• Printer friendly
• E-mail to a friend
• 22 comment(s)
• Recommend

  ( 0 )

• 

Subject:

Body:

Poster:

Enter text seen above:

Misguided Priorities : 12/17/2009

So the fire-fighters were trying to save HUMAN lives and in the process 50 trout were killed. What do these "environmentalists" not know about humans being a part of the environment also???
What a bunch of misguided whackos!

Art

An Easy Solution : 12/17/2009

What this group is asking for is completely reasonable - that the agencies put policies in place to prevent something like this from happening again. Surely, we can find a way to protect homes while taking simple measures to avoid unnecessary impacts to critically endangered fish. Homes can be saved, fish can be protected, everyone wins. Thank you firefighters!

Retired firefighter

: 12/17/2009

wow save the trout and not the people..lame environmentalists

Follow the Law : 12/17/2009

As the article indicates, the Forest Service already has a policy (a contract, really) since 2000 about avoiding waterways for drops of fire retardant. Their process failed them and they violated the Endangered Species Act as a result. They would continue to violate the law unless private groups initiated lawsuits like this one. The debate already is done about people versus fish or whatever the stupid spin of the moment may be. The federal Endangered Species Act has existed for decades and is here to stay.

Oncorhynchus mykiss

more evidence needed : 12/17/2009

I'd like to see evidence to support the litigants claim that the use of fire retardant actually had no effect on the fire, as this seems to be a key point. As those of us who ACTUALLY live in Santa Barbara know, the potential for loss in the Jesusita fire was tremendous. If not for the firefighters efforts, 100s of homes could have been lost, as well as human lives. And as we see from the SB Independent cover story last week, the economic ramifications for our community after a potentially greater loss would have been devastating -- years of recovery. This in turn, effecting the ability of insurance companies to provide protection to other communities affected by natural disasters. I will admit that I am biased in this situation, and would put the lives of humans above those of 50 trout -- particularly if we find that the fire retardant is more effective in saving lives and homes than water...

Palomino Rd Resident

Policy : 12/17/2009

The environmentalist are just attempting to get a policy in place. They aren't saying that fish are more important than humans. It also wasn't just 50 trout, it was 50 steelhead trout. It would be an absolute tragedy if we were to lose another species completely. Guess who's next people? PS, great response Retired Firefighter!

Neither Left or Right but smack dab in the middle

idiots : 12/17/2009

you people are idiots. there damn fish. and homes and lives were destroyed...damn liberals

USFS Politics and Poison : 12/17/2009

Was your little kid playing in the water downstream from where the fire retardant was sprayed? (In other words, "How can anyone not see the link between a toxic-free environment and human health?")
The nonprofit group Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics got started because the U.S. Forest Service has a long history of engaging in poor management of the forests (OUR forests) to manage them for timber production at the expense of other resources (fish, wildlife, etc.). A younger generation of educated people began to work for the USFS and saw what was happening, and wanted to change an antiquated, corrupt, harmful system–without being fired. The USFS, like all state and federal agencies that manage OUR public lands, are by law responsible for managing ALL resources under their care. This is supposed to ensure that whatever political or personal whims someone in management may have doesn't destroy or damage a resource for future generations of Americans. I would like my children's children to see steelhead trout in our creeks.

Former USFS employee

What? : 12/17/2009

Its 50 fish, I get they are endagered but do you people remember how bad that fire got and how quiclkly. We're all lucky no human lives were lost and no more homes were damaged. The Forest Service didnt purposely drop the retardant on in the watershed.

Oy

: 12/17/2009

And if water would have worked just as well, that would have been the better decision. The argument that it's fish or people and their homes is a false dichotomy.

This is disgusting....but not suprising. : 12/17/2009

Seems just like our local group, the EDC, these nut jobs care more about fish than the lives and homes of people here in Santa Barbara. Let's see how long before the Environmental Defense Center and their elected lackey Janet Wolf wait to come to the aid of this insane group.

Environmentalist disgusted by Extremism

natural selection : 12/17/2009

If all environmentalists believe in natural selection.....why is it so hard to accept it when it happens? These fish clearly can not survive in today's world, and will only have a harder time in years to come. Why don't you go save some orphans in Mexico.....oh wait, people don't matter, i forgot.

Reading Comprehension needed : 12/17/2009

If the Humans cannot adapt by breathing ammonia instead of oxygen, then they clearly cannot survive in today's world, and will only have a harder time in years to come.

Charles Darwin

: 12/17/2009

Yea, Darwinian evolution is happening. Just like early American settlers shooting all the buffalo on the great plains until almost every last one was gone. Too bad those buffalo just couldn't adapt! (Extreme ignorance makes me wince–I'm done reading this page. "It's just a bunch of stupid fish." It's also just a bunch of ignorant people unable to grasp a concept that wouldn't be so difficult to grasp if they actually educated themselves, just a little bit. Start by reading about the food chain–I think that's third grade.)

Idiots : 12/17/2009

No one one is say save the fish and not the people- they are saying "while saving the people- go easy on the fish" -you think Santa Barbara is nice without nature? Want to point at a trout to your kids? No you want to teach them the difference between "there" and "they're" - oh wait, you can't....

Idiat

ING! : 12/17/2009

IDIAT

Has anyone actually been to this site? I have. : 12/18/2009

I've actually been to the site in question, probably something that not many other commenters can say, and this site was upper watershed, steep, undeveloped with no homes, no buildings, and no human occupants within 2-3 miles. Just another fact to throw into the discussion, make use of it as you will.

Anon gov't employee

Natural Selection? : 12/19/2009

Who says what's happening to these fish is natural selection? They obviously don't know what it is! Natural selection is the genetic changes that occur in a population over time, based on natural changes that occur in the environment, or just a genetic change that is better suited to the current environment. It has nothing to do with people destroying fish habitat. Poster, please take a high school biology class.

Politics : 12/22/2009

This is not a tree hugger story. There are a number of chemicals on the market that are environmentally safe and actually extinguish fires.
This is a story of a chemical company that had the vision, about 9 years ago, to hire a 36 year veteran of the US Forest Service (fire science laboratory leader). Shortly after this ex-US Forest Service person was hired, the visionary company patented a retardant formula. Once the patent was perfected the US Forest Service changed the retardant specification. Certainly, unknown to the US Forest Service, the US Forest Service's new specification could only be met by the company that had just patented their retardant formula.
On March 24, 2006 the National Interagency Fire Center issued a document titled "2006 Wildland Fire Talking Points". Page 19 of this document has a heading called "Retardant". The first sentence under this heading states: "Retardant does not put out fires."
A spokesperson from the Santa Barbara County Fire Department said that although County Fire works with Cal Fire and other agencies during wildland fire suppression efforts, the county itself does not use flame retardant.
Interestingly, the California Department of General Services entered into a contract with this visionary chemical company that makes it mandatory for Calfire to purchase its retardant, gel and Class A foam.

ecoenergy

Its your fault : 12/22/2009

Ok, for 1 thing, You people that live in the front country can blame your selfs and the Forest Service for Moving the Airtanker base to Santa Maria from Santa Barbara Airport, The Gap Fire and the Jesusita Fire Could have been stopped In Hours instead of days at less than 50 Acres each! The cost to taxpayers on these two fires is crazy, as a taxpayer i am pissed that the cost in santa maria tanker base is so high, $400.00 per plane for ramp fees??? (not to the airport) No Base Manager is on the Los Padres, They have to import one from someplace in the country, That is why the planes had to go to other bases to reload??? Crazy!!! YOU NEED to get the Airtanker base back to Santa Barbara Airport, and dont take no from The Forest Service...

Taxpayer

: 12/22/2009

Hey previous poster, using "you people" is rude, "your selfs" should be "yourselves", "i" and the first letters in "Santa Maria" should be capitalized, and on and on. You're a taxpayer? Product of public schools? Holy cow.

ecology : 12/30/2009

If the fire retardant is killing fish don't you think human beings might also be impacted? Why are we dowsing ourselves with chemicals that are potentially carcinogenic? ACS