Forest fires and EPA stupidity
The environmental nut-jobs have taken their brand of stupidity to new and previously unimagined heights. Check this out:
Lost in the images of aircraft dropping giant red plumes of retardant on a Colorado wildfire this week is the fact that the practice may not be legal under federal environmental laws.
A federal judge in July declared that the government's current plan for dropping retardant on fires is illegal, and he gave the U.S. Forest Service until the end of next year to find a more environmentally friendly alternative.
The aerial assaults have become a permanent fixture of television and media coverage of wildfires in recent years as planes and helicopters drop big loads of red chemicals over blazes. But environmentalists say the efforts are essentially public relations stunts that can send millions of gallons of hazardous chemicals into waterways while doing little to contain fires.
The Associated Press: Fire retardant drops come under scrutiny in West
So… Would the environmentalists prefer the fire? What about all the wildlife death that goes along with it? I don't think fires discriminate between endangered and non-endangered species.
Andy Stahl of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, argued his case by telling the court any farmer that puts fertilizer into a creek or river knows he can go to jail for it. It would appear this clueless idiot cannot tell the difference between farming and fire fighting. I wonder if any of these idiots considered the collateral damage from the forest fire. From what I remember the ash, heat thinned tree sap and charred debris poisons the streams and lakes far more thoroughly then over splash form a slurry drop.
What is even more shocking then Stahl's stupidity is that a federal judge actually signed off on it. Last July U.S. District Judge Donald W. Molloy gave the forest service to the end of 2012 to come up with something more environmentally friendly. Does that mean we have to stop slurry drops on wild fires beginning in 2013? If that is the case, California and the southwest are going to have a hellacious 2013 fire season.
So the environmentalists believe human lives and property are to be allowed to burn rather then risk collateral damage from a slurry drop. Think these clowns might want that slurry drop if they or their homes happened to be in the immediate path of a fire?
I wanted to pursue information on the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, but nothing comes up on Google other then the news stories about this case. Guess their idea of the web is something strung between two trees in a forest.
If our country goes down the crapper, one of the root causes is going to this casting aside common sense in favor of extremist ideology.
I resent the fact that people in places like Boston, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco believe that they should be able to tell us how to live our lives, operate our businesses, and what to do with the land that we love and cherish.
- Wilford Brimley