Declare fireban when risk is high

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 »

I have learned that to be with those I like is enough.
WW
User avatar
Queen K
Queen of the Castle
Posts: 64785
Joined: Jan 31st, 2007, 11:39 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by Queen K »

Are you freaking kidding us? Accessed Tweedsmuir while closed, got stranded, started a campfire?

Is there a idiot of the Year Award they were competing for? :cuss:
Don't want iced up driveways and roads? Clean out the street drains and gutters. Used to be called "civic duty."
User avatar
mexi cali
Guru
Posts: 8747
Joined: May 5th, 2009, 2:48 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by mexi cali »

Glad they found them and fined them but the fine wasn't enough. The three idiots in Vernon were fined 1200 each for their little fire. These guys were in a restricted zone on top of the fire and they only got hit with 1200 total.

Shudda been 2400.00 minimum.
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition
sulchie
Fledgling
Posts: 140
Joined: Nov 28th, 2012, 7:41 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by sulchie »

Why haven't locked gates been installed at every entrance to the backcountry? There is a certain percentage of the population who cannot be trusted there at all. So they will ruin it for everyone else.
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 »

sulchie wrote:Why haven't locked gates been installed at every entrance to the backcountry? There is a certain percentage of the population who cannot be trusted there at all. So they will ruin it for everyone else.

Gates will work about as well as my no trespassing sign I set out for the deer
I have learned that to be with those I like is enough.
WW
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 59648
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by Fancy »

sulchie wrote:Why haven't locked gates been installed at every entrance to the backcountry? There is a certain percentage of the population who cannot be trusted there at all. So they will ruin it for everyone else.
Not possible.
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
mexi cali
Guru
Posts: 8747
Joined: May 5th, 2009, 2:48 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by mexi cali »

There are many ways around locked gates. Especially in the outdoors.
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition
User avatar
Glacier
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 33702
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by Glacier »

Tweedsmuir Park is @#[email protected] YUGE! Good luck trying to fence the largest park in BC! 1000s of km of fence over top of rugged mountain tops and moving glaciers. The highway goes right through the middle of the park. Good luck trying to fence that highway!
The worst part about a 7 day lockdown is the first 4 months.
Silverstarqueen
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 18277
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 8:02 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by Silverstarqueen »

You can't fence and gate every field and park that might catch fire, and even if you could it wouldn't stop someone from throwing a lit whatever over the fence. Gates and fences would make it more difficult for fire fighters to enter.And it would prevent the 99% of the public who would be eyes and ears in the parks. If people want to light fires, or don't care enough to put out their lit cigarette, they are going to do it, just to prove they can. Because they are just that smart.
dle
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3326
Joined: Nov 14th, 2005, 12:29 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by dle »

Woodenhead wrote:Just don't ban camp fires for firefighters.

Image

Point is that responsible people can be responsible, and nothing is idiot proof.


did anyone ever hear what happened to these guys, if anything? Be interesting to know what the consequence to them was....
User avatar
Catsumi
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10682
Joined: May 24th, 2017, 8:26 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by Catsumi »

It's nice to see that the off-road vehicle ban finally implemented a couple of days ago is actually working. Headlines ecstatic; only six new fires this weekend. Yippee!

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

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!

It was, I believe, the strong public outcry after hearing this anguished interview that possibly suddenly galvanized the powers that be to declare the off road ban.

We can make a difference.
“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
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 »

During that cbc interview, they spoke to a bc wildfire representative. His answer was weak. He said they would not close the backcountry because they often get tips from users that there is a fire. Imagine one JACKWAGON starting a fire and then reporting it
I have learned that to be with those I like is enough.
WW
User avatar
Catsumi
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10682
Joined: May 24th, 2017, 8:26 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by Catsumi »

tsayta wrote:During that cbc interview, they spoke to a bc wildfire representative. His answer was weak. He said they would not close the backcountry because they often get tips from users that there is a fire. Imagine one JACKWAGON starting a fire and then reporting it



Yes, that would be right up there for :cuss: idiot of year award presently held by the Wm Lk fireworks twit. But wonders never cease. :200:

Yes again. The rep for wildfires had astonishing answers...could hardly believe my ears when his excuse for not closing the area was that there were no fire burning there YET. :-X :-X

It just makes me wanna cry.
“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 »

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.
User avatar
Catsumi
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10682
Joined: May 24th, 2017, 8:26 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by Catsumi »

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.
“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

Return to “Fire Watch 2017”