Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty
If the cost of saving it wouldn't justify it for private owners, how is it justified under public ownership?
|
Gee, I wonder... Maybe because the forest is USED PUBLICALLY?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty
Well maybe they shouldn't have been living in fire-prone areas if the costs of stopping any fires is too great for them to bear.
|
Because you know, forest fires can't spread or anything. And you know, not like people could be walking through the forest and coincidentally get trapped in a fire. And you know, its not like forest fires are mostly caused by dry conditions and campers lighting a fire without soaking the forest around them.
You seriously think it'd make sense for a whole chunk of a continent to be evacuated, causing massive overcrowding in the other parts that are nowhere near forests? Southern Australia has alot of forests, and they're prone to fire in drought seasons. Evacuating people from that general area because a few people have an issue with paying taxes for fire services would be ridiculous!