Letting fires burn

Catri
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2694
Joined: Jul 13th, 2012, 7:18 am

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by Catri »

Walking Wounded wrote:Any lightning caused fires should be left to burn, unless they would endanger lives or homes.
Well, yes, but I think the argument falls down when you consider that history has taught us that a lightning started fire in Okanagan Mountain Park can endanger homes in Kelowna in a short time, under certain conditions. I think that's what the criticism is all about. It's tempting to say they dropped the ball in 03 (they didn't really, because how could they know what was possible) but if the current fire were to get nearly as far as the last one before they control it, it would be pretty hard to accept that they didn't think it was dangerous to let it get a toe hold. It's probably a bigger picture than their criteria consider. Maybe sometimes an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
User avatar
gardengirl
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 13618
Joined: Mar 23rd, 2006, 1:01 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by gardengirl »

Walking Wounded wrote:Any lightning caused fires should be left to burn, unless they would endanger lives or homes.

Catri wrote:
Well, yes, but I think the argument falls down when you consider that history has taught us that a lightning started fire in Okanagan Mountain Park can endanger homes in Kelowna in a short time, under certain conditions. I think that's what the criticism is all about. It's tempting to say they dropped the ball in 03 (they didn't really, because how could they know what was possible) but if the current fire were to get nearly as far as the last one before they control it, it would be pretty hard to accept that they didn't think it was dangerous to let it get a toe hold. It's probably a bigger picture than their criteria consider. Maybe sometimes an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.


Well part of that Prevention recipe used to be controlled burns. That used to reduce the fuel available. Somewhere along the way, some "expert" decided to stop doing that. Forest management practices changed and it appears not for the better.
That is something that should have been learned in 2003.
Life is a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death.
User avatar
Jflem1983
Guru
Posts: 5785
Joined: Aug 23rd, 2015, 11:38 am

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by Jflem1983 »

Never understand why it is not encouraged of people to gleen fire wood. Take dead fall wherever they can. If people were encouraged to do this simple act we would eliminate a ton of fuel.
Now they want to take our guns away . That would be just fine. Take em away from the criminals first . Ill gladly give u mine. "Charlie Daniels"

You have got to stand for something . Or you will fall for anything "Aaron Tippin"
seewood
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4608
Joined: May 29th, 2013, 2:08 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by seewood »

gardengirl wrote:Well part of that Prevention recipe used to be controlled burns. That used to reduce the fuel available. Somewhere along the way, some "expert" decided to stop doing that. Forest management practices changed and it appears not for the better.


Believe me, pretty much everyone in fire control in the Forest service would love to have more controlled burns. They would love to have them run their course once lit.
They would love to see the fine and medium fuels burned in a controlled manner.
From my discussions in the past with ones in the Penticton Fire Center pretty much every time they light a controlled burn after weeks of preparation, there is a very vocal minority that call in and shut it down. Reasons are from having COPD and smoke bothers them to anxiety over fires.
I am not wealthy but I am rich
djbarnes
Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: Jul 21st, 2017, 6:49 pm

Let it burn

Post by djbarnes »

I can not believe that the BCWS has not learned a darn thing over the past few years. Hit these fires fast and hit them hard,especially in populated areas. There is no sense in watching them to priortize, also sending 200 of our trained professional fire fighters across the country in the peak fire season is a Idiotic decision. Last year in the Cariboo they got caught with there pant down and looks like it has happened again. Someone has to question the people who are making these decisions.
User avatar
gardengirl
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 13618
Joined: Mar 23rd, 2006, 1:01 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by gardengirl »

gardengirl wrote:Well part of that Prevention recipe used to be controlled burns. That used to reduce the fuel available. Somewhere along the way, some "expert" decided to stop doing that. Forest management practices changed and it appears not for the better.

seewood wrote:Believe me, pretty much everyone in fire control in the Forest service would love to have more controlled burns. They would love to have them run their course once lit.
They would love to see the fine and medium fuels burned in a controlled manner.
From my discussions in the past with ones in the Penticton Fire Center pretty much every time they light a controlled burn after weeks of preparation, there is a very vocal minority that call in and shut it down. Reasons are from having COPD and smoke bothers them to anxiety over fires.


Yes. More political correctness BS. The perceived needs of the few outweighing the needs of the many. Short sighted.
Clue in people. Controlled burns are just that, controlled. A few days of planned smoke are far better than wildfire.
Stay inside. Listen to the air quality reports. Take responsibility for your own welfare. Don't expect the entire world to take it up the wazoo to accommodate you.

Members of my family fall into the category of "chronic health conditions". They need to stay indoors, run the a/c, wear particulate blocking masks. It would be far better to have the controlled burns to prevent the disaster situation that we seem to have every year.

Whatever happened to SUMMER? Now we have FIRE SEASON. It was never like this until the last 15-20 years.
I have been in the Okanagan my entire life. We never had wildfires like this when I was growing up.
Life is a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death.
seewood
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4608
Joined: May 29th, 2013, 2:08 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by seewood »

gardengirl wrote:Yes. More political correctness BS. The perceived needs of the few outweighing the needs of the many. Short sighted.Clue in people. Controlled burns are just that, controlled. A few days of planned smoke are far better than wildfire.Stay inside. Listen to the air quality reports. Take responsibility for your own welfare. Don't expect the entire world to take it up the wazoo to accommodate you.


:up: :up:
I am not wealthy but I am rich
User avatar
Relentless
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2392
Joined: Jan 22nd, 2009, 7:52 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by Relentless »

Shortly after the lightning and rain stopped, a Helicopter was flying in East Kelowna drying out the cherries at an orchard.
The Helicopter pilot sprung into action because he was ready to do a job that he was getting paid for as per agreement.

Hours before, meteorologists predicted a thunderstorm with rain.

One would think that with the Fire Hazard at Extreme, all Fire personnel would be geared up and prepared to respond to lightning strikes that would spark fires.

The Government got rid of manned Fire Towers years ago as new technology replaced "old school" ways.
Fire Lookout personnel used to be able to radio in fire starts to get a handle on the situation asap.

It was still light out, and visibility was still good after the lightning had struck the trees.
Pictures of the smoking trees showed a very small fire area in both Okanagan Mtn and Mount Eneas areas.

A chopper, with one bucket of water on each fire would have probably had the situation under control.
But, only choppers drying cherries can respond fast, but those used to fight fires, and should be ready to go at a spur of a moment, cannot be deployed until the next day due to the procedure in place.

The same delay in procedure is causing Millions of dollars in property loss and damage.
These fires only got out of control because of the delayed response.
The system is clearly broken and needs repair.
Letting fires burn for hours before acting on them is understandable if travel time and conditions are not favorable.
Okanagan Wildfires are always special, many are allowed to burn for many hours or even more than a day before someone gets on them, and this is where the problem starts.
dogspoiler
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 17606
Joined: Feb 20th, 2009, 3:32 am

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by dogspoiler »

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.
Black Dogs Matter
User avatar
t76turbo
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 947
Joined: Nov 29th, 2007, 9:48 am

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by t76turbo »

I remember when lightning hit by Rattle Snake Island back in 2003. Kelowna fire department sent their fire boat out to investigate as fire was right near waterline. They were directed to not interfere and to let fire in the park burn. Hmmm.... great decision! .... I lost my home that year.
Also it’s BCWS attitude to let natural fires burn in parks, as it is “nature” doing what it needs to do. Part of park life. I do understand that concept.

What they seem to not figure into, is the economic impact those decisions make. Our valley is fairly dense in population and a highly attractive vacation spot. Any smoke here and especially fires keeps the tourists and their dollars way!

The smallest of fires anywhere in this valley, park or not should be hit hard and hit fast.

I too have a close friend that works in the helicopter industry. He gets shipped all around the world under fire fighting contracts. When things aren’t on fire his paycheques are weak and so are his Christmases.
LTD
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4700
Joined: Mar 31st, 2010, 3:34 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by LTD »

im betting you have a much nicer house now tho :smt045
User avatar
t76turbo
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 947
Joined: Nov 29th, 2007, 9:48 am

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by t76turbo »

LTD wrote:im betting you have a much nicer house now tho :smt045


I do. But lost a lot in the process. Old house I had just finished major reno on, all done myself after hours. Took 1.5 years and was almost done. New house I moved into in late 2007. In those 4 years I moved 3 times. My old house was my home and office(place of work), blood sweat and tears. Yes I rebuilt, again most work done by myself on top of my regular job. Money was always tight and so was time. Insurance coverd most of old house, but certainly not all. Separated with my wife in 2008. Was that fires fault, no... stresses sure didn’t help.
Hey it’s almost done now, almost. New family again, two young children. So now fire looming again....yeah :up:
Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy to watch as we see a possible repeat looming!
I really like your post, just can’t find the button.
common_sense_guy
Übergod
Posts: 1484
Joined: Nov 23rd, 2017, 12:40 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by common_sense_guy »

It feels good it appears I'm not the only one that has heard stories of incompetence and in fighting in the fire sector to the point where it is getting in the way of doing the job efficiently. And now that there's some good discussion going on both sides it would be nice if some of the reporters out there could ask some tough questions and not just serve up questions that really don't matter. It would be incredible if we could hear from some Pilots about the mismanagement going on or even some ground Crews that can shed some light on the egos involved in fighting fires and maybe we can figure out where the problem lies and fix it then
You don't learn when you are talking. You can only learn while you're listening.
rookie314
Übergod
Posts: 1664
Joined: Jun 11th, 2005, 10:00 am

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by rookie314 »

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could. So in your”expert” opinion how much equipment and manpower should be available to do what you ask? And how you gonna pay for it? Let’s build a house in the interface. It burns. Blame, blame, blame.
User avatar
alanjh595
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 22907
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 5:18 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by alanjh595 »

Fire's ecological benefits
Since those early days, millions of dollars have been spent on campaigns to prevent forest fires. But researchers now know that fire is not necessarily bad. It can be a natural part of a healthy grassland or forest ecosystem.

Fire reduces the buildup of dead and decaying leaves, logs and needles that accumulate on the forest floor. It reduces or eliminates the overhead forest canopy, increasing the sunlight that stimulates new growth from seeds and roots.

Many plants and animals have adapted to fire.

Both lodgepole pine and jack pine have resin-sealed cones that stay on trees for many years. The heat of fire melts the resin and the cones pop open. Thousands of seeds then scatter to the ground and grow into new stands of pine.

Woodpeckers feast on bark beetles and other insects that colonize in newly burned trees.

And so, 20 years ago, Parks Canada decided that it wouldn't interfere in natural processes such as fire, insects and disease unless it had to — that is, unless people or neighbouring lands were threatened.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/fighting ... t-1.863449
Bring back the LIKE button.

Return to “Fire Watch 2018”