44671
45484

Declare fireban when risk is high

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby Catsumi » Aug 7th, 2017, 2:11 pm

johnny24 wrote:
Catsumi wrote:
This thread was started pleading for earlier bans, rather than later when the damage is horrendous.


Majority of the damage was done after the bans were in place. Bans in May and June aren't going to stop fires caused in July.

Catsumi wrote:The grannies near Falkland have really won my heart. They were also repeatedly asking for back country closures from the Fire Office, got nowhere until cbc Daybreak interviewed Pat Peebles. The grassoline and treed area near their homes and ranches is a targeted area for party-folk with irresponsible and nitwit behaviours... campfires, cigs tossed, broken glass, shot deer, garbage, atv's jackassing around, shooting, and whatever else they call "fun". These people have drivers licenses so it follows they are adults.

Peebles and pals decided to "man" their own closure, trading off shifts even through the night to protect the area from the nitwits. Not bad for a bunch of little old ladies! Granny Power Rocks!


Perhaps if this generation tried to make a difference 40 years ago, we wouldn't be talking about his now.



I agree with you up to a point. It was 50 years ago that Rachel Carson, a biologist, published "Silent Spring", a book that started the ecology movement. Still a good read today.

Many of us youngsters took her warnings seriously, forming movements to stop wholesale logging; pollution of rivers, streams, lakes, oceans; stopped the widespread use of DDT that was destroying wild bird populations; began cleanups of waterways; insisted on scrubbers for pulp mill operations; massively cut back on the use of spray cannisters that caused ozone depletion; raised hell about oil spills (and so on). Then, we sent our kids to universities to study the earth sciences and in turn to do something to rectify the mess humans were making globally. Today this new generation is raising the alarm about improper disposal of plastics resulting in the deaths of fish, turtles and other marine life, even the tiny ones. They are informing us of how air pollution from mills in China travel via jetstream right over to us in North America.

Since we know and understand that severe damage or extinction of forests, ocean life and wildlife will mean our own demise, doesn't it make sense that we better be proactive rather than reactive?

All is not lost yet. We sure could use some more help.
I can and WILL spray mercaptans all over your ill-considered & vacuous statements.
Don't bring peashooters to a gunfight.

tsayta likes this post.
User avatar
Catsumi
Fledgling
 
Posts: 191
Likes: 409 posts
Liked in: 127 posts
Joined: May 24th, 2017, 8:26 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby johnny24 » Aug 17th, 2017, 7:43 pm

Interesting that three of the worst years (2014,2015,2017) were when there was fire bans. but some of the best years (like last year) was when there was no bans:

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safet ... e-averages

And the money spent during years of bans is significantly greater than other years.
johnny24
Fledgling
 
Posts: 211
Likes: 22 posts
Liked in: 118 posts
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 9:16 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby Frisk » Aug 17th, 2017, 8:03 pm

johnny24 wrote:Interesting that three of the worst years (2014,2015,2017) were when there was fire bans. but some of the best years (like last year) was when there was no bans:

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safet ... e-averages

And the money spent during years of bans is significantly greater than other years.


Ummm that's because of the weather. 2014, 2015 and 2017 were hot and dry with widespread high fire risk, 2016 was average with minimal fire risk. Fire bans are necessary during dry years to prevent additional human caused fires that put strain on firefighting resources. Obviously there's going to be more fires and higher costs during the dry summers regardless of there being a fire ban or not.
User avatar
Frisk
Guru
 
Posts: 7307
Likes: 2508 posts
Liked in: 1734 posts
Joined: Apr 24th, 2011, 9:32 am
Location: West Kelowna

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby johnny24 » Aug 17th, 2017, 8:05 pm

Frisk wrote:
Ummm that's because of the weather. 2014, 2015 and 2017 were hot and dry with widespread high fire risk.


Sorry, can you please say that a little louder so everyone can hear...You're saying the climate played a major role in the number of fires?
johnny24
Fledgling
 
Posts: 211
Likes: 22 posts
Liked in: 118 posts
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 9:16 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby maryjane48 » Aug 17th, 2017, 8:12 pm

be a rebel johnny and go have your campfire . :130:
User avatar
maryjane48
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 14987
Likes: 9425 posts
Liked in: 2330 posts
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 7:58 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby Frisk » Aug 17th, 2017, 8:14 pm

johnny24 wrote:
Frisk wrote:
Ummm that's because of the weather. 2014, 2015 and 2017 were hot and dry with widespread high fire risk.


Sorry, can you please say that a little louder so everyone can hear...You're saying the climate played a major role in the number of fires?


Yes, obviously.
The way fires start and spread is greatly influenced by weather.
User avatar
Frisk
Guru
 
Posts: 7307
Likes: 2508 posts
Liked in: 1734 posts
Joined: Apr 24th, 2011, 9:32 am
Location: West Kelowna

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby Fancy » Aug 24th, 2017, 6:22 am

User avatar
Fancy
The Pilgrim
 
Posts: 41931
Likes: 875 posts
Liked in: 4235 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby Treblehook » Aug 25th, 2017, 2:52 pm

The stupidity of charging these fire fighters is off the scale IMHO. Camp fire bans are put in place because history has proven that too many people who go out camping for the weekend don't put their campfires out when they leave them; don't place their campfires where there is no risk of igniting the area around the fire and so on. Does anyone really think that these men and women who fight wildfires day and night don't know what they are doing? In this case, someone saw these fire fighters with a campfire and had the reaction ...how come they can do that and nobody else can?. The fire fighters were approached and the complaining individual didn't like their response, so off to the media and the authorities to complain. The appropriate reaction to these folks having a campfire would have maybe been for their employer/supervisor to have chastised/disciplined them for their actions.
User avatar
Treblehook
Übergod
 
Posts: 1760
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 1026 posts
Joined: Jan 17th, 2011, 2:10 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby tsayta » Aug 25th, 2017, 2:54 pm

Treblehook wrote:The stupidity of charging these fire fighters is off the scale IMHO. Camp fire bans are put in place because history has proven that too many people who go out camping for the weekend don't put their campfires out when they leave them; don't place their campfires where there is no risk of igniting the area around the fire and so on. Does anyone really think that these men and women who fight wildfires day and night don't know what they are doing? In this case, someone saw these fire fighters with a campfire and had the reaction ...how come they can do that and nobody else can?. The fire fighters were approached and the complaining individual didn't like their response, so off to the media and the authorities to complain. The appropriate reaction to these folks having a campfire would have maybe been for their employer/supervisor to have chastised/disciplined them for their actions.

Would it not be like letting an RCMP officer off for drunk driving?
I have learned that to be with those I like is enough.
WW

Catsumi likes this post.
User avatar
tsayta
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2624
Likes: 1080 posts
Liked in: 1333 posts
Joined: Feb 1st, 2006, 9:25 pm
Location: Kelowna

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby Merry » Aug 25th, 2017, 3:04 pm

Treblehook wrote:The stupidity of charging these fire fighters is off the scale IMHO. Camp fire bans are put in place because history has proven that too many people who go out camping for the weekend don't put their campfires out when they leave them; don't place their campfires where there is no risk of igniting the area around the fire and so on. Does anyone really think that these men and women who fight wildfires day and night don't know what they are doing? In this case, someone saw these fire fighters with a campfire and had the reaction ...how come they can do that and nobody else can?. The fire fighters were approached and the complaining individual didn't like their response, so off to the media and the authorities to complain. The appropriate reaction to these folks having a campfire would have maybe been for their employer/supervisor to have chastised/disciplined them for their actions.

Even though I hated to see those young firefighters having to pay such a large fine, we cannot condone a situation where there is one rule for one group, and a different rule for the rest of us. So, regrettably, I agree with them getting fined, even though I also agree with much of what you say about how the situation unfolded.
"In a world swathed in political correctness, the voting booth remains the final sanctuary where the people are free to speak" - Clifford Orwin

Catsumi likes this post.
User avatar
Merry
Guru
 
Posts: 6628
Likes: 3289 posts
Liked in: 3347 posts
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 12:41 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby Woodenhead » Aug 25th, 2017, 3:18 pm

I'd be more in favour of internal discipline in this case. But I'm not a fan of totally strict black and white in law, for the most part. The real world is more nuanced and full of different colours.
Wealth without work. Pleasure without conscience. Knowledge without character. Commerce without morality. Science without humanity. Politics without principle. Your bias suits you.
User avatar
Woodenhead
Guru
 
Posts: 5067
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 828 posts
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 2:47 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby Drip_Torch » Aug 27th, 2017, 4:34 pm

Back on Topic (well almost, and caution completely insensitive comments and graphic picture to follow) I wonder if there isn't some merit to restricting raptor in-flight payloads to less than 3 inches when the risk is high?

Untitled-1.jpg


the working theory is that the hawk, carrying the snake, intended to land on the line but on final approach the snake dangling below contacted one line while the hawk touched another. The completed circuit electrocuted both animals.


The fact it happened in "Black Eagle", suggests this wasn't a one off. Turns out Wildfire Today has a whole section on animal arsonists. Some of the stories are really quite amusing.

http://wildfiretoday.com/tag/animal-arson/

Point being, I generally agree with fire bans, and believe the Province strives to find the right balance. There will be fires and there's little we can do beyond being prepared and proactive.

:topic:
Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 802
Likes: 179 posts
Liked in: 377 posts
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby Catsumi » Aug 29th, 2017, 12:40 pm

Point being, I generally agree with fire bans, and believe the Province strives to find the right balance. There will be fires and there's little we can do beyond being prepared and proactive.

:topic:[/quote]


This was the original intent when I started this thread. Since that time, I think we have all learned a lot from this and other threads.

Yes, fire bans are a necessity seeing that some folks will innocently light a campfire or drop a hot cig butt that leads to huge, long lasting fires. As well, there are those who are not so innocent. Posting a fire ban will decrease the number of fire starts. My original complaint was that the fire rating had moved from HIGH to EXTREME, major fires were already burning for weeks, BEFORE the fireban was imposed. My point is, why wait until after EXTREME conditions are met and the horse has left the barn? If the risk is listed as HIGH why not then post ban...just how bad does it have to get? What is the real difference between the two levels of HIGH and EXTREME other than the situation has dragged on for longer?

As to being prepared, it seems we are caught short every time. We have to bring in firefighters from Mexico, Australia, etc. The army is there in a very small number (total was 650 according to latest news article i could find) but not allowed to firefight, (or not trained) ...only to mop up. Our college students are now returning to their studies and are leaving the frontlines. How much training did they get? We just don't seem to have enough personnel and machinery to deal with this epic summer, and more is to come.

I turn to Texas where thousands of national guard are pouring in from surrounding states to lend a hand. Isn't this a possibility for B.C.'s future that should be discussed? Perhaps all those who love to ATV, camp out with fires, and feel that it is their God given right to be in the bush, regardless of closures and bans, might be the first to step up to volunteer for training for emergency situations?

(Yes, I jest!)

Maybe by the time changes are made, there will be little forest to worry about. :smt045
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: 191
Likes: 409 posts
Liked in: 127 posts
Joined: May 24th, 2017, 8:26 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby johnny24 » Aug 31st, 2017, 7:28 pm

In a year where we have had more bans and heavier fines than ever before, the amount of human caused fires is once again right around the 40% mark. This is almost identical to the 10 year average (38.7%). All these bans and fines have had almost zero effect.
johnny24
Fledgling
 
Posts: 211
Likes: 22 posts
Liked in: 118 posts
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 9:16 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby Frisk » Aug 31st, 2017, 7:55 pm

johnny24 wrote:In a year where we have had more bans and heavier fines than ever before, the amount of human caused fires is once again right around the 40% mark. This is almost identical to the 10 year average (38.7%). All these bans and fines have had almost zero effect.


That's a baseless argument. The total % of fires that are human caused varies greatly each year depending on the amount lightning. 2009 saw widespread bans similar to this year. There was almost triple the number of fires that year compared to 2017 yet only 28.8% of the fires were human caused.

This has been one of the driest summers on record for many parts of the province, so the fact that the total number of human caused fires this year is actually below the historical average of 713 is a testament to the fire bans working.
User avatar
Frisk
Guru
 
Posts: 7307
Likes: 2508 posts
Liked in: 1734 posts
Joined: Apr 24th, 2011, 9:32 am
Location: West Kelowna

PreviousNext

Return to Fire Watch 2017

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest