THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: one_less who wrote (15013)	6/19/2002 4:49:17 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) of 21057

That could have been a rerun from 13-14 years ago, that particular debate was much in the news circa the Yellowstone fires in '88 or so. But the topic seems to be heating up again, as it were. I assume it's most likely true. But the Forest Service is mostly run for the benefit of lumber companies. In general the FS manages to lose money overall on timber sales, by spending more building roads than they get from the timber companies for their environmentally friendly clear-cutting enhancements of federal forests. Remember the big Oakland Hills fire from the '90s? Then there was the Los Alamos "controlled burn" that sort of got out of control. I found this site with a lot of forestry news clips that seems to have several fairly recent stories on the matter, I guess it's in vogue fs.fed.us ( see fs.fed.us and fs.fed.us for example) Just for esteemed sometimes moderator LL, a link from a source he might like: reason.com The Forest Service's realization that fire suppression has contributed to fewer but more intense and destructive fires brings the agency more into line hard-core environmentalist thinking, which favors a "let it burn" policy. Can't quite tell if they're for or agin' it.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next