Campfire Ban?

[Frisk]

Do you agree with the current campfire ban?

Personally, I completely disagree with it. You'd have to be totally brainless to cause a forest fire with your campfire. As long as you have common sense, a bucket of water, a shovel, it isn't windy & the campfire is in a proper location, I don't see how the fire would ever get out of control. It's a shame that some people ruin the fun for the everyone else, camping isn't the same without a campfire.

[coffeeFreak]

I completely agree with the ban. Unfortunately Qualize there are just too many "brainless" people out there starting fires because of 'carelessness'.

[Sige]

I totally agree with the fire ban. Clearly there are a lot of brainless fools out there and I prefer my forests green.

[GordonH]

I agree with the ban, since not everyone who starts campfires. Makes sure that those fires are completely extinguish properly.

[Catz]

*removed*

[Fancy]

Do you agree with the current campfire ban?

Personally, I completely disagree with it.

I don't know of anyone else that would take a chance on having friends and neighbours lose property because of an errant spark.

[canadman]

I have to say, while I don't disgree with the campfire ban necessarily as I'd rather err on the side of caution than not, the question does raise a gun registry-like point.

The types of campfires that start forest fires are often those created recklessly, by thoughtless, stupid people, who don't build fires in the right place, don't consider things like wind conditions and don't make a proper effort to extinguish the fire sufficiently. That being the case, these are often the same people who would ignore a campfire ban and make a campfire anyway.

In the same way gun registries often serve to 'police' people who are already law abiding and are ignored by criminals, is a campfire ban only really penalizing people who, by virtue of the fact that they would have the respect to follow the campfire ban in the first place, who would probably be responsible enough to build and extinguish a fire properly and not start a wildfire?

[Catz]

I will refrase.......why wound any sane humane being take a chance?????????

[Fancy]

The campfire ban enables others to report those that ignore the ban. Some people think they know what they are doing but reality says otherwise.

[logman]

Wow. Anyone that sparks even a lighter to light a stove or propane "fire" of any kind has to consider the risk. It's just not worth it. Let alone a campfire with embers and sparks flying.

[Frisk]

Yes I hear what you all are saying but I think there needs to be an exception in the ban. There's some areas where it's pretty much impossible to have your campfire escape, like Sun Oka beach in Summerland. They have campfire pits on the beach & the nearest fuels nearby are like 500 metres away. On a calm day embers could never travel that far. Just a thought.

[Frisk]

P.S, dumb people are going to have campfires regardless of the ban. It doesn't really change much except prevent people with common sense from having a fire...

[Catz]

Really....?????? any threat is bad. If you do not like the bans then leave.I would always want my home first than a bit of convienence. Very selfish.

[Frisk]

It's not selfish if you are careful.

[coffeeFreak]

Just look at the percentages of fires started by "stupid people" vs nature, and then the total costs per season. That is why there is a forest fire ban.

Fire Averages

The number of wildfires that occur on average every year in British Columbia is usually given as 2,000, with half caused by people and half caused by lightning. Because this is an average, it is different every year, and therefore this generalization is never totally accurate.

The current 10-year average*, taken from 2003 to 2012, is 1,908 fires, 38.6% caused by people and 61.4% caused by lightning.

The following table shows the number and percentage of people and lightning-caused fires for last year and the 10 preceeding years...


http://bcwildfire.ca/history/average.htm