Declare fireban when risk is high

johnny24
Board Meister
Posts: 619
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 8:16 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by johnny24 »

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.
User avatar
Frisk
Guru
Posts: 9072
Joined: Apr 24th, 2011, 9:32 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by Frisk »

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.
johnny24
Board Meister
Posts: 619
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 8:16 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by johnny24 »

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?
User avatar
maryjane48
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 17124
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 7:58 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by maryjane48 »

be a rebel johnny and go have your campfire . :130:
User avatar
Frisk
Guru
Posts: 9072
Joined: Apr 24th, 2011, 9:32 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by Frisk »

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
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 59441
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by Fancy »

Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Treblehook
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2142
Joined: Jan 17th, 2011, 1:10 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by Treblehook »

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
tsayta
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3687
Joined: Feb 1st, 2006, 8:25 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by tsayta »

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
User avatar
Merry
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 13007
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 11:41 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by Merry »

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
User avatar
Woodenhead
Guru
Posts: 5188
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 2:47 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by Woodenhead »

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
Drip_Torch
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4023
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by Drip_Torch »

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:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
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
Catsumi
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10656
Joined: May 24th, 2017, 8:26 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by Catsumi »

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
“A clear conscience is the sure sign of a bad memory.” - Mark Twain

“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” – Edward Abbey
johnny24
Board Meister
Posts: 619
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 8:16 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by johnny24 »

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.
User avatar
Frisk
Guru
Posts: 9072
Joined: Apr 24th, 2011, 9:32 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by Frisk »

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.
johnny24
Board Meister
Posts: 619
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 8:16 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by johnny24 »

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.

Return to “Fire Watch 2017”