digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at redgreenandblue.org

700 California Wildfires: Where the Hell Are the Resources?

redgreenandblue.org — Right now, there are 700 wildfires burning in California -- many unattended. Fire departments are working with skeleton crews. Residents are literally being told they're on their own. Where are the resources to save homes and lives?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • davidryal, on 06/26/2008, -31/+13Only rich people get resources from the government. Rich people in large clusters. Those people don't live in forests.
    • Shiftgood, on 06/26/2008, -4/+12i agree with half... people in large clusters. Dont turn this into some elitist game, its just not true.
      • zorpscorp, on 06/26/2008, -4/+3Rich people get their rich friends into political positions. In turn, government gives all sorts of favors for rich people. Nationally, this happens mostly as corporations and lobbyists, but on a smaller scale, rich communities have their way in government.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3They have fires all the time... California probably plans them all out ahead of time just so they're ready for them regardless.

        Also I read somewhere that California uses 50% of all resources consumed by the USA each year.
    • PhantomBantam, on 06/26/2008, -0/+15I really doubt poor people are living in those houses.
      • Shiftgood, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5Im right next to those fires (some of them) i havent seen the sun for 3 days. The people in the Santa Cruz mountains are not rich. And yet, somehow... the firefighters are trying to save their houses... even without looking at their bank statements!

        if someone lives in an obscure rual place with no one else around, they'll probably need to fend for themselves. The needs of many outweigh the needs of 1.
    • BrapAllgood, on 06/26/2008, -0/+7"Rich people in large clusters. Those people don't live in forests."

      Sorry, but this is *****. Big Sur is full of rich people and many have lost their homes, more having been evacuated for safety.

      Blanket statements like yours above aren't especially useful.
    • gimmeslack12, on 06/26/2008, -2/+10I recall Malibu burning pretty good this year and last year and those have Rich People too. Go be ignorant on an Apple thread or something.
    • Monk22, on 06/26/2008, -2/+4"Only rich people get resources from the government"

      welfare? foodstamps? billions in flood assistance?
    • Disgod, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4Less than 2 weeks ago there was a massive fire less than 5 miles from me that was threatening the town of Paradise, which isn't the most prosperous town ever. They fought their asses off to stop that fire before it could get into the town. They fight the first that are going to affect the largest amount of people, sadly that means that individual houses do get screwed over, but it's one of those greater good for the largest amount of people.

      /The first house I ever remember living at was within 50 feet of burning down in that fire, CDF saved it. The fire fighters who fight forest and wild fires are an amazing bunch, they'll work 24 hours a day for days on end in the harshest conditions, I have nothing but respect for those guys. I knew a guy who got over 100 hours of over time in 1 week fighting fires because he never left the line .
    • GliTCH82, on 06/26/2008, -5/+2No, you're doing it wrong, it's because those God hating liberals deserve to have their houses burned to the ground. We shouldn't interfere when God wills it.
  • MarkusGarvey, on 06/26/2008, -15/+151all the resources are in the middle east..DUH...
    • davidryal, on 06/26/2008, -6/+13touche
    • skyscape, on 06/26/2008, -23/+30God is punishing California for passing Gay Marriage. Case closed.
      • insanebrain, on 06/26/2008, -12/+6piss off dumbass.
      • Sowdi, on 06/26/2008, -3/+14He was being sarcastic... douche bag. But just in case he wasn't I've dugg you up anyway.
      • kelly, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6I was going to say piss off for being sarcastic
      • Twee, on 06/26/2008, -0/+9Yeah, just like how Cedar Rapids, Iowa received the great flood after voting for Bush.
    • Wargalas, on 06/26/2008, -10/+4Perhaps it's the idiots who immediately jump on the anti-Iraq war bandwagon, but California has been running a deficit for YEARS. They keep passing socialist program after socialist program without thinking about how to pay for it out of the existing budget.

      This is merely the payment coming due.
      • hypertension, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1Prepare to be dugg down for trashing Socialism!
      • york2600, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3Actually I believe California has been screwed for years since 79 cents per $1 paid in federal taxes actually gets spent in the state. The red states get the tax dollars generated in California. Send California back some of it's tax dollars and perhaps it can sustain its infrastructure.

        http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/ ...
    • sylance, on 06/26/2008, -10/+4Where is it written that fire fighting is a federal issue... you all need to stop blaming the federal government for everything... this is a state issue (just like education is supposed to be.) Oh... but since it's a liberal state they get a pass.

      • j1ggy, on 06/26/2008, -0/+7Troops are useful for things other than world domination you know.
      • Twee, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2***** off.
        • hypertension, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Great typical liberal comeback!
      • ClunkClunk, on 06/26/2008, -2/+5@sylance
        Perhaps you've never heard of the National Guard? They exist in every state and can be called up by the state governor to provide service for state emergencies. They're often used, and actually trained, to be firefighters, provide police services, and take control if martial law is declared in their respective states. However, they're also under the control of the federal government and can be called to service by the President and/or Congress for wartime or other services.

        As such, many California National Guard units are serving overseas in Iraq and particularly, Afghanistan. While the fires may be a 'state issue', many of the state's National Guard resources are tied up in overseas operations and aren't able to provide their services to their state. California certainly has mishandled appropriation of funds to their fire departments, particularly CDF, but the federal government's long term deployments of the National Guard is not helping the situation.

        As for education, I don't believe you've heard of the No Child Left Behind Act, which is a _federal_ law governing education. States have little choice but to comply, regardless of if they're liberal or conservative states.

        Your statement holds no water.
        • SmidleyDigg, on 06/27/2008, -0/+11. Doesn't Congress need to declare war in order to establish a "wartime" paradigm?
          2. Where does the Constitution grant power to the federal government over education?
    • djbeatz, on 06/26/2008, -4/+2lol i know right
    • CSHYDRASHOK, on 06/26/2008, -0/+15I like the reply about gay marriage but MarkusGarvey is right. The national guard is supposed to be able to pick up the slack of the fire departments however they are all in Iraq and Afghanistan which is against the constitution for them to be fighting in a foreign war.
    • camino262, on 06/26/2008, -5/+4So the military are also our firefighters? I think we should let the states handle issues like this. California has allocated funding elsewhere.
    • JDRay, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6A friend of mine has a "Tactical Tender" fire truck sitting in his driveway in Idaho. It hasn't gotten any work on fires in a couple of years because a) there's a dearth of qualified drivers, and b) the USFS doesn't like "old vehicles" working their fires (the truck is built on a military deuce-and-a-half chassis). Even though the truck has all the right equipment, is maintained rigorously, and can pump water like crazy, they don't want to let it out on a fire. I guess it clashes with the large contractors' shiny new pickup trucks.
    • gtluke, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2firefighters marines
  • tbk123, on 06/26/2008, -13/+9one word: anarchy
    • PeppermintPig, on 06/26/2008, -2/+5Should I be digging you up, or down?

      I'm amazed that people haven't thought to maintain their own personal firefighting equipment for this kind of thing.

      Oh well, leave it to the state and you get what you pay for. How much are you guys paying in taxes by the way?
      • nedzeve, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I'll remember to pick up one of those shiny fire engines next time I'm at the fire fighting store. THANKS
    • j1ggy, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4If anarchy takes place, the Governator will defend you.
    • jawagas, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4I'm just praying for one of these fires to find its way onto a marry jane growth. Nor Cal will go from Casual to just slackin', we deserve it for all this smokey air.
  • mavicyp, on 06/26/2008, -7/+11this happened last summer too no? Maybe the government thought it couldnt possibly happen twice in a row. That makes sense and all. Right.
    • bgrah449, on 06/26/2008, -0/+13This happens every summer. California is hot and dry in the summer. Every summer a bunch of fires get out of hand, especially in Northern California (where my entire family is).
      • PopcornDave, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2And when the CDF doesn't clean out the crap in the forest that's fueling these fires. Go in and clean up the natural debris and you won't have as big of a problem.
        • PeppermintPig, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2This is why the forests need to be marketized. Government doesn't bother to take care of their property, so it catches fire, and then your house does. You're welcome.
        • bgrah449, on 06/26/2008, -0/+10The reverse is true. Forest fires were a natural part of the forest, and when the government moved in, they began to put out every fire that happened. They thought they WERE taking care of their property.

          What turned out to happen was that the fires got harder and harder to put out as the undergrowth got preposterously matured, until eventually they just couldn't put out the fires. Then, after that, they realized - Golly! - that the forest, in fact, didn't need man's vigilant care to maintain itself.

          Now they let forest fires in remote areas burn, only protecting near homes. They also do controlled burns in areas they're getting nervous about.
        • york2600, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4bgrah449:

          Thank you for taking a forest management class. Someday people will learn why fires aren't bad, unless they only happen every 50 years.
    • darkened, on 06/26/2008, -2/+14Maybe we should just let them burn? Fires burn all that there is to burn as mother nature intended and fires don't come back until all the trees regrow and die and underbrush takes over again. It's a cycle I personally don't understand why they're so hellbent on stopping it, that's what makes it occur EVERY YEAR.
      • panic, on 06/26/2008, -6/+3Maybe when your house burns down someday you'll understand
        • lacronicus, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3Tell me, oh wise one, why it is that people continue to build houses in a location that has massive wildfires year after year?
        • sovietninja, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1@ lacronicus
          For the Great Air Quality, of course.
      • Twee, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5And as far as I know most of these brush fires are in dried up forests anyways. It was those resident's choice to live in such fire prone areas. This is why I live near the beach!
        • york2600, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2You're gonna be mad when everyone moves to the coast.
    • panic, on 06/26/2008, -0/+9There are always fires in the foothills/mountains but not like this. I live in Sacramento and the skies have been yellow since Monday morning and the air is horrible to breath. I've never seen it this bad before. I was just reading the news and it says it will probably stay this way until at least early next week.
      • fryguy1013, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3So that's what's in the air? I thought it was just horribly overcast.
    • nedzeve, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1It's been particularly dry this year.
  • drmobutu, on 06/26/2008, -1/+37Right Here. I actually completed the training for CDF, in college. There were very few fires that year, and I never actually got called up, and didn't make any money that summer...I suppose I could re-apply, but I don't know if they would hire me now, without recent training...It's hella hard work, and it only paid $8-9/hour, in those days. All in all, I'd rather just make bad jokes on digg...
    • justok, on 06/26/2008, -11/+2Do let us know if you ever make a joke.
    • VaporBro, on 06/26/2008, -1/+6Let us know if your browser can handle the Digg comment system justok...
      • justok, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1its up to the people at mozilla and/or digg, not me
    • PussInBoots, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3I am on crew that's located in NorCal. We got paid for training ($900 for 4 weekends total). And out on fires we get paid $13 - 14/hour + they cover all expenses during dispatch
      • drmobutu, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Wow, I didn't get paid for training...but I seem to recall only two weekends, one class, one field. $13-14/hour is pretty good, though, especially since they pay you for the travel time...
        • sovietninja, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1But do they pay for the hookers and beer?
    • journey4712, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2CDF actually pays quite well i understand. The base pay is as you say $9 or so. but you get 1.5 when your fighting a fire. You also get overtime of 1.5 over 8 hours so 2.25 when fighting fires on OT. And when the fire is burnin you wont just leave just because its been 8 hours. I also remember about some sort of increase when fighting fires on the graveyard shift but i dunno what the bonus is. All in all though you can keep your average pay into the $14 range fairly easy.
  • apothekari, on 06/26/2008, -18/+10The corporations have bled the infrastructure of this country completely dry under Bush and the Republicans and the democrats are only marginally better.
    At some point we are going to have to turn off the tv get off the couch and kick some ***** ass.
    • minoss, on 06/26/2008, -4/+10Do you even know what you are talking about? This is a local matter that should be handled by at most, the state government. It isn't the job of the federal government to do the firefighting for the whole nation.
      • kanabiis, on 06/26/2008, -1/+9Well your mostly right, except most states use this resource called the National Guard in pretty much all of their disaster plans.

        Problem is, instead of having the National Guard at home, guarding their state like intended, Bush sent them to Iraq.

        So, states are without the largest resource for disaster relief.

        Funny how that works huh?
        • SillyDigger, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1The national guard is no an end all solution. I seriously doubt the NG has much if not any firefighting resources in Iraq. By the way people serving in the NG are not trained to fight fires.

          In reality the NG can only contribute air dropping resources.
        • gleongelpi, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Wildfires is the natural course in most areas of California. Once upon a time, many of these were just allowed to burn out. But populations have grown into those regions. The manpower doesn't exist to be taking care of such matters, regardless of the war, about which I completely disagree.

          The National Guard is not truly equiped for this kind of matter. Instead of depending on the National Guard, which is primarily a fighting force, the state or the localities should expand their fire departments. This is simply a misappropriation of state and local funds. Maybe more part-time trained personel is in line. But overall, you can't fight mother nature. Get use to it.
        • kanabiis, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Show me a Fire department with forest fighting Airplanes/helicopters and I might agree with both of you.

          The truth of the matter is, yes, the National Guard IS trained to fight fires, I was, former Colorado Guardsman 1997-2001. We had the planes, we had the men, we had the pilots and we were shipped all over Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Of the few friends of mine that are left in the guard that I fought fires with, they are ALL in Iraq right now.

          When it comes to large scale forest fires the National Guard IS the largest resource a state has.
      • aschneid, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Obviously you don't know what you are talking about. If you RTFA, you will see reference to the fact that our National Guard, designed to assist in situations such as this, is also badly undermanned. Why is that? Bush in the Whitehouse and his war in Iraq.

        Now the OP did stray quite a bit off-topic, but you are completely wrong in your statement too. When the federals take the folks who should be helping in this situation, the federals should provide replacements for the shortcoming.
      • 2bsbc, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4Ohhh, I see it's the Federal Governments job to bail-out rich investment bankers and speculators; however, when it comes to actual physical loss of property and maybe life; well then ***** those people. I get ya.

        Hey, shouldn't you be applying for a job as the official Bush administration knob polisher instead of polluting Digg's comment board?

        These are your country men and women, minoss.
        • minoss, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1I don't remember where I said it's the governments job to bail out bankers either.
    • Indierocka, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1While i belive you, this topic is posted under the "Environment" section, not "Political" You may find your comments better recieved over there
  • cerealjynx, on 06/26/2008, -3/+49130 someodd in my county alone. Anytime the numbers go down, it's because two fires merge into one. More lightning this weekend they say.

    Also, this article is *****. Of course they can't deal with your namby pamby 911 calls, the call center is swamped, we've got firefighters coming in from different states, litterally an army of firefighters housed up in the local fairgrounds. The author needs to use some common sense, trust the professionals, and watch your own ass. Simple as that.

    Better information for Mendocino county residents at http://mendofire.blogspot.com/
  • PhantomBantam, on 06/26/2008, -1/+18I don't really get how they are supposed to control fires to begin with. I mean, with hurricane-prone you have levees to hold back the storm surge, and buildings made to withstand rain/wind. With earthquake-prone areas, they make the roads and buildings sway.

    Is the only plan for fire-prone areas to keep building in these areas, and put lives at risk, and use millions of dollars every time one of these natural fires (which the ecosystem needs to function) occurs? If so, who are we doing that for, and why is it necessary that they build there? The scenic view?
    • PopcornDave, on 06/26/2008, -2/+4"I don't really get how they are supposed to control fires to begin with."

      Simple. You clear out the dead and decaying matter so there's less fuel when a lightning storm strikes and starts a fire. It's not perfect but it helps.
      • Twee, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1That's a lot of dead ***** to clean up, considering that California is the 3rd largest state in terms of land mass.
    • whatever01, on 06/26/2008, -0/+7Also, make sure to create a defensible space around your house. Use tile or metal for roofs instead of shingles or shakes. Stucco or metal siding instead of shingles or bare wood. Have a swimming pool or other readily accessible supply of water. When the time comes, put the gel on your windows, pack up and get out.

      It's not perfect, but it helps.
    • OutLawSuit, on 06/26/2008, -0/+8In Colorado, if you build a house in certain areas, the local fire departments will tell you they won't even bother trying to save your house if there's a wildfire. People put their houses in some really stupid places all for the sake of a nice view. There's some vegetation on mountain sides that will literally burn so fast, a whole mountain side will be engulfed in flames in the manner of minutes which is obviously a hazard for firefighters. The best way to protect your house from wildfires (other than not living in a wildfire prone area) is to clear an area around your house so the fire has nothing to spread to but many people refuse to do this because they like their houses surrounded by trees.
    • vangard, on 06/26/2008, -0/+7I've lived in Northern California all my life. In summer it's a literal tinderbox. It's dry and hot, and fires are common. You're right that the fires are necessary for the ecosystem: we have a number of species of plants that only drop seeds when burned, and so rely on it. Clearing the brush isn't the answer. It'd be like trying to prevent hurricanes the midwest by removing the air, or floods by drying up the Mississippi.
      The technique CDF tries to use a lot where I'm from is control burns. Before things get too hot and dry to control, they cordon off a large section of forest that hasn't burned in a while and burn it. Or they burn strips of the most dangerous areas, removing potential fire starters and creating sort of 'walls' of no vegetation to help in preventing wildfires from spreading to quickly when they do, inevitably, occur.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Perhaps we need to think about installing some "Fire Levies" -- some well designed and attractively architected fire breaks between buildings and grassland.

      The problem is that there is never money to "think ahead" and all the money we spend is after the fact on Emergencies. How many billions is this season of fires going to cost? Whatever that number, double it, and then put those funds together so that California can create a system of Fire Dams, and so fires won't spread out of control.
      • lacronicus, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1The problem is that you can't simply block off fire. Drop a bucket of water, it won't turn into a flood; if lightning strikes, or someone drops a match, it will turn into a fire like these.
  • kinseyincanada, on 06/26/2008, -4/+43George Bush doesnt like burning people
    • shutaro, on 06/26/2008, -4/+12I think at this point we have established that George Bush doesn't like people, period. Doesn't matter of they're black, wet, or on fire.
      • dpcamp, on 06/26/2008, -0/+10but mostly black burning people.
        • Tenlow, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4What if they're wetblacks?
        • mcberg182, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Actually he does care about that. He thoroughly enjoys it, and would be upset if it were to stop.
    • pintomp3, on 06/26/2008, -0/+24george bush doesn't care about blackened people.
    • insanebrain, on 06/26/2008, -3/+5yes he does.
    • artfiend77, on 06/26/2008, -7/+7YOU CAN SAY HE DOESN"T LIKE THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU CAN SAY HE BURNS THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUT NEVER SAY HE DIDN'T GIVE HIS ALL!!!!!!!!!! NEVER SAY HE DIDN'T GIVE HIS ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      *check Macbook Air to see if I broke it*
      • jamie191817, on 06/26/2008, -3/+2aah, your taking the piss outta the kanye west article, clever. not funny though. and bush is a retard.
  • wynja, on 06/26/2008, -22/+21Newsflash: Stop building homes in earthquake, flood, or wild fire prone areas.
    • cerealjynx, on 06/26/2008, -7/+6Newsflash, these fires were the result of bizarre freak lightning storms.
      • Monk22, on 06/26/2008, -3/+4that happen every year. not so much bizarre as predictable.
        • Disgod, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Over 700 fires is unprecedented. It's predictable to have fires, but over 700 is a statistical anomaly
        • Indierocka, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1someone at work said 700 fires and I thought they were crazy. We never have that many fires in California during fire season. Maybe 130 or 200 but 700? Not that I remember. Yay more lightning storms this weekend!!
        • cerealjynx, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Every year, after 121 days of no rain, officially in drought season?
    • Tomson74, on 06/26/2008, -4/+6Newsflash: So what? Its still a wild fire. Stop building homes in that area, then it wouldn't matter.

      *Wonder how many people who live there, didn't cut the debris away from their house"
      • MyDiggIsBig, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1what about the people who live 100 miles away yet still suffer from the filth and dirt in the air.
    • asskicker32, on 06/26/2008, -7/+2Newsflash: I concur.
    • Scopitone, on 06/26/2008, -1/+8You have it all figured out.
    • DreKor, on 06/26/2008, -1/+13AKA: Stop building homes outside.

      oh wait...
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6These fires are mostly in remote unpopulated areas. The air quality over just about the whole state is just awful right now though.
    • jellyfishes, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2I don't think you have to stop building them, just build smarter. Stop building the same damn building after it burns down. You need structures adapted to the threat.
    • wigginz, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Should have thought of that... I'll just go pick up my house and carry it over to... uhh, the MOON? Where on Earth is there a place with no chance of natural disaster?
      • m0tbaillie, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3The South pole? I know the North Pole gets hit with harsh weather, but I think the South Pole is *relatively* more stable.
      • wigginz, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Thought about that too, but what if it melts! Or gets hit by a comet. Can't take that risk.
      • ScreenSaver24, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Maine.
        • maldovix, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4I read Stephen King, that place isn't safe
      • erasorhed, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Nevada??
      • Ziggy7273, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3Im not telling
    • whatever01, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5Also, stop building them in hurricane and tornado prone areas too. While we're at it, let's not build them in places subject to severe cold or heat.
      • Disgod, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1We should move everybody out of the midwest too, because there is the potential for very powerful earthquakes there, and they aren't prepared. No one should live on the coasts of Northern California, Oregon, Washington, or British Columbia. The Cascadia Fault line is a know tsunami generator and is due for another earthquake/tsunami combo.

        Evacuate New York and Washington D.C. too, They're eventually going to be hit with hurricanes and they'll be a very bad day for those two cities. Actually the entire East Coast should be evacuated for when the Canary Islands shear off and create a mega tsunami.

        I would hope we've gotten the point across. People have to live in places which are in danger of natural disasters otherwise we're not going to be able to live anywhere
    • Handonam, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4We now go live to Ollie Williams with the Blackie Wildfire Forecast. Ollie?

      IT'SBURNINGHOT

      Thanks Ollie.
    • rationalbeats, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Give me a break. That would remove the entire coast line of the united states and huge swaths of the Midwest near rivers.

      • noahhoward, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1The how about some personal responsibility? Understand the threats and quit bitching.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1And of course, 90% of the properties that contain affordable housing.
    • Disgod, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2News flash, if we did that we'd be giving up millions of acres of perfectly habitable land. There are natural disasters everywhere, we can attempt to minimize the risk, but avoiding danger areas are pretty much impossible. This is also an unprecedented amount of fires, usually the CDF could handle it, that is, until recently. The last couple years have been really bad. California is in a drought.
    • Twee, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2We haven't had a major earthquake in over 15 years. All of the builds in California are built to withstand Earthquakes. Floods and wildfires are a much different case of mother nature gone wrong as there is little we can do to prevent the damage they create.
      • thekow, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Wildfires are not "mother nature going wrong." They are a part of nature. We just haven't planned well enough to survive them.
        • Disgod, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Actually, it is a case of mother nature gone wrong, mostly thanks to human intervention. We've stopped forest fires for so long that there is too much underbrush and dead stuff lying on the ground which makes great fuel for forest fires. These forest fires are a lot hotter than they should be because we've stopped them from burning for too long.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Newsflash: The New Selfish American has no need of hand-outs to people in disaster areas, because THEY are not experiencing the disaster.

      Of course, with a 1,000 year flood in the Midwest -- those people should have planned better.

      Now, when the NSA gets their own community destroyed, they of course, will blame the Sierra Club, for getting in the way of the invisible hand of the marketplace.
  • SteelChicken, on 06/26/2008, -2/+59centuries of the policy of putting out all fires and not doing prescribed burns: check
    building more and more homes in burn-prone areas: check
    voting down tax increases for fire fighting resources: check
    paying wildland firefighters very low pay: check (been there, done that)
    blaming the government for when your house burns down: check
    • cognizance8, on 06/26/2008, -0/+15For some reason, no one figured out until the last decade or two that forests have to burn to maintain a healthy environment. I could rant about how old trees don't efficiently produce oxygen and how some trees don't germinate unless exposed to the high temperature of fires but I could also have compassion for those that built their houses there.

      I agree with the points you have made, but between environmental causes that aren't educated enough or pushing their own agendas and then politicians who do exactly the same thing but aren't on the same page, how are things like this ever going to change?

      New Orleans was just the ultimate example of people moving into an area that was destined for nature to destroy and then they didn't want to accept that. The local government mis-spent its money and the federal government failed, leaving the people with someone else to blame. Applied to the forest-fires, they built where they shouldn't have and now others have to bail them out. If there is no money to bail them out, then all blame automatically is put on the government and not on the homeowner. It is a lose-lose situation.
      • DarkStryke, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6In this day and age, people cannot accept responsibility for themselves. It's easier to blame someone else, then to take ownership of the fact that we as a society are:

        Stopping all the minor brush fires that clear out all the decaying fuel sources for mega fires

        Building homes, communities, cities in natural 'high-risk' areas

        It's akin to people blaming an airport for all the noise when they chose to live under a flight path.
      • schmitey, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4You obviously know what you're talking about so not arguing there. But the problem is mindset.

        Case in point: Last trip to Colorado was doing some hiking around Estes and it was OBVIOUS this forest hadn't burned in decades as the needles under each tree were like one to two foot high around the trunk and there were dead trees everywhere. I asked a forest ranger when the last time it burned was because it seemed to me it needed it. He just gave me this look and said he didn't want to talk about it because his house was nearby. Here's someone that knows better, knows the danger, and doesn't give a *****... Just struck me as really ironic. You pay for the view when you live near the mountains and forest and try as this country might you can't defeat mother nature.
    • wrxpert, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5I myself am and ex-USDA Forest Service fire fighter. I did it for a couple of year. I really loved it too. For me it was like vacation. I quit because the pay was so bad. Not to mention that you don't have a source of income for the winter months. I knew I didn't want to do it any longer when I learned that guys who worked for the forest service (who were in my opinion heroes) had to become plumbers or whetever they could in the winter just to make ends meet.
      • SteelChicken, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1I did it during the summer while I went to school in the winter. Pay was crap, but when we had lots of fires, we had overtime and hazard pay. Made out pretty good for a 18-20yo kid. Sequoia NF Horseshoe Meadow Hotshots baby. 2 years on a Hotshot crew and one on a USFS engine. I quit after the last year, got injured 2 times. As I was airlifted out by helicopter I decided the money wasn't that good any more, LOL
    • odacity509, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1I just want to add that as far as I know Native Americans ("Indians") didn't have any stories about huge fires. In the 1900's the U.S. decided that it was bad to have forest fires. As a result the forests kept growing and whenever there is a fire there is also a huge amount of wood to fuel it. So we get these gigantic fires that wouldn't have been so big if we would have let the forests burn a little bit more when they were younger.
  • santiago1, on 06/26/2008, -2/+24 Ugh, and the air quality around here is just ***** NASTY!
    • Tomson74, on 06/26/2008, -9/+3Has it ever been good? LMAO
      Nothing like watching the smog roll in
      • fuzed, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4That's pretty ignorant. You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm fairly far from the fires (Sacramento) and its looked apololyptic for days. The haze and smoke in the air is terrible.
    • geneticlone, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4Yeah, I wake up everyday and not only does it smell but I can't even see because of all the smoke. It really is sad.
    • vangard, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Yeah, in the small valley I'm from in NorCal, visibility's been about 100m for the past week and a half.
      And it smells like a camp ground.
    • Inflammo, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1The visibility around here is worse than even last year's fires. Maybe because this time there's 700
    • EMTODA, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Here in San Francisco, it's smelled like Smokey the Bear's nightmares for the past week.
  • vpr902, on 06/26/2008, -16/+16Bush doesn't care about white people.
  • PolishLogic, on 06/26/2008, -1/+25Tragic, yes. However this is basically natures way of getting rid of overgrowth and clearing out all the built up debris. Besides, when you live in an area covered in dried brush or a forested area covered in dried pine needles, is a the thought of a fire breaking out really that bewildering? Now multiply that by several counties and you could easily find yourself in the middle of a fire that vastly outstrips the resources available for controlling those fires.

    The recent Tahoe fires spread as they did thanks, in part, to a little help from all the dried debris people didn't bother removing from their property.
    • Nerdcentric, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2"The recent Tahoe fires spread as they did thanks, in part, to a little help from all the dried debris people didn't bother removing from their property."

      You're only partially correct. Tahoe residences could not easily clear the overgrowth near their homes which compounded the problem. There is/was a lengthy permit process homeowners had to complete before they could create a defensible spaces around their property. Here's a good story on the issue: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 ...
      • PolishLogic, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1That's a very valid point, and Tahoe is notorious for trying to maintain a "natural" feel about it.

        Although, that being said, I can't tell you how many times I've driven around some of those neighborhoods in the summer and seen people who essentially had pine needles as their ground covering of choice. As the article says, those are things that can be removed at any time for the most part (erosion prone ground being the exception).

        I know that if my home is surrounded by what is essentially layer of kindling, I'm going to spend the weekend outside with a rake and a wheelbarrow.
        • Krodren, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2You need to read up on our friends, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahoe_Regional_Planni ...

          Let's just say that until the fire, you could get fined for all sort of things - including clearing ground cover primarily consisting of pine needles. This group is kind of well known for placing the looks of their expensive vacation homes above the reality of living in a forest, much to the detriment of their neighbors who live there year round.
  • Tomson74, on 06/26/2008, -16/+3Who cares? Nothing new. We going to cry "Katrina" too? How come theres no mention on Digg about the midwest? But nooooo, we have California with another fire on here.
  • mnemy, on 06/26/2008, -5/+7Cuz obviously the last several years of fires in California every summer weren't enough indication to increase our fire budget substantially. I'm just glad I live towards the center of San Diego, so the fire have to get pretty bad to reach my house. It's been close before though, within 2 miles.
  • captmorgan555, on 06/26/2008, -7/+1Check the golf course.
  • Buelldozer, on 06/26/2008, -14/+241) Stop building ecologically unsustainable and ill advised houses.
    2) Stop spending all of your money on so many ***** social programs.
    • DreKor, on 06/26/2008, -4/+14I suppose you could call in the National Guard to help. You might have to wait a few hours, though. That trans-Atlantic flight takes a while.
      • Buelldozer, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2More of the tired and whiny "Blame Bush" crap.

        It's pretty simple really, either quit building things in areas that commonly burn to the ground OR expect that once in awhile your stuff is going to go up in flames.

        It's pretty much the same thing as the people who continue to build, or rebuild, homes in hurricane prone areas.

        Part of the deal with living there is putting up with the consequences.
    • pilot3033, on 06/26/2008, -3/+5Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Firefighting could be considered a "social" program..I mean...where in the constitution does it say we are entitled to a fire-fighting service? /sarcasm.

      Fat is one thing, taking care of your people is another. Public funding for things like hospitals, poverty programs, and such are important for society. The real problem is the mis-management of funds, and taxes that are too low in certain circumstances.
      • Buelldozer, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Sure, but paying the college tuition bill for illegal aliens? Wanna guess how many firefighters, teachers, and cops you could hire with THAT money?

        How about all of that free healthcare you're handing out under Medicaid?

        The list goes on and on.
        • Lazydriver, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1If an illegal alien can get a 3.5GPA plus all throughout high school, then we need more Americans like him, I'm sorry, but you're a dumbass.
    • blackbamboo, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0the houses had bad advice or no lawyer?
    • colincornaby, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2And having firefighters isn't a social program?

      You know what would free up more than enough money to pay for social programs including firefighters? Leaving Iraq.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2I think we coddle babies too much.

      Throw your next child immediately in the street. They won't learn all the weaknesses taught to them by people who change their diapers, give them free handouts, education, and all the other "socialist" family things we've become accustomed to. The Middle Ages, of course, really knew about "tough love."

      The resultant human that grows up from this pioneer baby, will be swift and strong, because, unlike the other 99 babies that didn't make it -- this baby would be swift and strong enough to make it. This new human would also, not build in an area that is going to flood, burn up, or have an earth quake -- because they will be breaking into your house and feasting on your pet when you are asleep.

      /do I really need to add sarcasm tag?
    • bono4u, on 06/27/2008, -1/+11) agreed
      2) depends on the program
  • Dralha, on 06/26/2008, -15/+18The resources are in iraq, where they're used to protect big oil's interests.
    • cryemoxkidcry, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3That's exactly what I was going to say.
    • nastronomical, on 06/26/2008, -6/+4wait soldiers train to fight fires and not war??
      • unreg, on 06/26/2008, -0/+8National Guard units are often pressed into service with regards to fire fighting.

      • vectorb, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Most of the heavy lifting helicopters and bombers that used to be on firefighting duty have been put to the pointless war effort.
  • Ubermann, on 06/26/2008, -1/+10We're getting smoked out of our valley here!
    • johnomaz, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Ya, it sucks having 1-2 mile visibility becasue of smoke. But what are you going to do right. If it bugged me that much, I'd leave the valley. But I'm lazy, and the cost of housing is finally dropping. I should soon be able to afford a house, lets hope it doesn't burn down.
  • nastronomical, on 06/26/2008, -11/+4Dont move in to fire country? Simple, huh?
    • whatever01, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2We'll remind you of that when it's hurricane season. Or Tornado season. Earthquakes, floods, etc.

      Pick your poison.
    • wheresjim, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3We can tell the Iowans not to move to flood country too, and people shouldn't live on the east and gulf coast because of hurricanes, and nobody should live in the mid-west because of the tornadoes, plus you shouldn't live in California because of the earthquakes. *****, now we all gotta move to Ohio.
      • Twee, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1We haven't had a big earthquake in over 15 years. Additionally, homes are built to withstand earthquakes. It's pretty difficult to build a house that withstands a tornado.
        • nedzeve, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Man, we get hit with an 8+, your home isn't going to be standing. Sorry.
      • GliTCH82, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Hurricanes < Fires + Earthquakes

        Don't be stupid. Stay in Florida.
        • erasedgod, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1I'm pretty sure Floridians are, by far, the worst product of nature.
    • Monk22, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3unless you live in the ocean your pretty much in fire country
  • Raider007, on 06/26/2008, -1/+30ummm... it's 700 fires... of course you're going to be short on resources... it's 700 freaking files... what the hell are you expecting?

    that guy had 80 fires in a 10 mile radius... even if there was just 5 firefighters per fire, that's 400 fire fighters... I don't know about you, but i don't have 400 fire fighters in a 10 mile radius from where I live...
  • Satanael, on 06/26/2008, -0/+27Schwarzenegger recently brought up a bill that he tried to push in 2006 that would establish resources to capture all the rain water that California loses and create new reservoirs and such. Such a system would be extremely helpful in these situations, and apparently the other California politicians didn't agree... I guess that's biting them in the ass right now.
    • unreg, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5Old Arnies going to put a big gutter around the state?
    • PopcornDave, on 06/26/2008, -0/+7Why would the California legislature go along with it? There wasn't anything in it for them. That and it might have made sense.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Liberal representatives have this problem too. It's called the "election process" and it tends to weed out anyone who isn't selling government to the highest bidder.
  • nastronomical, on 06/26/2008, -15/+8To the morons crying about our soldiers in Iraq....



    when the hell did a soldiers job switch from fighting wars to fighting fires which occur seasonally in whats called wild fire country?
    • kanabiis, on 06/26/2008, -0/+11Its called the National Guard... and we have been doing it for decades. Its actually part of the training. Educate yourself before you talk out of your ass.

      //former guardsman in Colorado.

      //Fought fires in 1997-2001 throughout Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.

      • VitriolAndAngst, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Although, you have to hand it to some of these apologists, they instantly created the "soldier" straw man argument, rather than assuming people would be talking about the National Guard.

        Once upon a time, we thought the National Guard was for THIS country, and weren't to be used for fighting resource wars -- who knew?
    • VaporBro, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Thumbs up to Kanabiis. Two thumbs up for Cannabis. Total amount of thumbs: 3.
    • aschneid, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3I don't think anybody is crying about the soldiers who signed up for the various military branches. People are referencing the National Guard troops from our state that have been conscripted into the war. Those folks are also called upon in their particular state in the event of a natural disaster.

      Schwarzenegger has been talking for a while that Bush's Iraq war has left the state inadequately supported for an event such as this. He even tried to stop Bush from taking more of our National Guardsmen...not sure where that ended up. But obviously we don't have enough with 700+ (at one point almost 900) fires burning in NorCal.
      • GrimHeathen, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0conscripted? No one forced them to join the nat. guard.
        • treed, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2The guard itself was conscripted to fight a foreign war.
    • sodypop77, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2http://www.ngb.army.mil/news/archives/2008/06/0613 ...
    • artfiend77, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Wow, you really need to fire up google or wikipedia before opening your mouth. Wait, just don't open your mouth altogether.
  • SQLserver, on 06/26/2008, -5/+22The Conservatives and Republicans are putting 200 million dollars a day into Iraq.
    If we were to stop the war for one day, we could re-equip almost every fire department in the country.

    Too much money is going to *****, and not to the important stuff.
    • Monk22, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3except fire departments are not under federal funding.
      • Lazydriver, on 06/26/2008, -4/+2State funding COMES from federal allocated funds and your taxes.
    • xNarrowSoulx, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2You mean we would not be $200 million more in debt for that day.
      • lacronicus, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Realistically, though, you have to remember where that money goes. It doesn't just disappear; it goes to pay soldiers, civilian personell, manufacturers (including their employees), and a great many other things. I'm not saying the war in Iraq is good for us, but saying "just stop paying for it for a day" is extremely unreasonable.
  • adacas, on 06/26/2008, -5/+7most of these idiots should know by now that those areas are meant to be burned. Manzanita is extremely fire friendly yet these idiots keep putting their houses right in the middle of it surrounded by burn happy plants and dry grass in open windy areas. Let their homes burn if they can't put up the money to save their own asses.
    • whatever01, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1And those idiots living in the flood, tornado prone areas in the midwest? WTF? And of course all those lamers in hurricane country.
      • hysterix, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0No, only people in California are ***** up, everyone else who goes through a disaster should get as much help as possible, but as soon as you mention the big "C" word, people flip. What does the rest of the country have against California anyways?
  • unreg, on 06/26/2008, -12/+5Can we blame Bush?

    Would Obama have a better plan?
    • kanabiis, on 06/26/2008, -1/+5Obama probably wouldnt have sent the National Guard to Iraq to fight a war, leaving the states they defend open to disaster without quick responding relief.

      But hey, lets just leave facts out of this discussion.
      • PussInBoots, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1If National Guards start fighting fires, maybe wildforest firefighters should get guns and start fighting in Iraq in winter time, when they dont have a lot to do? National Guards know ***** about fighting fires
        • kanabiis, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Actually they do, its part of the training, I was a forest fire fighter as a National Guardsman, 1997-2001..... but like I said, lets leave facts out of this.

          Google MAAFS

          http://www.ngb.army.mil/news/archives/2008/05/0512 ...

          //Former forest fighting National Guardsman.

          But hey, keep talking out your ass, it shows what you really know.
        • unreg, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Neither do convicts but they often get press-ganged into service.

          Manpower is manpower. Bulldozing fire lines and clearing underbrush.
  • srfssm22, on 06/26/2008, -4/+9I wanted to go for a run but instead I smoked a pack of camel non-filters. Less toxic that way.
  • nastronomical, on 06/26/2008, -6/+7centuries of the policy of putting out all fires and not doing prescribed burns: check
    building more and more homes in burn-prone areas: check
    voting down tax increases for fire fighting resources: check
    paying wildland firefighters very low pay: check (been there, done that)
    blaming the government for when your house burns down: check
    • erasedgod, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Wait... if the government has a bad policy, votes down funding increases, and offers low pay to firefighters, isn't it the government's fault?
  • TrevorBradley, on 06/26/2008, -11/+14Small government is good! /sarcasm

    Yes, I'll be dugg down, but I have a point.
    • briansearles, on 06/26/2008, -1/+7Taking responsibility and not being a pansy is much better, thank you.
    • nedzeve, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Privatize the fire department!
  • OffPiste, on 06/26/2008, -13/+8This is what you get when enviro-nazis make policy.
    • Monk22, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2same reason cali gas is 2 dollars more.
      same reason we dont have nuclear power plants.
      ect, ect
    • nedzeve, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1No, it's because of gays and illegal immigrants. Get the party line down already.
  • johnnyfistfight, on 06/26/2008, -15/+9This is nature working at its best. All of the fires were started by lightning it areas that needed clearing. Now we're blaming Bush for tree hugging morons who build houses in areas prone to wildfires? Fact is no body gives a rats-ass if a California dwelling Gore loving ***** face loses their million dollar home in the mountains to fire.
    • Handonam, on 06/26/2008, -6/+2ehhh shut up you flamer.
    • Shiftgood, on 06/26/2008, -1/+5Its funny how republicans say we're (californians) are idiots with social programs and progressive lifestyles that are just all a bunch of bull *****... and then talk about our MILLION DOLLAR HOMES... as if we're the ones suffering.

      Something for you to think about while standing in isle 3 of walmart.
      • Twee, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4Million Dollar Homes and Target FTW! (or for the democrats in that case)
      • johnnyfistfight, on 06/27/2008, -3/+1If by "progressive lifestyles" you mean eating roach coach burritos or shopping at Whole Foods while sipping on crud from Starbucks then yes you're an idiot. You're a ***** idiot if you drive a Prius with an Obama sticker.
  • sdfguy, on 06/26/2008, -16/+4california sucks anyway.
  • NeoHomer, on 06/26/2008, -10/+3They'd rather have marijuana vending machines. Socialism at its finest.
  • papastout, on 06/26/2008, -5/+8Headline = stupid ass question.
  • Yage2006, on 06/26/2008, -8/+7"Where the Hell Are the Resources?"
    In IRAQ ?
  • budgetguitar, on 06/26/2008, -7/+17Start Joke>

    California supreme court allows gay marriage and a week later 800 fires are started by lightning, coincidence? Probably.

    End Joke>
    • johnomaz, on 06/26/2008, -1/+23All that anal friction started the fires.
  • Zotter, on 06/26/2008, -11/+8And Left Coasters wonder why the rest of this country call it "Kaliphornia".

    Lets see - build a house, town or something in a known fire zone with lots of dry fuel. Don't do anything myself to prepare for what is inevitable. Then complain when "someone else" or "the guberment" doesn't take care of the consequences of my stupid decision.

    classic.

    No wonder CA can't afford to pay teachers, pave roads or do anything else the rest of the lower 48 handle. They're too busy spending bux to recover from screw ups and avoidable problems.
    • treed, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3I don't get "Kaliphornia" at all. Are we suddenly rederiving the name from Greek or something?

      No, this isn't California, this is Καλιφορνια!
    • nathanww, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Not quite that simple.

      Sure, a lot of California is disaster prone. Even more of it isn't very nice to live in(like it gets up to 110 degress in the summer). But there's also Silicon Valley, the UC system, Hollywood, major shipping ports, Lake Tahoe, etc.
    • tightscrummy, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2"And Left Coasters wonder why the rest of this country call it 'Kaliphornia'."

      I think that comment just about sums up our opinion of the rest of the country.
    • hysterix, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0You know zotter, you think you are so smart and have it all figured out. I don't think you are taking into account a few things called "facts", I know, I know, you really hate these things but let's take a look at them shall we?

      California economy pays more to the federal system than it receives in direct monetary benefits, so you are immediately totally wrong about some how we throw our money away, more like the feds take it away.

      California is responsible for 13% of the United States' gross domestic product (GDP).

      I'd say we make quite a bit over here. I think that if were to totally secede from the union, we would not only be able to pay for teachers, pave roads, and do everything better than the other 48 simply because we have more funds.

      But as it stands, uncle sam takes, and doesn't give back very much, we are a much larger state with territory vastly different than were you are from.

      Before you start spouting your gibberish, try doing a little bit of research and think first. I'd be more than happy to say ***** off to you, and everyone else, but the feds need our economy.

      What's classic is that you are a complete moron and don't even know it.
    • hysterix, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0Oh ya, one other thing ***** to prove my point even more.

      According to The World Factbook published by the CIA, if California was an independent state, it would have had the tenth largest economy in the world in 2005.

      Ya, the tenth largest economy in the world needs help to pave roads. You sir, are a ***** retard.
  • bRUTALkANOODLE, on 06/26/2008, -6/+9It just seems to me that WTF California, get over yourself. In Houston, we have record flooding constantly. Whole neighborhoods go underwater for days at a time. But the thing is, we know its gonna happen. There are always some who whine about it, but we prepare, get ready, take care of everyone we can, and don't assume its all the government's fault when we flood. We live on the coast: there WILL be flooding.
    They live in a fire-prone area. It WILL catch fire. Get over yourselves and prepare. If your fire departments are understaffed or underfunded, take care of it BEFORE hand, instead of spending that extra 10,000 on a pool.
    Its like telling the 911 service in Houston that it failed because you got water in the back rooms.
    • baldbean, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2I do agree that people need to be prepared for any natural disaster no matter what it is. You guys don't blame the Gov't when the floods occur, but when there is no help for people stranded on rooftops and such, thats when the blame game begins.
    • xNarrowSoulx, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Ditto for Missouri recently.
    • duggisquailman, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0I was wondering why you had a boat on your lawn...
  • dserfaty, on 06/26/2008, -0/+8Relevant links:

    Map of the significant fires:
    http://www.oes.ca.gov/WebPage/oeswebsite.nsf/OpenB ...

    Stats:
    http://www.fire.ca.gov/index_incidents.php
  • wigginz, on 06/26/2008, -0/+13Sat image from NASA taken on the 24th. Amazing view of what's going on.

    http://www2.chicoer.com/olextras/images/20080624_n ...
  • pintomp3, on 06/26/2008, -3/+3Blackwater to California: Hire us to Put Out Your Fires

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-jacobs/blackwat ...
    • Hetman, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2At least they are offering. That seems to be more than the government can do.
  • SpartanErik, on 06/26/2008, -4/+17700 California Wildfires: Where the Hell Are the Environmentalists?

    Oh that's right, stopping firefighters from cutting down brush to set up fire blocks to PREVENT these disasters.
    • Shiftgood, on 06/26/2008, -2/+5proof environmentalists are against clearing brush? This could be something you just made up in your head and then said it like it was the truth.

      how often do you do this? maybe you should rethink how you think.
      • GliTCH82, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1"maybe you should rethink how you think"

        Incredible. You're obviously on a soy-only diet, you're definitely not getting enough of the vitamins and nutritional supplements you need to not be a complete retard.
        • hysterix, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0It's great, by you saying this, it shows your incredibly high incompetence level.
      • nedzeve, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1His "proof" is something he watched on tv show perpetrated by a couple of sleight of hand magicians.
      • SpartanErik, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A133 ...

        "You've got to go in and clear out the forests," Feinstein said in a recent interview, dismissing criticism of the act. "Environmentalists didn't like the bill. They do not want the trees cut."

        Shiftgood, maybe you should "rethink how you think".
    • nedzeve, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2If it weren't for those pesky trees, we wouldn't have any forest fires!

      CUT 'EM DOWN. PROBLEM SOLVED.
  • salvadorwii, on 06/26/2008, -1/+6Q: Where the Hell Are the Resources?
    A: in a big-ass border wall
  • phillipj06, on 06/26/2008, -1/+10700 fires???
    Just in Northern CA there are 850+ fires. So I'm pretty sure 700 is wrong.
  • Kenzan, on 06/26/2008, -1/+14What this person is not understanding is that when state or federal agencies are not able to respond due to lack of resources or an unusually high need for response over a vast swath of California (which this is) then they have no choice but to employ techniques of priority assessments and focusing on human lives first, and property second. This should not be confused with incompetency such as with Katrina. This is purely a resources issue. As well, if you live in a high risk fire area you should already have multiple (and rehearsed) escape plans standing by in just such and eventuality. That is part of the risk of living in a Fire zone. That is what Home Owner's insurance is for. At the end of the day, You are responsible for your own Hide.
    The California Government is doing the best with what little services the voters allowed to be budgeted.
  • Berkana, on 06/26/2008, -7/+5The resources have been privatized; you need to pay to have access.
  • duster805, on 06/26/2008, -3/+3http://activefiremaps.fs.fed.us/fireplots/cgb20081 ...

    Here's the current map. Doesn't look that bad when you look at it that way. When you consider we are in a huge drought and this is a very unpopulated state from a geographic perspective, it doesn't seem that surprising or "conspiratory" (like we'd have them out by now if we didn't invade Iraq? Please...)
    • Rysac1, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Doesn't look that bad? Are you smoking crack? So if there isn't that many people around it doesn't matter? You sir, are an example of what's wrong with this country.
      • duster805, on 06/30/2008, -1/+0Forrest fires are a naturally occurring and required ecological phenomenon and are only bad because we prevent them from happening with the frequency they are supposed to (so they are much worse when they do happen from all of the excess fuel).

        So to posit that they are bad in themselves you are at a minimum ignorant to their benefit. Besides your nonsensical logic, your BS ad-hom attack is just icing on your ignorant stance. Dick.
    • nathanww, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Yikes, according to the map there's an "active fire" right in the middle of Sacramento.
  • amonkey71, on 06/26/2008, -8/+3Can't sympathize with a state full of people that believes the government should do everything for everyone
    1) People spending large using the housing "ATM".
    2) Government spending large on the bogus housing boom money

    Well its time to pay the piper and now you've got no money to pay the inflated salaries of your public workers. No "rainy" day funds for a much needed rainy day. Time to slash that budget some more. Burn baby burn.
    • 9Digits, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3Earth to ***** - Californians pay the vast majority of federal taxes so toothless ***** like you can get dentures. Try operating as a country without our money and see how well you hold up.

      Jealousy is one thing, being a jealous douchebag is another thing altogether. I'm just trying to figure out how you encompassed both of them at the same time.
    • hysterix, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0I just don't get it either, why all the hate towards California? Some how these hicks and hill-billies think that somehow we need them to pay for stuff???

      Earth to stupid assholes:
      According to The World Factbook published by the CIA, if California was an independent state, it would have had the tenth largest economy in the world in 2005.
  • TheSexyGeek, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1I feel the guy's pain, but what does he expect? I don't think anyone planned for 700 ***** fires. He's pissed because no-one is helping HIM. Maybe that's because they're busy helping OTHER PEOPLE who are just as important as he is. Welcome to Best Effort QoS.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.