Park Closures (Fire Risk)

Edgewoodone
Posts: 1
Joined: Jul 3rd, 2016, 5:39 am

Park Closures (Fire Risk)

Post by Edgewoodone »

Why do all the parks have to close because of fire danger. Back in my day the parks were not parks for the most part and most but not all that used outdoor areas were actual smart enough to no the risks of smoking or having open fire during the dry seasons. The dumbing down of society has it so that we have forgot how to educate our young so that they can take lessons in to their more mature years to teach their young. Fine these people and put them in jail or have them replant the areas where they start these fires, single handily. Maybe people will learn form there lack of caring for where they live.
User avatar
Queen K
Queen of the Castle
Posts: 65246
Joined: Jan 31st, 2007, 11:39 am

Re: Park Closures (Fire Risk)

Post by Queen K »

You answered your own question: because people are stupid. End of Story.
When it's all and only fun and games, no one needs to censor you. Get close to an ugly truth though...
dodgerdodge
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2937
Joined: Jun 9th, 2010, 7:35 am

Re: Park Closures (Fire Risk)

Post by dodgerdodge »

I hope they put up adequate signage and actively monitor the closures best they can because as sure as the earth is round there will be people who just plain ignore the signs or who say they didn't know about it.
Came past top of Rose Valley trail there is a small parking area. Vehicles parked and people walking up the trail, as we get down the hill to the main parking area the gates are shut BUT i saw no signs. I hope this will be put right in the next day or so.
ckirkey
Posts: 30
Joined: Jul 9th, 2007, 9:38 pm

Re: Park Closures (Fire Risk)

Post by ckirkey »

Most of the parks listed in the ban are linear parks, one way in, one way out. Or are surrounded by canyon on either side. So RDCO i expect is considering public safety as well as access for firefighters. If there was a fire, it could be difficult to evacuate and people could get stuck or cut off.
youjustcomplain
Übergod
Posts: 1292
Joined: Jun 14th, 2016, 12:56 pm

Re: Park Closures (Fire Risk)

Post by youjustcomplain »

Edgewoodone wrote:Why do all the parks have to close because of fire danger. Back in my day the parks were not parks for the most part and most but not all that used outdoor areas were actual smart enough to no the risks of smoking or having open fire during the dry seasons. The dumbing down of society has it so that we have forgot how to educate our young so that they can take lessons in to their more mature years to teach their young. Fine these people and put them in jail or have them replant the areas where they start these fires, single handily. Maybe people will learn form there lack of caring for where they live.


All the parks are not closed. Some, very few, are.

Back in your day parks were not parks? What were they?

Back in your day people were actual smart enough to no the risks of smoking or having an open fire? Grammar aside, people have resisted accepting the risks of smoking since the 50's. People have been flicking cigarette butts out of the window of their cars since we've had cars and I'm quite sure that precedes your day.
When I was a kid, in the 70's, there were lots of smokey the bear ads on TV. "On YOU can prevent a forest fire". My guess is that there was human caused forest fires in the 70's too.

Give it up on the dumbing down of society. That sounds like some old geezer telling younger people that we are the problem with the world.
User avatar
mexi cali
Guru
Posts: 8932
Joined: May 5th, 2009, 2:48 pm

Re: Park Closures (Fire Risk)

Post by mexi cali »

Here's a wonder. When there are more than 500 active fires burning (don't know the exact number) most of which are human caused, when was the last time you heard of someone actually being caught and prosecuted for starting one other than the Barrierre fire?

Exactly.

So whom are you talking about fining and prosecuting?

You can't fix stupid and we are surrounded by stupid. Your post scares me because you either are unwilling or unable to see what everyone else sees because you are focusing on how restrictions affect you, not why there are restrictions in the first place.
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition
johnny24
Board Meister
Posts: 619
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 8:16 am

Re: Park Closures (Fire Risk)

Post by johnny24 »

mexi cali wrote:Here's a wonder. When there are more than 500 active fires burning (don't know the exact number) most of which are human caused, when was the last time you heard of someone actually being caught and prosecuted for starting one other than the Barrierre fire?

Exactly.

So whom are you talking about fining and prosecuting?

You can't fix stupid and we are surrounded by stupid. Your post scares me because you either are unwilling or unable to see what everyone else sees because you are focusing on how restrictions affect you, not why there are restrictions in the first place.


Your post scares me. Stop making stuff up to suit your narrative. Most aren't human caused. It's about 50/50.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/br ... e35652545/

We are talking about fining and prosecuting the actual guilty people. I've never caused a fire and I don't want to be punished for it.
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 60434
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Park Closures (Fire Risk)

Post by Fancy »

johnny24 wrote:Your post scares me. Stop making stuff up to suit your narrative. Most aren't human caused. It's about 50/50.


There have been around 310 wildfires in British Columbia so far in 2017 and more than two-thirds of them were human caused, according to the B.C. Wildfire Service.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.4193968
Don't know why his post would scare you - it would depend on when the information was released as to statistics.

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safet ... ire-status
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
johnny24
Board Meister
Posts: 619
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 8:16 am

Re: Park Closures (Fire Risk)

Post by johnny24 »

Fancy wrote:
johnny24 wrote:Your post scares me. Stop making stuff up to suit your narrative. Most aren't human caused. It's about 50/50.


There have been around 310 wildfires in British Columbia so far in 2017 and more than two-thirds of them were human caused, according to the B.C. Wildfire Service.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.4193968
Don't know why his post would scare you - it would depend on when the information was released as to statistics.

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safet ... ire-status


Forest fires didn't just start occurring this year. Far more accurate with a bigger sample size. My apologies if these facts get in the way of your story:

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safet ... e-averages
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 60434
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Park Closures (Fire Risk)

Post by Fancy »

Not my story - that came from CBC and the reference is to this year.
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: 8932
Joined: May 5th, 2009, 2:48 pm

Re: Park Closures (Fire Risk)

Post by mexi cali »

Ha burn. No pun intended.

Don't focus on the minutiae. Focus on the reality that fire starters seldom if ever are caught so there really isn't anyone to prosecute now is there?
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition
User avatar
mexi cali
Guru
Posts: 8932
Joined: May 5th, 2009, 2:48 pm

Re: Park Closures (Fire Risk)

Post by mexi cali »

There have been around 310 wildfires in British Columbia so far in 2017 and more than two-thirds of them were human caused, according to the B.C. Wildfire Service.


Just in case you missed Fancys post. I think two thirds is more than 50/50.

And I have to ask you, why would you pick on my numbers even if I was wrong by 13%? What matters more to you? The number of fires or the jack wagons that started them?

If one human caused fire resulted in even one death or worse, multiple deaths and the displacement of tens of thousands of people, that would be one fire too many, don't you think?

People are stupid. How else do you explain tossing butts out windows or leaving a fire unattended?
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition
User avatar
tsayta
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3688
Joined: Feb 1st, 2006, 8:25 pm

Re: Park Closures (Fire Risk)

Post by tsayta »

Mamsy pamsy jack wagons make this post awesome. Just to illustrate how stupid some people are, check out all the examples of OFTF going in and cleaning up a forest dump site only to have the wagons of jackness come and do it (dump garbage) the next week. Clearly some people just don't get it
I have learned that to be with those I like is enough.
WW
youjustcomplain
Übergod
Posts: 1292
Joined: Jun 14th, 2016, 12:56 pm

Re: Park Closures (Fire Risk)

Post by youjustcomplain »

We all know lightning causes fires. We also know humans cause them. The ratio isn't really all that important to me. What is important is that we have the power, in us, to not throw burning stuff out of our car windows. We have the ability to not light a huge bonfire in the woods then leave. We can control many of the interface fires we keep seeing.

The fire in Lake Country last weekend that consumed 8 houses was human caused. Carelessness or maliciousness. Either way, human caused idiocy.

I wish it were more possible to prosecute the fire starters, accident or otherwise. It's too hard. Too hard to know what started the fire often and even if the investigation turns up the ignition source as a cigarette, that cigarette might have sat on the side of the road for an hour before burning the grass. Nobody will ever know who's cigarette it was, not even the careless person who tossed it won't know it was them.

Imo. Every single cigarette butt tossed out of the window should be a massive fine. No jail time. Just a massive fine. $10,000 would likely be sufficient to scare people from doing it. But making it $1 or $10,000 won't matter much if they don't get caught. If our means of catching people is relying on a cop seeing someone do it, then we'll almost never see any fines. Not enough cops to watch smokers all day long.
User avatar
tsayta
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3688
Joined: Feb 1st, 2006, 8:25 pm

Re: Park Closures (Fire Risk)

Post by tsayta »

Someone will say take the total cost of the cigarette fires, divide that by the number of cigarettes sold, add that to the price of a pack
I have learned that to be with those I like is enough.
WW

Return to “Fire Watch 2017”