Feds order access to hunters

[tipsntails7]

Hard to debate budget cuts when we aren't looking at the spending reports ourselves. Just because their not getting the job done with the funding allocated, doesn't mean it can't be done with less. Our governments "business model" has proven time, and time again to be inefficient. When something isn't working efficiently, government claims insufficiency on funding. In the private sector funding sufficiency comes from being efficient which comes from experience. Experience works differently in the private sector then government because when change is made within the private sector it's the experienced that's making the changes, and we know most changes should save money, or make money, not cost money. We need to try new plans, new budgets within our government. I think this is a good move, can't stay idle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think this is pretty spot on. My only issues is if you cut it, don't just give what you cut to another chronic money waster within your "company".

Doing business costs money, and unfortunately all the red tape and hoops that have been created by government as checks and balances for that money create money leak. When i work with government agencies, its a complete time suck. Prevailing wages, everything has to be run up the proverbial flag poll and get 5 signatures, where with private companies, if its my project i make the decisions.

While I am sure the NF is not the most efficient, more fires+less budget=less maintenance and upkeep of things that should be getting done.

It is a tuff question, would you rather pay more to have it get done, or pay less and have nothing get done.

 

[dotman]

I think this is pretty spot on. My only issues is if you cut it, don't just give what you cut to another chronic money waster within your "company".

Doing business costs money, and unfortunately all the red tape and hoops that have been created by government as checks and balances for that money create money leak. When i work with government agencies, its a complete time suck. Prevailing wages, everything has to be run up the proverbial flag poll and get 5 signatures, where with private companies, if its my project i make the decisions.

While I am sure the NF is not the most efficient, more fires+less budget=less maintenance and upkeep of things that should be getting done.

It is a tuff question, would you rather pay more to have it get done, or pay less and have nothing get done.

Personally I think they should let our forest burn naturally. To protect required infrastructure be proactive with fire breaks and clearing of dead trees etc .

 

[tipsntails7]

Personally I think they should let our forest burn naturally. To protect required infrastructure be proactive with fire breaks and clearing of dead trees etc .

I think that is impossible at this point unfortunately, our encroachment on and into forests are to great in my eyes. Look at the Columbia gorge fire. it started with little to no infrastructure near by, and went from a kid throwing a fire cracker to 37k acres and counting in 10 days with evacuations up and down the gorge. and it literally jumped the entire gorge to start a fire in Washington.

I am not a fire or forestry guy so im uneducated on the subject, but I do not think fire breaks and clearing dead trees will solve all the problems. I also think Geography plays a large role where fire breaks of a size your talking about can even be put in place.

where do you draw the line as far as saving infrastructure? is 300 structures worth saving? 500? total value of assets?

these are all tuff questions, and questions no politician or appointed figure is going to want to answer, as no one wants to be told that their home, their history and all their possessions are going to be allowed to burn as they are outside the "designated" area.

But I did just spend a week in eastern Oregon and I cant tell you how many times i said out loud "this place could use a fire". so there may well be a place for that strategy.

 

[dotman]

Yeah have d to draw a line but if the fire is on public let it burn, if threatening private infrastructure then fight it and have the state pay the bill to protect its residents. Now it can't be just that cut and dry as each scenario will be unique I'm sure. Part of the problem is we've let our forests become a huge tinderbox, a major disaster of a large fire will happen at some point.