44671

Declare fireban when risk is high

Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby Catsumi » Jul 16th, 2017, 6:54 pm

Summer rolls around, forests as dry as a hangover mouth, and yet once again, the Kamloops Fire Protection District (a misnomer if there ever was one) fails to impose a campfire ban even though the danger level has passed High into Extreme with fires burning out of control hither and thither. I would just love to know WHY each year there is a long delay. Who benefits from this inaction? Shots in the dark:
1. Campers who don't know about the handy, dandy portable gas rings?

2. Those who are still frozen from our long winter and 100 F heat isn't enough to thaw them?

3. Is it logging companies that need to cut timber to replace those homes burning to the ground?

4. Is it helicopter operators, or the manufacturers of flame retardents?

5. Is it the politician photo opportunity, complete with bright shiny yellow helmets to protect their valuable brainpans?

6. Respiratory technologists who help asthmatics get through the fire season?

The non-beneficiaries of a delayed fireban, the evacuees, the destroyed forests and the long suffering wildlife, the livestock and pets, the newly homeless, if they could, also probably would love to know why a campfire ban isn't in effect beginning on the same day as water restrictions start (no matter how wet it is). Yes, most people will understand and obey for the greater good.

There will be fires started by accident or lightening, some by brainless folk who start illegal campfires and cigarette tossers (who should be heavily fined and jailed too). However, a timely campfire ban COULD prevent over half of the fires statistically accounted for each year.

To date, July 16,2017, we are on the hook for $81,000,000.00 for firefighting costs. It's early in the season so I wonder how high the costs will rise. Does this amount include homes that need to be rebuilt, infrastructure destroyed, payrolls, evacuee maintenance for housing, meals, incidentals?

We could have paid for EIGHT payouts to Khadar and his associates. Just kidding!

Should we not be putting the question to politicians at all levels and not letting up until we have a sensible fireban policy?
I can and WILL spray mercaptans all over your ill-considered & vacuous statements.
Don't bring peashooters to a gunfight.

JUSTIN J likes this post.
User avatar
Catsumi
Fledgling
 
Posts: 178
Likes: 398 posts
Liked in: 121 posts
Joined: May 24th, 2017, 8:26 pm

Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH

Postby Carrs Landing Viking » Jul 16th, 2017, 7:39 pm

There is a campfire ban province wide. Just so you know.
User avatar
Carrs Landing Viking
Board Meister
 
Posts: 428
Likes: 4350 posts
Liked in: 401 posts
Joined: Mar 2nd, 2010, 8:06 pm

Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH

Postby johnny24 » Jul 16th, 2017, 7:41 pm

Catsumi wrote:Summer rolls around, forests as dry as a hangover mouth, and yet once again, the Kamloops Fire Protection District (a misnomer if there ever was one) fails to impose a campfire ban even though the danger level has passed High into Extreme with fires burning out of control hither and thither. I would just love to know WHY each year there is a long delay. Who benefits from this inaction? Shots in the dark:
1. Campers who don't know about the handy, dandy portable gas rings?

2. Those who are still frozen from our long winter and 100 F heat isn't enough to thaw them?

3. Is it logging companies that need to cut timber to replace those homes burning to the ground?

4. Is it helicopter operators, or the manufacturers of flame retardents?

5. Is it the politician photo opportunity, complete with bright shiny yellow helmets to protect their valuable brainpans?

6. Respiratory technologists who help asthmatics get through the fire season?

The non-beneficiaries of a delayed fireban, the evacuees, the destroyed forests and the long suffering wildlife, the livestock and pets, the newly homeless, if they could, also probably would love to know why a campfire ban isn't in effect beginning on the same day as water restrictions start (no matter how wet it is). Yes, most people will understand and obey for the greater good.

There will be fires started by accident or lightening, some by brainless folk who start illegal campfires and cigarette tossers (who should be heavily fined and jailed too). However, a timely campfire ban COULD prevent over half of the fires statistically accounted for each year.

To date, July 16,2017, we are on the hook for $81,000,000.00 for firefighting costs. It's early in the season so I wonder how high the costs will rise. Does this amount include homes that need to be rebuilt, infrastructure destroyed, payrolls, evacuee maintenance for housing, meals, incidentals?

We could have paid for EIGHT payouts to Khadar and his associates. Just kidding!

Should we not be putting the question to politicians at all levels and not letting up until we have a sensible fireban policy?


You think a campfire ban would have saved the province $81M?
johnny24
Fledgling
 
Posts: 209
Likes: 22 posts
Liked in: 117 posts
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 9:16 am

Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH

Postby dale mck » Jul 16th, 2017, 7:56 pm

Don't know what the criteria is for enacting a fire ban,,or how much it varies from district to district ,,but I would prefer they erred on the side of caution. The next step that I think is not acted on often or soon enough is a total "backwoods" ban. Not popular but not unreasonable to help reduce people caused fires, when extreme dry conditions persist.

3 people like this post.
dale mck
 
Posts: 33
Likes: 24 posts
Liked in: 18 posts
Joined: Dec 4th, 2005, 8:51 am

Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH

Postby Catsumi » Jul 16th, 2017, 8:08 pm

Yes, I am aware that there is NOW a fireban. If you read my letter you will see that I asked WHY does it take so long to declare a ban when the danger levels have passed High and are in Extreme.

I think $81,000,000.00 will only be a drop in the moneypit for fire fighting this year. Even if all fires were put out tonight, perhaps had a ban been institued earlier a savings of $40,000,000.00 could have been used to hire more doctors,or build housing for our homeless. Just saying.
I can and WILL spray mercaptans all over your ill-considered & vacuous statements.
Don't bring peashooters to a gunfight.
User avatar
Catsumi
Fledgling
 
Posts: 178
Likes: 398 posts
Liked in: 121 posts
Joined: May 24th, 2017, 8:26 pm

Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH

Postby maryjane48 » Jul 16th, 2017, 8:23 pm

i think thats where we headed dale . i raised the question of why buffers are not looked at more and the answer i got was people want the trees close by . ok fair enough . but our govt has a duty to keep everyone safe . it isnt a right to go camping or in the backwoods when in high risk season .


so really the only thing the govt can do is restrict access .

Catsumi likes this post.
User avatar
maryjane48
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 14952
Likes: 9418 posts
Liked in: 2328 posts
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 7:58 pm

Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH

Postby Tootsie » Jul 16th, 2017, 8:51 pm

Yep and I said a few days ago - close the parks. Like they did in 2003. Knox Mtn is closed. Time to close all other community parks. Well I guess Jack Seaton Park doesn't have to be closed now - that's been taken care of this weekend.

Catsumi likes this post.
Tootsie
Board Meister
 
Posts: 429
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 107 posts
Joined: Dec 4th, 2008, 10:47 pm

Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH

Postby Woodenhead » Jul 16th, 2017, 9:09 pm

I would also like an ALLCAPS ban.
Wealth without work. Pleasure without conscience. Knowledge without character. Commerce without morality. Science without humanity. Politics without principle. Your bias suits you.

4 people like this post.
User avatar
Woodenhead
Guru
 
Posts: 5067
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 825 posts
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 2:47 pm

Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH

Postby fall » Jul 16th, 2017, 9:09 pm

Only the middle of July, this wont be the last one around here sadly.
I don't think any amount of precaution can stop stupid.

Catsumi likes this post.
fall
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2310
Likes: 136 posts
Liked in: 622 posts
Joined: Mar 12th, 2010, 11:26 am

Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH

Postby johnny24 » Jul 16th, 2017, 9:44 pm

dale mck wrote:Don't know what the criteria is for enacting a fire ban,,or how much it varies from district to district ,,but I would prefer they erred on the side of caution. The next step that I think is not acted on often or soon enough is a total "backwoods" ban. Not popular but not unreasonable to help reduce people caused fires, when extreme dry conditions persist.


Should we have a total driving ban too? How about sports like skiing or hockey? Kids playgrounds? Should we ban houses with stairs?

Far more people are injured and die from all of those activities than they do from forest fires. The costs of fires pale in comparison to the medical costs of these activities, but everyone overreacts when the media puts fires at front and center.
Last edited by johnny24 on Jul 16th, 2017, 10:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
johnny24
Fledgling
 
Posts: 209
Likes: 22 posts
Liked in: 117 posts
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 9:16 am

Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH

Postby CEB » Jul 16th, 2017, 9:54 pm

problem users don't usually follow the rules anyway so closing places can also mean that the good eyes/supervision aren't out there, which can be a problem. I've found hot fires before and put them out. My opinion has always been that parents need to speak to their kids about what risks they might be creating and to respect that danger. Bush Grad parties scare me. Smokers need to also be respectful. NO butts should ever be found on the ground- it's dangerous, disrespectful trash at the least and a danger at the worst.

When we see these things happen around us we need to do our part to educate and/or report.

Catsumi likes this post.
CEB
 
Posts: 17
Likes: 10 posts
Liked in: 14 posts
Joined: Aug 13th, 2014, 6:01 pm

Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH

Postby Tootsie » Jul 16th, 2017, 10:55 pm

"everyone overreacts when the media puts fires at front and center"

Huh ? Really ? Have you been evacuated? Are your eyes drooping like mine are after this weekend wondering if I have to leave my home in a minute? The fires ARE "front and center" in some of our lives right now. Your view might change if you walk a mile in some of our shoes. Believe me ....fires ARE front and center especially WHEN they're front and center in our yards and we have people knocking on our doors telling us to leave !
EDIT: Sorry to offend anyone. Just a bit testy in OK Centre & took it as belittling the fire situation. It's been a very un-nerving weekend.

2 people like this post.
Tootsie
Board Meister
 
Posts: 429
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 107 posts
Joined: Dec 4th, 2008, 10:47 pm

Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH

Postby johnny24 » Jul 16th, 2017, 11:05 pm

Tootsie wrote:"everyone overreacts when the media puts fires at front and center"

Huh ? Really ? Have you been evacuated? Are your eyes drooping like mine are after this weekend wondering if I have to leave my home in a minute? The fires ARE "front and center" in some of our lives right now. Your view might change if you walk a mile in some of our shoes. Believe me ....fires ARE front and center especially WHEN they're front and center in our yards and we have people knocking on our doors telling us to leave !


Yes, I was evacuated in 2003.
What's your point? You're not the only person who's had to face a little adversity.
johnny24
Fledgling
 
Posts: 209
Likes: 22 posts
Liked in: 117 posts
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 9:16 am

Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH

Postby Tootsie » Jul 16th, 2017, 11:15 pm

Maybe my point is please don't belittle this in any way. Apparently you went through this. Do you not remember your feelings at the time? Maybe 14 years lessen it ? It's real and up front for many of us here in Lake Country that have had a really bad weekend. Please don't allude to it's really nothing in the big scheme of things. It IS in OUR big scheme of things right now.

Catsumi likes this post.
Tootsie
Board Meister
 
Posts: 429
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 107 posts
Joined: Dec 4th, 2008, 10:47 pm

Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH

Postby johnny24 » Jul 16th, 2017, 11:57 pm

Tootsie wrote:Maybe my point is please don't belittle this in any way. Apparently you went through this. Do you not remember your feelings at the time? Maybe 14 years lessen it ? It's real and up front for many of us here in Lake Country that have had a really bad weekend. Please don't allude to it's really nothing in the big scheme of things. It IS in OUR big scheme of things right now.


I wasn't trying to belittle the fire. I was responding to the suggestion we should have automatic campfire bans every year. My reply is that campfires are far less risky than many other day to day activities, but nobody suggests banning them because they don't result in one major catastrophic event.
johnny24
Fledgling
 
Posts: 209
Likes: 22 posts
Liked in: 117 posts
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 9:16 am

Next

Return to Fire Watch 2017

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests