   On October 29th, 2007 at 10:15 am, Marshall Russ said:

   Mixer14: If you clear brush around your property you could go to jail!

7. #7
   On October 29th, 2007 at 10:20 am, On-my-soap-box said:

   Could you use the LAT to back-burn? It HAS to be good for something!

8. #8
   On October 29th, 2007 at 10:20 am, pressto said:

   Warning: Believing the MSM can be hazardous to your health.

   I take EVERYTHING I read in the media with a grain of salt now.

9. #9
   On October 29th, 2007 at 11:05 am, radio relay said:

   Oh boy, the mother hens in the leftwing media are always there to give you “advice” on how to live your life!!

   Then, take zero responsibility for the damage their advice causes!

10. #10
    On October 29th, 2007 at 11:05 am, terrig said:

    Marshall, are you serious? That is so stupid. For one thing, it’s your property and secondly, what if you don’t want brush around your landscaping (I’ll admit, I’m not a person who has good luck with her landscaping) so dead brush is what’s generally around anyway. Whose dumb idea was that?

11. #11
    On October 29th, 2007 at 12:36 pm, desertdweller said:

    They must have hired the New Republic’s “Fact Checkers.”

12. #12
    On October 29th, 2007 at 12:42 pm, ScottyDog said:

    On October 29th, 2007 at 11:05 am, terrig said:

    At Lake Tahoe they will fine you if you do not get permission to clear brush from the environmental agency and they rarely issue permits.

    Marshall is correct.

13. #13
    On October 29th, 2007 at 12:49 pm, in_awe said:

    Marshall, are you serious? That is so stupid. For one thing, it’s your property and secondly, what if you don’t want brush around your landscaping so dead brush is what’s generally around anyway. Whose dumb idea was that?

    Welcome to California. Fire clearance rules in California are pretty strict with high fines for not keeping brush back from structures - and the county will send in a crew to do the clearance and bill you for it. However, in some areas either the Coastal Commission or enviros can control what you do on your own property.

    I owned some 1-1/2 acres of raw land that was zoned for semi-rural residential development in Sonoma county near SF. It had native grasses growing on it that we wanted to keep cut back, but the enviros filed an endangered species act lawsuit. It said that the tiger salamander might live on the property and that anything we did to alter the landscape might cause the extinction of the critter. So, for almost two years we were prohibited from clearing the brush while a tiger salamander survey was done in a wide area of the county to determine if in fact our land was the last refuge for said creature. Meanwhile the brush grew to over 6 feet in height and should it have caught fire, the nearby condo complex would have gone up in flames. Guess who would then have been sued for negligence in maintaining a safe property? As soon as the ban was lifted we sold the land and invested elsewhere.

    OT
    Last week the OC Register reported that the county wants to repair weakened existing levees along the coast near some residential developments before the hoped for winter storms come. Because the levees are within 5 miles of the ocean, the Coastal Commission must grant permission to act. Requests were filed months agao, but they are creeping along in that bureacracy as we approach our rainy season. The county board is now expected to OK the work immediately without the Coastal Commission permits and just pay the steep Coastal Commission fines later. So we have one government agency delaying another government agency from acting in the best interest of the citizens and then agency #1 forces taxpayers of the other agency to pay fines for having done the right thing. Arrgghh!

14. #14
    On October 29th, 2007 at 1:02 pm, LarryD said:

    Marshall: If you clear brush around your property you could go to jail!

    terrig: Whose dumb idea was that?

    ScottyDog: At Lake Tahoe they will fine you if you do not get permission to clear brush from the environmental agency and they rarely issue permits.

    And somewhere last week, I read that at least one development had a codicil or some such thing prohibiting brush clearing. And the Sierra Club et al have filed lawsuits interfering with clearing brush and dead trees.

15. #15
    On October 29th, 2007 at 1:15 pm, GaijinBob said:

    It’s true. Fuel abatement measures recommended by fire departments can actually be illegal if there are certain animals on your property. See here about the 1992 Riverside fires and the kangaroo rat.

16. #16
    On October 29th, 2007 at 1:36 pm, in_awe said:

    OT

    I’m just recalling that clearing brush and trees from concrete storm water channels was stopped for years in OC because enviros filed lawsuits that claimed that the marsh grasses and trees that sprouted in the flood channels had created a riparian environment that must be maintained for the benefit of the creatures that now called them home.

    The significant impairment of the flow of flood waters and the danger to nearby residents caused by these dense patches of growth was claimed to be of secondary interest. Isn’t that what taxpayer supported federal flood insurance is for??

    In my college years in the early 1970’s I was an environemntal politics major, but as I realized that the environmental laws were being usurpted by others bent on stopping suburban and rural development for idealogical reasons I left the fold. If you look at the stands taken by groups like the Sierra Club, NRDC and others they have strayed far from the path of protecting the environment, and use environmental issues to fill their coffers for unrelated political action.

17. #17
    On October 29th, 2007 at 2:18 pm, LarryD said:

    American Thinker has an essay today on this very subject:

    The tragedy is that this shows that not much has changed even after previous warnings from experts that environmental rules were on a collision course with fire safety in California and many other places, because they prevented the removal of “excess fuel” for fires from dense stands of trees and vegetation. Southern California homes were lost in 1993 after the federal Fish and Wildlife Service told homeowners that mechanical clearing of brush would likely violate the Endangered Species Act. The reason: it could alter the habitat of a newly-listed endangered species called the Stephens kangaroo rat.

    Some exemptions were made, and clarifications were issued, but landowners still face the lingering risk that the simple act of building a firebreak can send them down the river if an endangered species is anywhere near their property. California’s Blue Ribbon Fire Commission, which had been created after wildfires in 2003 by then-Governor Gray Davis and whose members included Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., as well as state legislators of both parties, concluded that “habitat preservation and environmental protection have often conflicted with sound fire safe planning.”

18. #18
    On October 29th, 2007 at 3:06 pm, Marshall Russ said:

    #15 is referencing the article I talked about in #1 published at American Thinker. These people that have gone to the liberal courts and blocked homeowners and businesses are the same people that want to use the nonsense about “man made” global warming to stifle growth in this country. Once policies are put in place they are very hard to remove, even if they prove to do more harm than good.

19. #19
    On October 30th, 2007 at 1:05 am, SteveG said:

    It is pretty common to find that fire department regulations are secondary to those of the state fish and game and/or the federal government in the event of conflict.

    I half kiddingly tell new clients from out of state that they’ll do more time for killing a salamander than they will for drunk driving.

    Federal emergency declarations usually allow for expeditious fire clearing. You can use a blanket FEIR (federal environmental impact report) for clearing areas that have been pre surveyed and tagged.

    Mechanical brush clearing is a fine idea, but the terrain here rarely allows for it… and there are already lots of fuelbreaks in the easy areas.
    Herbicides don’t work well at all on the more flammable types of chapparal and at best they work but just leave a 15 foot high dead bush for the next 10 years.
    Goats just eat a tunnel since the trunk wood is so hard and oily.
    Controlled burns cannot be implemented on a large scale. Chapparal smolders in humidities above 30% and under 30% the fires can get out of control. Chapparal has evolved to burn hot and fast.
    The Air Quality Management District rules do not allow burns on most days. Fire regulations based on humidity and winds work to deny most of what is left.
    Convict hand labor with chain saws and chippers is the way to go… but that is often opposed by environmental groups or even a lawsuit brought by a landowner.
    In the end, even a 400 meter fuelbreak lasts less than a minute in 70 MPH winds with 5% humidity.

    My advice is do the best you can on clearance… get rid of the plastic trash cans, Rubbermaid type tool storage, wood fences, fire wood, junipers and Italian cypress from under the eaves. Close the doors and windows, get the pets, kids and important papers in the car and get the hell out before the firefighters do. If you see the professionals rolling up the hoses, you are risking your life.

20. #20
    On October 30th, 2007 at 9:53 am, Marshall Russ said:

    Good article over at TCSDaily by Ralph Kinney Bennett,”Damn Those Humans” about the subject. Once again according to liberals it’s always our fault.