Daines, Newhouse, and other R Senators with some bold words regarding public lands

[SAJ-99]

And still feel that we need less government.

You reference the government like it is external entity from another galaxy.It is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. It is us. rules and laws that we agree to live by. We make mistakes, and nothing is perfect, but less rules and laws doesn't seem like a great solution. I think we tried that originally- a capitalism free-for-all where we assumed corporations would do what is right. It didn't work out too well for the environment. We may have swung too far the other direction, but let's not blame "the government" in a way that abdicates us of responsibility.

 

[Irrelevant]

According to the article you cited, logging was not the cause of this mud slide because permitting did not allow it to go ahead - and yet the hillside came down anyways.

Of course the right answer is not "no permits" but don't mislead yourself that more "system" or "oversight" will solve everything either. Somewhere like California might need a fair bit more logging, somewhere like Montana might need less. We might need to address international trade to make sure those mills can make a profit on sustainable harvested lumber.

It's a challenging problem, I think a good start is figuring out how to hold the people in charge responsible and reducing the impact of legal obstruction.

In October 2016, survivors and the victims' families reached settlements with the State of Washington and a timber company, Grandy Lake Forest Associates, for $50 million and $10 million respectively.[40]

While it's not completely black and white, and almost never is in geologic events, due to size and heterogeneity, logging absolutely contributed

 

[CoffeeGoat]

In October 2016, survivors and the victims' families reached settlements with the State of Washington and a timber company, Grandy Lake Forest Associates, for $50 million and $10 million respectively.[40]

While it's not completely black and white, and almost never is in geologic events, due to size and heterogeneity, logging absolutely contributed

Therein lies the rub, there was someone who could be sued, so they were. Who do you sue when the logging doesn't get done and your house burns down.

 

[SAJ-99]

Therein lies the rub, there was someone who could be sued, so they were. Who do you sue when the logging doesn't get done and your house burns down.

Good news. Department of interior estimates that 90% of wildland fires are caused by people. So there is a good chance there is someone to sue. If you are in the unlucky 10%, that is what insurance is for.

 

[CoffeeGoat]

Good news. Department of interior estimates that 90% of wildland fires are caused by people. So there is a good chance there is someone to sue. If you are in the unlucky 10%, that is what insurance is for.

By that logic why don't we just sue the city, they shouldn't haves given the permits to build the house originally. If only they'd had more reviews, or open hearings perhaps it would have been solved in committee. My guess is that the shaman from California doesn't have the money to make me whole if she burns down my house - or kills my family.

It's easy to say more government, it's easy to say no government. Both are stupid arguments and not worth having. The challenge is that we have incidences of natural resource management that can/should be done and a lawyer can hold it up in court indefinitely, all the while the problem is getting worse.

 

[Irrelevant]

It's easy to say more government, it's easy to say no government. Both are stupid arguments and not worth having. The challenge is that we have incidences of natural resource management that can/should be done and a lawyer can hold it up in court indefinitely, all the while the problem is getting worse.

I agree

 

[SAJ-99]

By that logic why don't we just sue the city, they shouldn't haves given the permits to build the house originally. If only they'd had more reviews, or open hearings perhaps it would have been solved in committee. My guess is that the shaman from California doesn't have the money to make me whole if she burns down my house - or kills my family.

It's easy to say more government, it's easy to say no government. Both are stupid arguments and not worth having. The challenge is that we have incidences of natural resource management that can/should be done and a lawyer can hold it up in court indefinitely, all the while the problem is getting worse.

Agree with the last part. The first part is a bit of a stretch. Under you argument, people seem to want to move to the woods to get away from things and enjoy the beauty, and have enough trees "thinned" to prevent a forest fire from destroying their home, but still maintain the beauty they seek. That is a tough ask. Cutting trees doesn't stop wildfires, so the premise is flawed. I see plenty of logging in Montana, plenty of oil and gas wells on public land, plenty of grazing on public land. I just have to home we are getting paid a fair price but not destroying the very nature of the place for money.

Edit: and city dwellers pay insurance premiums too, so yes they pay for your house if it burns down. Many have made an argument that they shouldn't given those people chose to live in fire-prone forest.

 

[406dn]

Edit: and city dwellers pay insurance premiums too, so yes they pay for your house if it burns down. Many have made an argument that they shouldn't given those people chose to live in fire-prone forest.

While we do not live around trees, we are far enough from town to where our home insurance is priced higher. Generally speaking, I would agree that the "risk" should be borne by the person choosing to live in fire prone forested areas.

It is an ask to have firefighters risk their lives to protect those homes and for the public to spend large sums of money trying to save those homes.

 

[Akcabin]

While we do not live around trees, we are far enough from town to where our home insurance is priced higher. Generally speaking, I would agree that the "risk" should be borne by the person choosing to live in fire prone forested areas.

It is an ask to have firefighters risk their lives to protect those homes and for the public to spend large sums of money trying to save those homes.

We pay a lot in my opinion of federal taxes every year. Which some of goes to the division of forestry for forest fire mitigation. Kinda like saying I don't have kids so shouldn't have to pay taxes for schools.
Hey I don't expect the government to hold my hand for anything. But basic public safety yes

 

[Straight Arrow]

Which some of goes to the division of forestry for forest fire mitigation.

True, but a mere pittance compared to money paid for fire suppression, which comes close to bankrupting funds for fire mitigation programs, weed control, road maintenance, trail clearing and repair, campground maintenance and improvements, law enforcement and a myriad of other needs to which we would rather contribute our tax dollars.

 

[Irrelevant]

True, but a mere pittance compared to money paid for fire suppression, which comes close to bankrupting funds for fire mitigation programs, weed control, road maintenance, trail clearing and repair, campground maintenance and improvements, law enforcement and a myriad of other needs to which we would rather contribute our tax dollars.

I find it humorous when people complain that we import lumber from Canada instead of increasing logging domestically, but they don't realize the Canada grossly subsidizes their commercial timber production thus keeping their prices below our true market values.

If people want more logging and they want to continue to support capitalism at the retail level, then there has to be more subsidies at the production level... which means higher taxes, and that's just unAmerican

 

[SAJ-99]

I find it humorous when people complain that we import lumber from Canada instead of increasing logging domestically, but they don't realize the Canada grossly subsidizes their commercial timber production thus keeping their prices below our true market values.

If people want more logging and they want to continue to support capitalism at the retail level, then there has to be more subsidies at the production level... which means higher taxes, and that's just unAmerican

There you go again, bringing reality into the discussion. Please stay on the narrative- Eco-terrorist liberals are causing forest fires and every tree that burns could have been a US job.

 

[Irrelevant]

There you go again, bringing reality into the discussion. Please stay on the narrative- Eco-terrorist liberals are causing forest fires and every tree that burns could have been a US job.

My bad.

Damn the Clintons!

 

[CoffeeGoat]

I find it humorous when people complain that we import lumber from Canada instead of increasing logging domestically, but they don't realize the Canada grossly subsidizes their commercial timber production thus keeping their prices below our true market values.

If people want more logging and they want to continue to support capitalism at the retail level, then there has to be more subsidies at the production level... which means higher taxes, and that's just unAmerican

Don't forget regulatory burden affects the "true market price" of commodities. I can't speak for lumber, but for things like rare earth metals and solar panels which are broadly "not made here," it is because it's expensive to overcome the regulatory burden. Places like China have much less stringent labor laws and environmental constraints which even without discussing governmental subsidies makes them much less expensive. Don't get me wrong, in all for labor laws and environmental protection laws, but there is a level that is reasonable and a level that is just nimby obstructionism.

 

[SAJ-99]

Don't get me wrong, in all for labor laws and environmental protection laws, but there is a level that is reasonable and a level that is just nimby obstructionism.

I think we agree, but isn't the process robust enough to find where that level is? We can't just assume that if we don't get what we think is reasonable then its "nimby obstructionism", and we can't conclude that legal action should be impossible. At some point, we may want the legal process to work for us. I am not naive enough to think that rational thought will dominate any time soon. But it is something to aspire to.