Here on our local hunting forum a well thought out response.
ldfires,New or Updates
Quote Originally Posted by j270wsm View Post
Remove a few key word and you could be describing 80% of the province. So many valleys need to be burnt, controlled preferably, but there is never enough money. It’s actually really sad how government budgets/complains about the cost to fight wild fires but won’t allocate some of that money to do prescribed burns and reduce wild fire and insurance claim costs.
I am going to probably catch hell for arguing with all these arm chair quarterbacks but...... In the past 15 years, the government has TRIED to run prescribed burns in the OK and other places, but the NIMBY's in those areas didn't want all the smoke to upset their afternoon tea. And we know who will bend to others when they should be standing up.....politicians!! So they bent and a lot got cancelled and some were delayed so much that they missed the window. Filmon's report stated exactly that....and this year is looking to be a repeat of 2003. Was a fun time being on the front lines of that year!!!
Quote Originally Posted by GreyDog View Post
It is one thing , and often excusable, for the forestry to not be able to get to a fire right away but it is quite another, and inexcusable, to prevent capable civilians from dealing with the fire early on. It is clear case of bureaucracy getting in the way of action. GD
Nope, it is not bureaucracy, well maybe a little.... But the biggest reason is liability and again, in 2003, the government learned a lot, especially about safety and having to be responsible for those on a fire line, whether they were ordered or volunteered. We have a [bleep] load of lawyers in BC just looking to jump on the liability band wagon. Watch again this year they are already lining up for their free hand out! In 2003, the amount of $$$ that were paid out to others for anything from "injuries" to "lost or destroyed" equipment was mind boggling. Something in the name of 250 million was in equipment alone, and most of it was not ordered to the fire, but went out anyways and investigations showed that some of that "equipment" was trucked out, pushed off the lowbed and "left" in front of the fire, then burned over and filled for equipment damage replacement. Greed comes out at the best and worst of times. So even if they wanted to help, who would have covered them and what would have happened to the spouse and family if someone was injured or killed?
Quote Originally Posted by lovemywinchester View Post
I think this is becoming commonplace these days. I HEARD when folks were helping put out the small fire near Napier Lake earlier this summer some guy was asking folks helping out if they "had their fire fighting tickets". Apparently hard working ranchers and rural folk aren't qualified to throw a shovel of dirt on a roadside fire!
Lots of rumors' out there and once again, what happens if those hard working ranchers were injured or killed?
I watched the sad video today of the over flight of Monte Creek and I hate to see all those damaged buildings and burned. But I also noticed how many had the forest right beside the building. Fire is a fact of life in BC and will be for sometime. Also, people want to build in the bush, live in the forest and possible find what a lot of us on here already know. But (I have sure said that a few times) there has been a huge program in BC to make those places "FireSmart". It started with the 2003 fires and has built up and continued since. Lots of info on the program. If we build in a forest susceptible to fire, we should be at least making it FireSmart. But (there it is again..) who is to pay for that? That is the biggest battle. Should it be the Provincial Gov?, Regional Districts?, local Gov? or the land owner? Look at what some towns like Ouesnel, Fort St. James and others are doing to protect their city. They are not waiting around to see who will pay for what, they are doing it. You need to ask yourself; why is the regional districts and local governments not pushing for this program? After all, are they not semi responsible for the land they manage?
As for acting on fires, I was not there, but for past experience, all fires get triaged and those that pose the most risk are actioned first. The WR, Tremont and Thomas Lake fire, plus a bunch more all discovered around the same time. From anyone's point of view, of those three, what ones would you throw your resources at? Keeping in mind that most of BC was burning at this time (fires in NEBC, a few around PG/Vanderhoof/Fort St. James and of course the Spark Lake fire and Lytton fires) and resources were stretched out. Now looking at the fires, the WR fire was the furthest from any population and in a forest. The other two were close to either OK falls or Ashcroft. Plus nobody speaks about the other fires that were actually actioned and put out near residences or populations.
I am sure there will always be the one off's and sometimes [bleep] does go sideways, no matter the good intentions of others. And the results can be catastrophic, as we are seeing again this year.
Not defending what is happening as I am not there, but there is always two sides to every story. And, at the end of the day, Mother Nature is in control and she will decide when the fires are done burning.
http://www.bcwildfire.ca/History/Rep...tormReport.pdf https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/pu..._to_filmon.pdf https://firesmartbc.ca/ https://prrd.bc.ca/firesmart/ Flame on...no pun intended...
Cheers
SS
