Right-wing spin: environmentalist policies responsible for larger wildfires

[BushOut06]

I've heard this from at least two separate right-wing talk-shows so far. That is, environmentalists are responsible for some of the wildfires. The spin goes like this: environmentalists oppose clearing dry and dead brush because they want to protect endangered species. The dry brush acts as a kindling, helping the wildfires spread even faster. They claim that property owners have been forbidden by the federal government from clearing dry brush and cutting firebreaks.

I remember them saying the same thing a few years ago during the Lake Tahoe wildfires. What is the best way to counter these kinds of arguments?

[begin_within]

1. Environmentalists realize that fire is part of the natural ecosystem, and that

suppressing fire only causes excessive buildup of fuel, resulting in explosive mega-fires later on.

[BushOut06]

3. That seems like a very logical argument

And one that I've always maintained - forest fires are part of the natural process.

[begin_within]

6. I think the main reason these fires are so huge and cataclysmic is because of

100 years of fire suppression, which has allowed huge amounts of fuel to build up. In a way, the "protection of property rights" has actually resulted in the destruction of property, so it sort of backfired on them. Forests and chaparral lands require periodic fires to "clean them up" and some types of pine trees even require fires to make the pine cones explode and scatter the seeds. I think the argument that RWers make that environmentalists have blocked clearing of brush is weak, because it doesn't agree with the scientific body of knowlege about forests and chaparral ecosystems.

[meegbear]

2. Damn you Spotted Owl!

[BridgeTheGap]

4. I thought Al Qaeda was responsible?

Not the "ecoterrorists"

[porphyrian]

5. Total horseshit. Environmentalists support controlled burning.

Who is blocking that?

[Bitwit1234]

7. I'd say for people who don't believe in global warming,

they sure can tell us how environmentalists acted wrong. They know how to take care of the environment better than scientist. Gee the know it all republican raises it's head again.

[Robbien]

8. This propaganda had to begin, the word is getting out that the Feds are underprepared

The Feds have underfunded all fire prevention equipment and personnel. Right wingers have to start the diversion campaign.

Blame the treehuggers why not says the GOPers.

[Arkansas Granny]

9. I've heard talk on the news this morning that a couple of years ago

there was an unusually wet winter in the area which caused a lot of vegetation to grow. Even Death Valley bloomed. Now those plants have died and they are still on the ground as very dry tinder. This means a large amount of fuel for these fires.

[semillama]

10. Not to mention that frequent fires are a part of the natural ecosystem of the chapparal

Sort of like developing an area on the floodplain - sooner or later your stuff will all be wet.

[Arkansas Granny]

12. Yep. Every area of the country carries some risk of damage

from Mother Nature herself. Wind, fire, flood, etc.

[semillama]

13. I consider myself lucky.

Where I grew up, about all we had to worry about were blizzards.

[Maestro]

11. I'd say that if reich-wingers actually listened to

environmentalists and urged more reductions in greenhouse gases, the drought that the West is currently experiencing would not be as severe; therefore, the land would not be as dry and prone to fire. Also fire is a normal occurrence, but exacerbated by man's effect on global climate.