Declare fireban when risk is high
-
- Buddha of the Board
- Posts: 22838
- Joined: May 24th, 2017, 8:26 pm
Declare fireban when risk is high
Summer rolls around, forests as dry as a hangover mouth, and yet once again, the Kamloops Fire Protection District (a misnomer if there ever was one) fails to impose a campfire ban even though the danger level has passed High into Extreme with fires burning out of control hither and thither. I would just love to know WHY each year there is a long delay. Who benefits from this inaction? Shots in the dark:
1. Campers who don't know about the handy, dandy portable gas rings?
2. Those who are still frozen from our long winter and 100 F heat isn't enough to thaw them?
3. Is it logging companies that need to cut timber to replace those homes burning to the ground?
4. Is it helicopter operators, or the manufacturers of flame retardents?
5. Is it the politician photo opportunity, complete with bright shiny yellow helmets to protect their valuable brainpans?
6. Respiratory technologists who help asthmatics get through the fire season?
The non-beneficiaries of a delayed fireban, the evacuees, the destroyed forests and the long suffering wildlife, the livestock and pets, the newly homeless, if they could, also probably would love to know why a campfire ban isn't in effect beginning on the same day as water restrictions start (no matter how wet it is). Yes, most people will understand and obey for the greater good.
There will be fires started by accident or lightening, some by brainless folk who start illegal campfires and cigarette tossers (who should be heavily fined and jailed too). However, a timely campfire ban COULD prevent over half of the fires statistically accounted for each year.
To date, July 16,2017, we are on the hook for $81,000,000.00 for firefighting costs. It's early in the season so I wonder how high the costs will rise. Does this amount include homes that need to be rebuilt, infrastructure destroyed, payrolls, evacuee maintenance for housing, meals, incidentals?
We could have paid for EIGHT payouts to Khadar and his associates. Just kidding!
Should we not be putting the question to politicians at all levels and not letting up until we have a sensible fireban policy?
1. Campers who don't know about the handy, dandy portable gas rings?
2. Those who are still frozen from our long winter and 100 F heat isn't enough to thaw them?
3. Is it logging companies that need to cut timber to replace those homes burning to the ground?
4. Is it helicopter operators, or the manufacturers of flame retardents?
5. Is it the politician photo opportunity, complete with bright shiny yellow helmets to protect their valuable brainpans?
6. Respiratory technologists who help asthmatics get through the fire season?
The non-beneficiaries of a delayed fireban, the evacuees, the destroyed forests and the long suffering wildlife, the livestock and pets, the newly homeless, if they could, also probably would love to know why a campfire ban isn't in effect beginning on the same day as water restrictions start (no matter how wet it is). Yes, most people will understand and obey for the greater good.
There will be fires started by accident or lightening, some by brainless folk who start illegal campfires and cigarette tossers (who should be heavily fined and jailed too). However, a timely campfire ban COULD prevent over half of the fires statistically accounted for each year.
To date, July 16,2017, we are on the hook for $81,000,000.00 for firefighting costs. It's early in the season so I wonder how high the costs will rise. Does this amount include homes that need to be rebuilt, infrastructure destroyed, payrolls, evacuee maintenance for housing, meals, incidentals?
We could have paid for EIGHT payouts to Khadar and his associates. Just kidding!
Should we not be putting the question to politicians at all levels and not letting up until we have a sensible fireban policy?
Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. There’s a certain point at which ignorance becomes malice, at which there is simply no way to become THAT ignorant except deliberately and maliciously.
Unknown
Unknown
-
- Übergod
- Posts: 1290
- Joined: Mar 2nd, 2010, 7:06 pm
Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH
There is a campfire ban province wide. Just so you know.
-
- Board Meister
- Posts: 619
- Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 8:16 am
Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH
You think a campfire ban would have saved the province $81M?Catsumi wrote:Summer rolls around, forests as dry as a hangover mouth, and yet once again, the Kamloops Fire Protection District (a misnomer if there ever was one) fails to impose a campfire ban even though the danger level has passed High into Extreme with fires burning out of control hither and thither. I would just love to know WHY each year there is a long delay. Who benefits from this inaction? Shots in the dark:
1. Campers who don't know about the handy, dandy portable gas rings?
2. Those who are still frozen from our long winter and 100 F heat isn't enough to thaw them?
3. Is it logging companies that need to cut timber to replace those homes burning to the ground?
4. Is it helicopter operators, or the manufacturers of flame retardents?
5. Is it the politician photo opportunity, complete with bright shiny yellow helmets to protect their valuable brainpans?
6. Respiratory technologists who help asthmatics get through the fire season?
The non-beneficiaries of a delayed fireban, the evacuees, the destroyed forests and the long suffering wildlife, the livestock and pets, the newly homeless, if they could, also probably would love to know why a campfire ban isn't in effect beginning on the same day as water restrictions start (no matter how wet it is). Yes, most people will understand and obey for the greater good.
There will be fires started by accident or lightening, some by brainless folk who start illegal campfires and cigarette tossers (who should be heavily fined and jailed too). However, a timely campfire ban COULD prevent over half of the fires statistically accounted for each year.
To date, July 16,2017, we are on the hook for $81,000,000.00 for firefighting costs. It's early in the season so I wonder how high the costs will rise. Does this amount include homes that need to be rebuilt, infrastructure destroyed, payrolls, evacuee maintenance for housing, meals, incidentals?
We could have paid for EIGHT payouts to Khadar and his associates. Just kidding!
Should we not be putting the question to politicians at all levels and not letting up until we have a sensible fireban policy?
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Dec 4th, 2005, 7:51 am
Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH
Don't know what the criteria is for enacting a fire ban,,or how much it varies from district to district ,,but I would prefer they erred on the side of caution. The next step that I think is not acted on often or soon enough is a total "backwoods" ban. Not popular but not unreasonable to help reduce people caused fires, when extreme dry conditions persist.
-
- Buddha of the Board
- Posts: 17124
- Joined: May 28th, 2010, 7:58 pm
Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH
i think thats where we headed dale . i raised the question of why buffers are not looked at more and the answer i got was people want the trees close by . ok fair enough . but our govt has a duty to keep everyone safe . it isnt a right to go camping or in the backwoods when in high risk season .
so really the only thing the govt can do is restrict access .
so really the only thing the govt can do is restrict access .
-
- Board Meister
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Dec 4th, 2008, 9:47 pm
Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH
Yep and I said a few days ago - close the parks. Like they did in 2003. Knox Mtn is closed. Time to close all other community parks. Well I guess Jack Seaton Park doesn't have to be closed now - that's been taken care of this weekend.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 5190
- Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 2:47 pm
-
- Grand Pooh-bah
- Posts: 2458
- Joined: Mar 12th, 2010, 10:26 am
Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH
Only the middle of July, this wont be the last one around here sadly.
I don't think any amount of precaution can stop stupid.
I don't think any amount of precaution can stop stupid.
-
- Board Meister
- Posts: 619
- Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 8:16 am
Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH
Should we have a total driving ban too? How about sports like skiing or hockey? Kids playgrounds? Should we ban houses with stairs?dale mck wrote:Don't know what the criteria is for enacting a fire ban,,or how much it varies from district to district ,,but I would prefer they erred on the side of caution. The next step that I think is not acted on often or soon enough is a total "backwoods" ban. Not popular but not unreasonable to help reduce people caused fires, when extreme dry conditions persist.
Far more people are injured and die from all of those activities than they do from forest fires. The costs of fires pale in comparison to the medical costs of these activities, but everyone overreacts when the media puts fires at front and center.
Last edited by johnny24 on Jul 16th, 2017, 10:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Aug 13th, 2014, 6:01 pm
Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH
problem users don't usually follow the rules anyway so closing places can also mean that the good eyes/supervision aren't out there, which can be a problem. I've found hot fires before and put them out. My opinion has always been that parents need to speak to their kids about what risks they might be creating and to respect that danger. Bush Grad parties scare me. Smokers need to also be respectful. NO butts should ever be found on the ground- it's dangerous, disrespectful trash at the least and a danger at the worst.
When we see these things happen around us we need to do our part to educate and/or report.
When we see these things happen around us we need to do our part to educate and/or report.
-
- Board Meister
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Dec 4th, 2008, 9:47 pm
Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH
"everyone overreacts when the media puts fires at front and center"
Huh ? Really ? Have you been evacuated? Are your eyes drooping like mine are after this weekend wondering if I have to leave my home in a minute? The fires ARE "front and center" in some of our lives right now. Your view might change if you walk a mile in some of our shoes. Believe me ....fires ARE front and center especially WHEN they're front and center in our yards and we have people knocking on our doors telling us to leave !
EDIT: Sorry to offend anyone. Just a bit testy in OK Centre & took it as belittling the fire situation. It's been a very un-nerving weekend.
Huh ? Really ? Have you been evacuated? Are your eyes drooping like mine are after this weekend wondering if I have to leave my home in a minute? The fires ARE "front and center" in some of our lives right now. Your view might change if you walk a mile in some of our shoes. Believe me ....fires ARE front and center especially WHEN they're front and center in our yards and we have people knocking on our doors telling us to leave !
EDIT: Sorry to offend anyone. Just a bit testy in OK Centre & took it as belittling the fire situation. It's been a very un-nerving weekend.
-
- Board Meister
- Posts: 619
- Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 8:16 am
Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH
Yes, I was evacuated in 2003.Tootsie wrote:"everyone overreacts when the media puts fires at front and center"
Huh ? Really ? Have you been evacuated? Are your eyes drooping like mine are after this weekend wondering if I have to leave my home in a minute? The fires ARE "front and center" in some of our lives right now. Your view might change if you walk a mile in some of our shoes. Believe me ....fires ARE front and center especially WHEN they're front and center in our yards and we have people knocking on our doors telling us to leave !
What's your point? You're not the only person who's had to face a little adversity.
-
- Board Meister
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Dec 4th, 2008, 9:47 pm
Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH
Maybe my point is please don't belittle this in any way. Apparently you went through this. Do you not remember your feelings at the time? Maybe 14 years lessen it ? It's real and up front for many of us here in Lake Country that have had a really bad weekend. Please don't allude to it's really nothing in the big scheme of things. It IS in OUR big scheme of things right now.
-
- Board Meister
- Posts: 619
- Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 8:16 am
Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH
I wasn't trying to belittle the fire. I was responding to the suggestion we should have automatic campfire bans every year. My reply is that campfires are far less risky than many other day to day activities, but nobody suggests banning them because they don't result in one major catastrophic event.Tootsie wrote:Maybe my point is please don't belittle this in any way. Apparently you went through this. Do you not remember your feelings at the time? Maybe 14 years lessen it ? It's real and up front for many of us here in Lake Country that have had a really bad weekend. Please don't allude to it's really nothing in the big scheme of things. It IS in OUR big scheme of things right now.
-
- Lord of the Board
- Posts: 3064
- Joined: Feb 16th, 2008, 8:12 am
Re: DECLARE FIREBAN WHEN RISK IS HIGH
In my opinion , and based entirely on the weather , I think they were about 2 to 3 weeks late in declaring a fire ban this year. Would an earlier ban have prevented any fires ? I don't know , but like an earlier poster said , better to error on the side of caution. The fire ban should have been in place before the July long weekend , rather than after.