Texas Fires & Drought
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Texan said:
And like normal- you attack me instead of answering the questions- or giving an opinion.. Whats new :???:
:lol:Seriously, Oldtimer - you're getting to where you whine and feel sorry for yourself almost as much as Barack Obama. I haven't attacked you and everybody here knows it.Oldtimer said:And like normal- you attack me instead of answering the questions- or giving an opinion.. Whats new :???:
Mike
Well-known member
Maybe if the Feds didn't take so much of peoples paychecks, they would be more than glad to pitch in more to their states.
You're a real tool there, Fatman. Maybe one day you'll need someone to help you and they'll turn you down.
You're a real tool there, Fatman. Maybe one day you'll need someone to help you and they'll turn you down.
loomixguy
Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Your house must not be very tight. Probably costs a fortune to heat/cool it. Why not take some of that "free" gobermin dough you collect and get some work done on it? Or are you waiting for someone else to foot the bill for your home repairs?
Mike
Well-known member
Texan said:
Wonder how many of those grandchildren were paid for with Gov't entitlements?
Deer season doesn't start here until November. It's a big industry for a lot of the state, so stopping hunting season will never happen. That's not what I would consider "responsible leadership." It would be better if people would just be responsible. We don't need the government to legislate everything like you cradle-to-grave liberals do.Oldtimer said:
I agree that we shouldn't overspend. And there are plenty of cuts that could be made in the wasteful spending that the federal government has done over the past two administrations. Cuts to wasteful spending that could be used to boost the disaster budget. If that's a Tea Party stand, so be it. It should be a common sense stand. Only you liberals would have a problem with something like that.Oldtimer said:
There shouldn't be any favoritism played by the federal government for the silly stuff that you mention. What grade are you in? This isn't some childish game like you and Barack Obama seem to think it is. The federal government shouldn't strongarm states to see things their way or just forfeit all of their tax remittances. I thought you were a states-rights guy? Or was that only when it was convenient for you?Oldtimer said:
The President is the President for ALL of the states. Not just the ones that he likes, or just the ones that like him. You and Barack Obama seem to have trouble figuring that out.Oldtimer said:
And one more thing:
If you had spent as much time and effort vetting Barack Obama as you have Governor Perry, you wouldn't have made as big a fool out of yourself.
A
Anonymous
Guest
loomixguy said:
We don't all live in air conditioned closed house, with no fresh air ....That night the temp was in the 40's and all the windows were open...Beautiful sleeping weather... ( I even had the bedroom fan going)...
But "the youall folks" probably don't understand that :wink: :lol: "Bless your hearts"
Last night the temp on the river bottom place (where I live) was 33 at 6AM-- about 19 at the north place... Grandma got up this morning and did comment there was a little nip in the air... High today was 60... Did put on a T shirt under my shirt tho before I went out-- as Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance!!
Too bad Perry didn't do that for the Texans !!!
hypocritexposer
Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I thought you guys were just ragging on him for believing in the medical science of vaccinations?
Which is it? does he believe in science or not?
MsSage
Well-known member
Sounds like your doing all the attacking.Oldtimer said:Texan said:
And like normal- you attack me instead of answering the questions- or giving an opinion.. Whats new :???:
ot I am praying for you....
ps here is a us fire map ....http://activefiremaps.fs.fed.us/
All you have to do is put your cursur over the dot and it tells youhow many acres.....
Larrry
Well-known member
Oldtiomer said:Like I told Tex- reading comprehension is not one of my strong points....
I agree with you oldtimer comprehension isn't a strong point of yours
Larrry
Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Well get her some more clothes. Just dip into your bribe money from when you wore a badge
A
Anonymous
Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Just that the lobbyiest pay him big bucks to believe in..... "Chrony Capitalism"...
"Cronyism, Phonyism and Goofyism." and any science/politics based on "Crony Capitalism...
Sounds like another Texan we really need :???: :wink: :lol: :roll: All hat-- and his policies go by the direction of who stuffs it most when it is passed around !!!!
hypocritexposer
Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
So you don't vote for candidates that take corporate donations?
A
Anonymous
Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Which one/ones don't/haven't ? But selling your soul to lobbyiests- to go against parental control/decisions/rights- to do a government mandate (especially on an unproven pharmaceutical product that was later shown to be harmful to some) about takes the case......
But he is your "type"....
hypocritexposer
Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike
Well-known member
There was an opt-out provision for parents in his Executive Order.
The National Cancer Institute STILL believes it is very beneficial in preventing cancer.
http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/view?cdrid=625982&version=HealthProfessional&protocolsearchid=9569971
There is not a pharmaceutical known that does not have some side effects. Period. Besides, the FDA does not allow anything on the market without research to show worthiness.
hypocritexposer
Well-known member
Mike said:
It's no use Mike, he doesn't believe in the Science, he's a denier.
Mike said:Typical Liberal. Change the subject.................................... :roll:
How about those Forestry Service cuts?
"DeWitt said the Forest Service was happy to get an added $8.5 million for wildfire protection in 2009, raising annual funding to $15.5 million. The agency's budget was slashed by $35 million earlier this year, and it did not ask for more because of the intense battle for every dollar in the state budget, he said."
Texas Wildfires Protection Plan Still Only Half-Funded
DANNY ROBBINS and PAUL J. WEBER 09/14/11 09:31 PM ET
SAN ANTONIO — Long before this month's historic wildfires in Texas, the state's forest service came up with a $20.4 million plan to stop the flames from starting or tamp them out before small blazes grew deadly and destructive.
Three years later, the plan is still only half-funded – a result of the weak economy, a strained state budget and what one former lawmaker calls a "dereliction of duty" by legislators who almost always prefer to spend money only after a crisis has unfolded.
In 2008, the Texas Forest Service made an insistent sales pitch for an ambitious wildfire protection plan that called for adding more than 200 firefighters, creating rapid-response teams to quash small flare-ups, building advanced automated weather stations and establishing two training academies for wildfire crews.
"We cannot over-emphasize the protection aspects of this plan," officials wrote in their request for money. When fully funded and implemented, the program was "guaranteed to protect lives and properties."
The idea for the plan dated to 1999. But over nearly a decade of steadily worsening fires, the budget request acquired a sense of urgency. By 2008, it declared: "This is the final straw! Bigger fires call for bigger state resources!"
The Forest Service concedes that even the full fire-protection system would not have completely spared Texas from last week's catastrophic fires, which incinerated more than 1,700 homes, blackened tens of thousands of acres and killed four people.
"There's no way we'll ever be staffed to handle the worst-case, catastrophic events like you've seen recently," said Robbie DeWitt, chief financial officer of the Forest Service.
But the plan was designed to limit exactly those types of widespread losses – and at a fraction of the price of fighting full-blown fires.
Forest Service officials say they harbor no ill will toward lawmakers. It was the agency's own idea to increase funding only incrementally given economic realities.
Still, at least one critic says the decision to leave the plan only partially funded reflects lawmakers' reluctance to make big investments to prevent emergencies.
Former Republican state Rep. David Swinford used to represent the Panhandle, which in 2006 endured the deadliest wildfire on record in Texas, a blaze that killed 12 people and scorched more than a million acres.
After the flames were out, Swinford worked to increase funding for the wildfire plan and for volunteer fire departments through a tax on insurance companies. He said the state relies on a "crisis management" attitude that leans too heavily on paying for firefighting efforts after the fact.
"The dereliction of duty is the state not putting money in that program," he said. "I got tired of watching it."
Once a fire takes hold, the flames and the costs can quickly spread out of control. The federal government pays some of the expenses, but this past summer the Forest Service needed an infusion of $121 million from the state.
With an additional $8.5 million the state put toward the fire-protection plan in 2010, about 60 firefighters were hired. The Forest Service also bought heavy equipment such as bulldozers, opened nine new offices in high-risk fire areas and paid for some firefighter training.
Still, the annual funding for the program is about $12 million less than what the Forest Service considers necessary, according to the budget request and other documents reviewed by The Associated Press.
Texas is not the only state where firefighting efforts have been pinched by tight budgets.
Amid California's financial crisis, the budget for fire prevention and suppression has been cut about 10 percent this year, including a $2 million reduction that would have been used to hire 21 inspectors dedicated to preventing wildfires, said Janet Upton, a spokeswoman for the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
In Texas, the Forest Service's 2008 budget request outlined the human and financial costs of the devastating 2005-2006 fire season: 19 deaths and $643 million in property damage. The agency seemed to anticipate steadily worsening fires.
"Extreme wildfire behavior as we've experienced over the last decade is what we can continue to expect," the Forest Service warned.
Because Texas is locked in a 25- to 30-year dry period, "even with occasional rain events, we can expect a long-term situation with an increase in the number and severity of wildfires, perhaps unlike anything we've seen in Texas," the agency said.
According to the budget request, $20.4 million annually would be required to fund the program adequately. However, the agency said it would accept an "incremental approach" that would raise the amount of money slowly over several years.
The wildfire protection plan was also reviewed last year by the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission, which periodically assesses state agencies.
The commission took no position on whether the funding was adequate, but it noted that the Legislature had invested "significant" money to finance wildfire protection even though the Forest Service's plan was limited to a brochure and "miscellaneous documents."
DeWitt said the Forest Service was happy to get an added $8.5 million for wildfire protection in 2009, raising annual funding to $15.5 million. The agency's budget was slashed by $35 million earlier this year, and it did not ask for more because of the intense battle for every dollar in the state budget, he said.
___
Robbins reported from Dallas.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/14/texas-wildfire-protection-plan_n_962699.html
