43349
39499

Declare fireban when risk is high

Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH

Postby gordon_as » Jul 17th, 2017, 6:28 am

In my opinion , and based entirely on the weather , I think they were about 2 to 3 weeks late in declaring a fire ban this year. Would an earlier ban have prevented any fires ? I don't know , but like an earlier poster said , better to error on the side of caution. The fire ban should have been in place before the July long weekend , rather than after.
I don't vote for criminals.

Catsumi likes this post.
gordon_as
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2494
Likes: 28 posts
Liked in: 690 posts
Joined: Feb 16th, 2008, 9:12 am

Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH

Postby johnny24 » Jul 17th, 2017, 7:14 am

*removed*
Last edited by ferri on Jul 17th, 2017, 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: off topic
johnny24
Fledgling
 
Posts: 145
Likes: 6 posts
Liked in: 89 posts
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 9:16 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby Merry » Jul 17th, 2017, 7:39 am

Most fires are caused by lightening, not human error. But of those that are due to human error, many are from things like sparks on a railway line (ban trains?), or workers in the bush (ban logging?), or even home owners doing stuff that causes a spark (ban all homes that are anywhere near trees?).

When the fire situation is extreme they always do ban campfires. But it's an oversimplification to say that enacting earlier campfire bans would reduce the problem of wild fires. Those fires in the Central Interior were caused by lightening, and exacerbated by high winds and high temps. Campfires had nothing to do with it.
"In a world swathed in political correctness, the voting booth remains the final sanctuary where the people are free to speak" - Clifford Orwin
User avatar
Merry
Guru
 
Posts: 6440
Likes: 3023 posts
Liked in: 3028 posts
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 12:41 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby johnny24 » Jul 17th, 2017, 8:09 am

Merry wrote:Most fires are caused by lightening, not human error. But of those that are due to human error, many are from things like sparks on a railway line (ban trains?), or workers in the bush (ban logging?), or even home owners doing stuff that causes a spark (ban all homes that are anywhere near trees?).

When the fire situation is extreme they always do ban campfires. But it's an oversimplification to say that enacting earlier campfire bans would reduce the problem of wild fires. Those fires in the Central Interior were caused by lightening, and exacerbated by high winds and high temps. Campfires had nothing to do with it.
Attachments
untitled.png
untitled.png (83.36 KiB) Viewed 146 times
johnny24
Fledgling
 
Posts: 145
Likes: 6 posts
Liked in: 89 posts
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 9:16 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby TylerM4 » Jul 17th, 2017, 8:38 am

No, I don't support this and I just got back from being evacuated.

From what I've seen - the vast majority of fires this year has been from cigarettes and lightning strikes. An earlier campfire ban would have made little or no difference.

2 people like this post.
TylerM4
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 953
Likes: 228 posts
Liked in: 693 posts
Joined: Feb 27th, 2014, 4:22 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby LTD » Jul 17th, 2017, 8:42 am

time to ban lightning unless it comes with rain

3 people like this post.
LTD
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2372
Likes: 1564 posts
Liked in: 1524 posts
Joined: Mar 31st, 2010, 3:34 pm

Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH

Postby WalterWhite » Jul 17th, 2017, 9:47 am

*removed*
Last edited by ferri on Jul 17th, 2017, 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: response to off topic post

Carrs Landing Viking likes this post.
WalterWhite
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 724
Likes: 464 posts
Liked in: 674 posts
Joined: Jan 31st, 2017, 4:56 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby maryjane48 » Jul 17th, 2017, 9:53 am

theres videon on social media of a few folks coming accross a camp fire left and was starting to burn into the forest .

and down by harrison fire the firepeople came across a campfire that had spread also.clearly they need to be banned . and i go further restrict access. that is unless johnny can prove he can put any fire out . might want g9 put the one by alexis creek out first there johnny :smt045
User avatar
maryjane48
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 13816
Likes: 8708 posts
Liked in: 2045 posts
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 7:58 pm

Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH

Postby johnny24 » Jul 17th, 2017, 10:01 am

*removed*
Last edited by ferri on Jul 17th, 2017, 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: off topic
johnny24
Fledgling
 
Posts: 145
Likes: 6 posts
Liked in: 89 posts
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 9:16 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby GordonH » Jul 17th, 2017, 10:01 am

It would be curious to know how many of human caused fires were from a 1) campfire/2) cigarette butt, or other
i.e ATV/motorcycle or complete moron with fireworks

That's if they are able to figure it out
User avatar
GordonH
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 17050
Likes: 1560 posts
Liked in: 4793 posts
Joined: Oct 4th, 2008, 7:21 pm
Location: Second star to the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby Woodenhead » Jul 17th, 2017, 10:14 am

Just don't ban camp fires for firefighters.

Image

Point is that responsible people can be responsible, and nothing is idiot proof.
Wealth without work. Pleasure without conscience. Knowledge without character. Commerce without morality. Science without humanity. Politics without principle. Your bias suits you.

2 people like this post.
User avatar
Woodenhead
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 4968
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 691 posts
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 2:47 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby johnny24 » Jul 17th, 2017, 10:45 am

GordonH wrote:It would be curious to know how many of human caused fires were from a 1) campfire/2) cigarette butt, or other
i.e ATV/motorcycle or complete moron with fireworks

That's if they are able to figure it out


I would like to know also. I can't find the stats. I asked a previous poster to back up his opinion with facts, but apparently the mods here think educated opinions are off topic.

I'm surprised that campfires in a pit are a high risk. I've had many campfires in provincial campgrounds. Never once have I seen it light an unintended source on fire.
johnny24
Fledgling
 
Posts: 145
Likes: 6 posts
Liked in: 89 posts
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 9:16 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby Merry » Jul 17th, 2017, 11:00 am

maryjane48 wrote:theres videon on social media of a few folks coming accross a camp fire left and was starting to burn into the forest .

and down by harrison fire the firepeople came across a campfire that had spread also.clearly they need to be banned . and i go further restrict access. that is unless johnny can prove he can put any fire out . might want g9 put the one by alexis creek out first there johnny :smt045

The type of people who would walk away without making sure the fire is out, are also the type of people who would probably ignore a campfire ban.

It isn't fair to enact rules that punish those who are responsible, as a means of stopping irresponsible acts. Because irresponsible people don't follow the rules in the first place.
"In a world swathed in political correctness, the voting booth remains the final sanctuary where the people are free to speak" - Clifford Orwin

GordonH likes this post.
User avatar
Merry
Guru
 
Posts: 6440
Likes: 3023 posts
Liked in: 3028 posts
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 12:41 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby LTD » Jul 17th, 2017, 11:12 am

Woodenhead wrote:Just don't ban camp fires for firefighters.

Image

Point is that responsible people can be responsible, and nothing is idiot proof.

actually the point is not all responsible people are not idiots I hope these clowns are all fired pun intended for this stupid decision I don't imagine anyone who has lost everything in that area would be very impressed to see this, and before the sob story about them being fire fighters and able to put it out starts keep in mind they have no idea where the sparks from that fire are landing and what they might be doing
LTD
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2372
Likes: 1564 posts
Liked in: 1524 posts
Joined: Mar 31st, 2010, 3:34 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby Merry » Jul 17th, 2017, 11:15 am

I agree that lighting that fire was foolish; but I'm not sure I'd fire them. Right now they need every firefighter they can get.
"In a world swathed in political correctness, the voting booth remains the final sanctuary where the people are free to speak" - Clifford Orwin
User avatar
Merry
Guru
 
Posts: 6440
Likes: 3023 posts
Liked in: 3028 posts
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 12:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Fire Watch 2017

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest