Letting fires burn

Buckeye19
Board Meister
Posts: 457
Joined: Jul 19th, 2007, 4:33 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by Buckeye19 »

At this point, the fire in OKMP is doing nothing but good. Cleaning up excess fuel on the ground, improving the habitat for wildlife and promoting a resilient ecosystem. The vegetation will come back healthier than ever. These are exactly the type of fires that should be allowed to burn when posing no risk to people/property.
kellydavies
Posts: 31
Joined: Apr 28th, 2018, 8:14 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by kellydavies »

Right since it started, I couldn't understand why Placer Mountain was a fire of note. It is burning miles away from any structures, is burning in part of the Diamond Creek fire and is burning into Cathedral Park. Now they have a hundred crew on this fire and cannot comprehend why.
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4029
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by Drip_Torch »

kellydavies wrote:Right since it started, I couldn't understand why Placer Mountain was a fire of note. It is burning miles away from any structures, is burning in part of the Diamond Creek fire and is burning into Cathedral Park. Now they have a hundred crew on this fire and cannot comprehend why.



Isn't it threatening to flanking around the Diamond Creek burn to get into Cathedral Park? It would sure be a shame to see it get around that rock wall and up into the lodge and lakes.

That was timely, area restriction map just came out:

area-restrict.jpg


http://bcfireinfo.for.gov.bc.ca/hprScri ... sp?ID=2994
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...
kellydavies
Posts: 31
Joined: Apr 28th, 2018, 8:14 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by kellydavies »

Still not seeing how that is that big of a threat that justifies that amount of resources.
That is more than than they had on all of the fires on July 17 combined.
User avatar
WalterWhite
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3838
Joined: Jan 31st, 2017, 3:56 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by WalterWhite »

Damned if they do - damned if they don't.
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4029
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by Drip_Torch »

kellydavies wrote:till not seeing how that is that big of a threat that justifies that amount of resources.That is more than than they had on all of the fires on July 17 combined.


I see it plain as day. Keep the fire on the west side of the Ashnola drainage. The park becomes vulnerable if the fire jumps into the fuels to the east of the drainage. With that appearing to be the strategy, apparently it's anticipated to need this amount of resources to pull of the tactics to achieve that end.

I hope it works. I watched the diamond creek fire advance like a freight train last year and was impressed with its ability to leap large alpine areas with a single bound.

Nothing to do with July 17 - at all.
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...
kellydavies
Posts: 31
Joined: Apr 28th, 2018, 8:14 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by kellydavies »

Who cares? This is all wilderness.
ShannonG
Board Meister
Posts: 426
Joined: Mar 29th, 2006, 1:04 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by ShannonG »

I also think part of the criteria to be a 'fire of note' is that it be visible from populated areas. Can you see this one from the highway?
User avatar
brentville
Fledgling
Posts: 150
Joined: Oct 14th, 2008, 4:25 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by brentville »

If they didn't have the resources, they should have picked up the phone and called Peachland Fire Dept. Both fires in Peachland would have likely been out the same day they started. I'll guarantee you they wouldn't have been allowed to get out-of-control.
User avatar
alanjh595
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 18620
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 5:18 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by alanjh595 »

brentville wrote:If they didn't have the resources, they should have picked up the phone and called Peachland Fire Dept. Both fires in Peachland would have likely been out the same day they started. I'll guarantee you they wouldn't have been allowed to get out-of-control.


How could you possibly "guarantee" anything with regards to a wildfire ? That is why it is called a "wildfire", it will do whatever it wants, when it wants, and where it wants. It is WILD. Ever try and control a wild animal ?
A fire is a living, breathing, consuming, animal. It lives by consuming fuel (food), and breaths air, and it will live as long as it can by what is available to support it's life.
Bring back the LIKE button.
User avatar
brentville
Fledgling
Posts: 150
Joined: Oct 14th, 2008, 4:25 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by brentville »

alanjh595 wrote:How could you possibly "guarantee" anything with regards to a wildfire ? That is why it is called a "wildfire", it will do whatever it wants, when it wants, and where it wants. It is WILD. Ever try and control a wild animal ?
A fire is a living, breathing, consuming, animal. It lives by consuming fuel (food), and breaths air, and it will live as long as it can by what is available to support it's life.


Wow! Sounds truly scary when you put it that way and even more reason these BCWS idiots should have got on them immediately huh? I can guarantee they would have been eliminated because...
1. both fires remained campfire size for about 12 hrs and I could have put them out myself in that time with a damn shovel
2. Peachland has a well equipped fire hall with trained personnel that respond to fires immediately...not the next day!
dogspoiler
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 17606
Joined: Feb 20th, 2009, 3:32 am

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by dogspoiler »

The Yates road fire seems to be a good example of everyone jumping right on it and getting the job done. Congratulations to all.
Black Dogs Matter
Brushy Bill
Board Meister
Posts: 407
Joined: Apr 11th, 2012, 11:58 am

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by Brushy Bill »

Hey, how about that Snowy fire
MFLNRO had a prescribed burn in there awhile back. What are chances Upper Management is taking care of that now
:130:
User avatar
brentville
Fledgling
Posts: 150
Joined: Oct 14th, 2008, 4:25 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by brentville »

Brushy Bill wrote:Hey, how about that Snowy fire
MFLNRO had a prescribed burn in there awhile back. What are chances Upper Management is taking care of that now
:130:


That wouldn't surprise me a bit. The Tuesday July 17th thunderstorm had been forecast days in advance. The official reason for not responding to these fires immediately was a "lack of resources". However, this excuse does not explain BC Wildfire Service's actions or lack thereof!

Any reasonable person charged with mitigation of wildfires would have planned ahead in order to deal with possible lightening strike fires. Such planning would require quantification of all resources that could be made available (planes, helicopters, pilots, fuel, etc.). BCWS therefore had foreknowledge of this "lack of resources" and their inability to respond to Okanagan Valley lightening strikes.

BCWS may have lacked resources but that does not negate the Provincial mandate: "to mitigate the impacts of wildfire on life and assets". If BCWS did not have a plan, that is negligence! They won't admit to that one so BCWS had a plan and it must have been to simply ignore any fires that resulted from lightening strikes. This "plan to ignore the fires" is reinforced by the fact that BCWS didn't even pick up the phone and request local Fire Departments to respond to the Mt. Eneas/Brent Rd. interface fire.

Return to “Fire Watch 2018”