Declare fireban when risk is high

Locked
johnny24
Board Meister
Posts: 619
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 8:16 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by johnny24 »

LTD wrote:ya suppose they do hopefully theres some form of disciplinary action I cant help but think how incredibly stupid one must be to think that was a good idea


Pretty sure they've put out more fires than they've caused.
LTD
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4700
Joined: Mar 31st, 2010, 3:34 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by LTD »

o well that makes it all ok then, ive never had a car accident I guess its ok for me to speed then
User avatar
Woodenhead
Guru
Posts: 5190
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 2:47 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by Woodenhead »

LTD wrote:actually the point is not all responsible people are not idiots


Yep, that's what I'm saying. A few things at once.

At the end of the day, no matter what rules we enact, nothing much will change unless we also put a lot more boots/eyes on the ground, etc. But that costs a lot of money. Maybe once autonomous drones are more ubiquitous, we could have 'em patrolling all danger areas 24/7, nabbing the idiots in/before the act. heh
Your bias suits you.
LTD
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4700
Joined: Mar 31st, 2010, 3:34 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by LTD »

one would think it costs a lot less to have more parks people and conservation officers out there than it costs to fight fires due to irresponsible campers smokers partiers and so on
User avatar
Woodenhead
Guru
Posts: 5190
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 2:47 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by Woodenhead »

IDK what the actual specific numbers would be. But it seems that governments like to cut parks budgets [personnel] to save money, whereas fighting fires some years are much cheaper than others. A gamble, perhaps? Logic and politics rarely go hand in hand, regardless, so I try not to think about it too much... But I wonder how many people it would take to properly cover all backwoods areas at all times. That's a lot of logging roads, trails, and square kilometres... (I think it's worth it, whatever the cost, TBQH)
Your bias suits you.
johnny24
Board Meister
Posts: 619
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 8:16 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by johnny24 »

LTD wrote:o well that makes it all ok then, ive never had a car accident I guess its ok for me to speed then


No, using your logic, you should be banned from driving because 30,000 other people in BC have caused accidents this year.
fall
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2458
Joined: Mar 12th, 2010, 10:26 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by fall »

johnny24 wrote:I'm surprised that campfires in a pit are a high risk. I've had many campfires in provincial campgrounds. Never once have I seen it light an unintended source on fire.


I think provincial campgrounds should allow fires.
LTD
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4700
Joined: Mar 31st, 2010, 3:34 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by LTD »

yes then the embers and sparks can be carried off to light fires somewhere away from you
johnny24
Board Meister
Posts: 619
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 8:16 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by johnny24 »

LTD wrote:yes then the embers and sparks can be carried off to light fires somewhere away from you


Like I said earlier, never seen that happen in a pit fire. I also can't find stats that say it has happened, or how many times in BC.
LTD
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4700
Joined: Mar 31st, 2010, 3:34 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by LTD »

so you've never seen embers and sparks floating off in the air from a fire it makes no difference if its a pit or not
LTD
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4700
Joined: Mar 31st, 2010, 3:34 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by LTD »

when its this dry one ember floating in the breeze lands and poof instant fire
User avatar
maryjane48
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 17124
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 7:58 pm

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by maryjane48 »

lol johnny . why is the bad kid in class always named johnny ? because johnny always thinks hes above the laws and in end must face the consiquinces of the actions . think of it more like a prdvent johnny from doing something he might regret down the road . as far as im concerned wanting to go play with fire in the bush is same as tossing cig butt out a car window while driving :smt045
johnny24
Board Meister
Posts: 619
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 8:16 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by johnny24 »

maryjane48 wrote:lol johnny . why is the bad kid in class always named johnny ? because johnny always thinks hes above the laws and in end must face the consiquinces of the actions . think of it more like a prdvent johnny from doing something he might regret down the road . as far as im concerned wanting to go play with fire in the bush is same as tossing cig butt out a car window while driving :smt045


Above what law? What consequences? No one is talking about playing with a fire in the bush. I see you in every forum. I never know what you're talking about and I don't think you do either.
fall
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2458
Joined: Mar 12th, 2010, 10:26 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by fall »

johnny24 wrote:Above what law? What consequences? No one is talking about playing with a fire in the bush. I see you in every forum. I never know what you're talking about and I don't think you do either.


Thought the exact same thing.
Nonsense.
fall
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2458
Joined: Mar 12th, 2010, 10:26 am

Re: Declare fireban when risk is high

Post by fall »

johnny24 wrote:Like I said earlier, never seen that happen in a pit fire. I also can't find stats that say it has happened, or how many times in BC.


Nor have I.
I don't think there has ever been a wildfire caused from a provincial campsite in time.
I know I have been out at Fintry during a fire ban in the last few years and they were allowing fires.
Locked

Return to “Fire Watch 2017”