Declare fireban when risk is high

User avatar
ferri
Forum Administrator
Posts: 53693
Joined: May 11th, 2005, 3:21 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by ferri »

*Stay on topic! :-X
“Weak people revenge. Strong people forgive. Intelligent people ignore.”
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
mexi cali
Guru
Posts: 8738
Joined: May 5th, 2009, 2:48 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by mexi cali »

Ok, in fairness, I went back and re-read the previous posts and yours is still ridiculous. However, if I missed something, maybe just spill it rather than being cryptic.

I referenced your statements about the costs of injuries versus the cost so far to fight the fires and I called BS and I questioned your downplaying of the seriousness of the situation the Province is in right now.

The thread is about should a ban have been called before the situation was critical. Not how many people injure themselves snow boarding or why that doesn't make the news more than do RAGING WILDFIRES in heavily populated areas. (see how I hilited raging wildfires in red?)

Right now. they are the headlines and the media is presenting the facts as they happen.

They can cover the horrendous costs of tearing your toe nail nail straight down instead of across once the smoke settles.
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition
User avatar
mexi cali
Guru
Posts: 8738
Joined: May 5th, 2009, 2:48 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by mexi cali »

How do you over react to that?

fire2.PNG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition
johnny24
Board Meister
Posts: 619
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 8:16 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by johnny24 »

mexi cali wrote:How do you over react to that?

fire2.PNG


This topic is about making the fire ban earlier. Pretty sure that fire started after the ban. As I said, stop posting based on emotion and get the facts right.
User avatar
mexi cali
Guru
Posts: 8738
Joined: May 5th, 2009, 2:48 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by mexi cali »

johnny24 wrote:
mexi cali wrote:How do you over react to that?

fire2.PNG


This topic is about making the fire ban earlier. Pretty sure that fire started after the ban. As I said, stop posting based on emotion and get the facts right.


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.


Ok. I know this is moving a little fast for you but the above statement is attributable to you? No?
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 59613
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by Fancy »

Here's a campfire that started a wildfire before the ban.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3524961/grass ... r-kelowna/
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
Glacier
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 33688
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by Glacier »

We should ban all campfires as soon as the snow melts, and keep them in place until the first snow falls in the Fall. Anyone who disobeys should be shot on the spot without question. Smokers cause 1% of the fires, so they should be executed if they light up during the summer months. Trains and cars cause an even greater number of fires, so they should be banned from operating during the summer months. Then there's arson, which they need to ban in order to prevent further fires. Also, everyone should walk around in bubble wrap.
The worst part about a 7 day lockdown is the first 4 months.
User avatar
Woodenhead
Guru
Posts: 5188
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 2:47 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by Woodenhead »

Glacier wrote:We should ban all campfires as soon as the snow melts, and keep them in place until the first snow falls in the Fall. Anyone who disobeys should be shot on the spot without question. Smokers cause 1% of the fires, so they should be executed if they light up during the summer months. Trains and cars cause an even greater number of fires, so they should be banned from operating during the summer months. Then there's arson, which they need to ban in order to prevent further fires. Also, everyone should walk around in bubble wrap.


I love it.

Could probably just change a few words and use the same basic post for about 500 other threads here, too. [icon_lol2.gif]
Wealth without work. Pleasure without conscience. Knowledge without character. Commerce without morality. Science without humanity. Politics without principle. Your bias suits you.
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 59613
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by Fancy »

Glacier wrote:Smokers cause 1% of the fires, so they should be executed if they light up during the summer months.

They should be at least fined as you're not supposed to throw cigarette butts out of car windows nor light up in parks.
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
tsayta
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3687
Joined: Feb 1st, 2006, 8:25 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by tsayta »

Kudos to our conservation officers. Met them yesterday up gillard. They routinely patrol the known party spots looking for illegal camp fires. They told me that every single day, even right now, they still find people making fires. Some abandoned, and some with the idjits sitting around them. Every day. They go up the KVR and find a new crop of Darwin's best
I have learned that to be with those I like is enough.
WW
User avatar
mexi cali
Guru
Posts: 8738
Joined: May 5th, 2009, 2:48 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by mexi cali »

I was just at Shuswap Lake park and there were notices virtually everywhere telling about the ban. So naturally, as we were checking in, I jokingly said to the lady at the gate that what the notices were really saying is that it's OK to have a huge bon fire on site.

She, being a good sport said "absolutely" and then she went on to say that there are still people sparking up fires on their sites regardless.

Stunning.

We had one of those little propane fire rings and it worked very well. Gave us all something to stare blankly at while we silently wondered whether or not to have that all important 14th beer.

It makes you wanna cry when you realize that in some minute way, we are all related.
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition
dle
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3326
Joined: Nov 14th, 2005, 12:29 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by dle »

tsayta wrote:Kudos to our conservation officers. Met them yesterday up gillard. They routinely patrol the known party spots looking for illegal camp fires. They told me that every single day, even right now, they still find people making fires. Some abandoned, and some with the idjits sitting around them. Every day. They go up the KVR and find a new crop of Darwin's best


BUT, are they fining each and every one of those "idjits" they find the $1,150??? If not, then they are telling the toads that it's not a serious enough offence to require a proper consequence and that their moronic actions are only deserving of a slap on the wrist, not a brick upside the head!!!

If we have a damn law, especially for a serious infraction, enforce the thing and levy the fine or time, otherwise who gives a rat's patoot about them?
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 »

True but I thought there was a story on here yesterday where in fact did charge the fine for an Albertan that had a fire
I have learned that to be with those I like is enough.
WW
dle
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3326
Joined: Nov 14th, 2005, 12:29 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by dle »

tsayta wrote:True but I thought there was a story on here yesterday where in fact did charge the fine for an Albertan that had a fire


that's right tsayta - it is reported that they did fine that ONE Alberta guy, but if they are seeing people with fires on a more or less daily basis, are the fining them all? Are they just putting the run on them and putting out the fire?

I want to see it reported when it happens and when the people are fined - I think that will spread the word that we mean business and are serious about protecting our forests and homes and it's not just lip-service about the fine.
bjguen
Posts: 18
Joined: Jan 23rd, 2007, 3:59 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by bjguen »

dle wrote:
tsayta wrote:True but I thought there was a story on here yesterday where in fact did charge the fine for an Albertan that had a fire


that's right tsayta - it is reported that they did fine that ONE Alberta guy, but if they are seeing people with fires on a more or less daily basis, are the fining them all? Are they just putting the run on them and putting out the fire?

I want to see it reported when it happens and when the people are fined - I think that will spread the word that we mean business and are serious about protecting our forests and homes and it's not just lip-service about the fine.


Here you go:

https://www.castanet.net/news/Vernon/202954/Big-fines-for-campfire

Return to “Fire Watch 2017”