46203
48070

Declare fireban when risk is high

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby johnny24 » Aug 31st, 2017, 7:12 pm

Frisk wrote:
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.


It's not a baseless argument. I just showed the stats. No matter what the climate, no matter what bans are in place, the majority of years are right around the 40% human caused mark. As with anything, there will be anamolies, but it's pretty consistent.

Funny that you point to the total number of human caused fires for this year to support the fact the ban worked, yet you point to the percentage in 2009 to support your argument. Don't want to talk about the 881 human cause fires that year? Can't have it both ways.

The fact that we had less fires in total cause a lot more damage suggests we have other problems we need to address.
johnny24
Fledgling
 
Posts: 228
Likes: 25 posts
Liked in: 130 posts
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 8:16 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

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

johnny24 wrote:
It's not a baseless argument. I just showed the stats. No matter what the climate, no matter what bans are in place, the majority of years are right around the 40% human caused mark. As with anything, there will be anamolies, but it's pretty consistent.


Again the percentage means nothing to this argument. For example...
400 human caused fires & 600 lightning caused fires = 40% human 60% lightning
400 human caused fires & 1000 lightning caused fires = 29% human 71% lighting
Notice how the number of human caused fires remained the same yet the percentage dropped as the number of lightning caused fires increased?

johnny24 wrote:
Funny that you point to the total number of human caused fires for this year to support the fact the ban worked, yet you point to the percentage in 2009 to support your argument. Don't want to talk about the 881 human cause fires that year? Can't have it both ways.


Funny that you point to the percentage of human caused fires for this year to support the fact the ban didn't work, yet you point to the number of fires in 2009 to support your argument. Don't want to talk about the 28.8% of human caused fires that year?

LOL...all bickering aside, 2009 was a very long fire season that saw aggressive fire behavior as early as May & as late as mid September, hence the slightly above average number of human caused fires.

Catsumi likes this post.
User avatar
Frisk
Guru
 
Posts: 7365
Likes: 2562 posts
Liked in: 1793 posts
Joined: Apr 24th, 2011, 8:32 am
Location: West Kelowna

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby johnny24 » Aug 31st, 2017, 8:24 pm

Frisk wrote:
Again the percentage means nothing to this argument. For example...
400 human caused fires & 600 lightning caused fires = 40% human 60% lightning
400 human caused fires & 1000 lightning caused fires = 29% human 71% lighting
Notice how the number of human caused fires remained the same yet the percentage dropped as the number of lightning caused fires increased?


I can make up numbers too, but I'd rather deal with real numbers than made up ones. Plenty of stats available.

Frisk wrote:Funny that you point to the percentage of human caused fires for this year to support the fact the ban didn't work, yet you point to the number of fires in 2009 to support your argument. Don't want to talk about the 28.8% of human caused fires that year?

LOL...all bickering aside, 2009 was a very long fire season that saw aggressive fire behavior as early as May & as late as mid September, hence the slightly above average number of human caused fires.


I didn't bring up 2009, you did. My argument has been consistent. I was pointing to the inconsistencies in yours.
johnny24
Fledgling
 
Posts: 228
Likes: 25 posts
Liked in: 130 posts
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 8:16 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby Woodenhead » Aug 31st, 2017, 10:44 pm

Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is intriguing, but what they hide is crucial.

:up:
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: 5099
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 870 posts
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 1:47 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby Mama » Sep 1st, 2017, 10:37 am

Long weekend is here, and so are more idiots lighting campfires. Lets all keep an eye on our local campsites and make sure that nobody starts another disaster with their endless arrogance and stupidity! It takes a village people, we are not all out there putting the fires out, but we can all be stopping them from starting. :130:
MY GREATEST FEAR IS, THERE IS NO PMS, AND THIS IS MY REAL PERSONALITY.

ferri likes this post.
User avatar
Mama
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 4017
Likes: 66 posts
Liked in: 27 posts
Joined: Jul 15th, 2006, 4:20 pm
Location: North Okanagan

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby WalterWhite » Sep 1st, 2017, 10:47 am

Woodenhead wrote:Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is intriguing, but what they hide is crucial.

:up:


Lol - the adage they "leave something to the imagination" also seems to apply. :)
WalterWhite
Übergod
 
Posts: 1157
Likes: 899 posts
Liked in: 1235 posts
Joined: Jan 31st, 2017, 3:56 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby dale mck » Sep 1st, 2017, 11:05 am

Story on Castanet about unrepentant butt flicker getting his second ticket for this offence. Think 575 for first offence is reasonable don't think 575 for a second offence is nearly enough. Some total ignorant fools need a little more incentive to change their behaviour,,,then other total ignorant fools.
dale mck
 
Posts: 33
Likes: 24 posts
Liked in: 18 posts
Joined: Dec 4th, 2005, 7:51 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby Catsumi » Sep 1st, 2017, 2:26 pm

Mama wrote:Long weekend is here, and so are more idiots lighting campfires. Lets all keep an eye on our local campsites and make sure that nobody starts another disaster with their endless arrogance and stupidity! It takes a village people, we are not all out there putting the fires out, but we can all be stopping them from starting. :130:



Somehow I am not feeling optimistic, especially after 37 nitwits were just caught (how many weren't?). Will not be surprised if this weekend that number will double, plus new hideous fires started by those who are "entitled" to do what they damn well please. Maybe even some of the strange posters found here and on other threads will be contributing to the misery.

:200:
I can and WILL spray mercaptans all over your ill-considered & vacuous statements.
Don't bring peashooters to a gunfight.

Mama likes this post.
User avatar
Catsumi
Board Meister
 
Posts: 463
Likes: 684 posts
Liked in: 308 posts
Joined: May 24th, 2017, 7:26 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Postby Catsumi » Sep 5th, 2017, 5:57 pm

After all these weeks of witnessing wholesale destruction of forests I will be taken aback if there isn't a policy change in 2018 concerning declarations of firebans earlier rather than later. Sneaky campfire enthusiasts are easier to spot when there should be no campfires at all. Period.

As to smokers, as it has been said many times before, you can't ban stupid. Wallet is best place to hit them. Big fines, not the affordable fines we see now. $400 million so far in costs and we're still not done. What price do you put on misery?

It's anyone's guess how many fires might have been prevented that were human caused had a ban been declared earlier.

Yes, we all know and acknowledge lightning, birds on hydro wires, and unforeseen accidents, yadee, yadee. Please don't go there or about your rights to tool around on atv's or how difficult it is for you to use a firering.

If you have better ideas, bring them on.

We the sheeple really need to press for changes.
:smt045
I can and WILL spray mercaptans all over your ill-considered & vacuous statements.
Don't bring peashooters to a gunfight.
User avatar
Catsumi
Board Meister
 
Posts: 463
Likes: 684 posts
Liked in: 308 posts
Joined: May 24th, 2017, 7:26 pm

Previous

Return to Fire Watch 2017

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests