#1Jun 24th, 2010
Another piece of bureaucratic idiocy
#2
Re: Another piece of bureaucratic idiocy
Jun 24th, 2010
What's next?
Testing people before they can vote.
Testing people before they can vote.
#3
Re: Another piece of bureaucratic idiocy
Jun 24th, 2010Quote: Originally Posted by Avro
After the fake lake lunacy, anything is possible. The degree of idiocy is directly proportional to how much these lunatics are being paid. What's next?
Testing people before they can vote.
#4
Re: Another piece of bureaucratic idiocy
Jun 24th, 2010
I would venture to guess that this decision was probably taken to ensure that if someone building a fire is in fact irresponsible, then it would be less likely (with a smaller fire) for things to get out of control, or at least get out of control as quickly.
#5
Re: Another piece of bureaucratic idiocy
Jun 24th, 2010
Dude when i was up at dease lake it was a tinderbox.... When i was in merrit = tinder box. Everytime i go to BC, unless its the coast its always dry
There are just way too many dried out evergreen needles littering the ground everywhere......
There are just way too many dried out evergreen needles littering the ground everywhere......
#6
Re: Another piece of bureaucratic idiocy
Jun 24th, 2010
JLM, I suspect it has less to do with the irresponsible morons, and more to do with keeping the semi-responsible people thoughtful about the importance of safety. Because, keep in mind, humanity is a spectrum. So if you can prevent the middle ground folks from forgetting and building the fire a bit too big, in theory you can help reduce the risk a bit.
#7
Re: Another piece of bureaucratic idiocy
Jun 25th, 2010Quote: Originally Posted by karrie
I think when it reaches the point that when a 1/2 metre fire is safer than a one metre fire, conditions are such that there should be NO fire. Much more important than the size of the fire is the proximity of flammable material. Whatever the size of fire you should have a clear area of about a 20' diameter. The temperature, humidity and wind are all more important factors than the size of the fire. Sometimes when camping you have a dozen people sitting around the fire (if my wife's family is present 3 or 4 dozen) JLM, I suspect it has less to do with the irresponsible morons, and more to do with keeping the semi-responsible people thoughtful about the importance of safety. Because, keep in mind, humanity is a spectrum. So if you can prevent the middle ground folks from forgetting and building the fire a bit too big, in theory you can help reduce the risk a bit.
in which case such a fire would be ridiculous. #8
Re: Another piece of bureaucratic idiocy
Jun 25th, 2010
not generally having big crowds I'm used to smaller fires, so it doesn't seem outrageous to me.
#9
Re: Another piece of bureaucratic idiocy
Jun 25th, 2010
It was just a little campfire. One, maybe two guys.
--
Firefighters raced to strengthen fire lines as forecasters predicted heavy winds Friday could fan the raging blaze that has torched more than 14,800 acres in northern Arizona. (pristine forest)
The blaze, called the Schultz fire for a pass that fans the winds, is 40 percent contained. It was caused by an unattended campfire.
The flames have threatened homes, critical watersheds and wilderness administered by the Coconino National Forest. Hundreds of people were evacuated...
--
Firefighters raced to strengthen fire lines as forecasters predicted heavy winds Friday could fan the raging blaze that has torched more than 14,800 acres in northern Arizona. (pristine forest)
The blaze, called the Schultz fire for a pass that fans the winds, is 40 percent contained. It was caused by an unattended campfire.
The flames have threatened homes, critical watersheds and wilderness administered by the Coconino National Forest. Hundreds of people were evacuated...
#10
Re: Another piece of bureaucratic idiocy
Jun 25th, 2010
Living in the midst of the pine beetle kill and surrounded by standing dead pine, I would like to see a ban on fires of any size, at least for the Interior. In spite of all the rain we have had this month, the fire hazard is still rated as high. But I do have to agree with JLM, it is not the size of the fire that matters so much as the caution of the people tending it.
#11
Re: Another piece of bureaucratic idiocy
Jun 25th, 2010
even people who are careful can start root fires
#12
Re: Another piece of bureaucratic idiocy
Jun 25th, 2010Quote: Originally Posted by JLM
I just saw on Global News that campfires in B.C. are going to be restricted to 1/2 metre diameter and 1/2 metre in height. Sounds like a "white shirt and tie" decision in some office. If the person in charge of the fire is irresponsible, the size of the fire is irrelevent.
My first thought on seeing this was the old joke we told when camping, thats something like this:
Q: What's the different between an indian fire and a white man fire?
A: An indian builds a fire to keep warm, a white man gets warm building his fire.
Now on a more serious note, I think this an issue that someone is complicating by putting a size restriction in place. If the conditions are too dangerous, then ban ALL open fires. If its not too dangerous then let if someone wants to haul and chop the wood to make a big blazing bonfire, then let them have at it.
#13
Re: Another piece of bureaucratic idiocy
Jun 25th, 2010
Why do people who haul a small house to a provincal park and sit inside with the AC going all day need to come out at night to light a fire?
+1
#14 Top Rated PostRe: Another piece of bureaucratic idiocy
Jun 25th, 2010Quote: Originally Posted by JLM
Actually, what I heard was that one can easily douse a half meter round campfire with 8 liters of water and it takes more like 50 liters of water to douse a fire that's a meter in diameter. How many people here even carry 8 or 10 liters of water when they build a fire? How many people carry 50 liters for a meter of fire? Believe it or not, accidents do happen and all it takes in inattention to a fire for a few seconds. How many people don't bother ringing a fire with rocks or douse the ground and stuff around a fire before lighting it?I just saw on Global News that campfires in B.C. are going to be restricted to 1/2 metre diameter and 1/2 metre in height. Sounds like a "white shirt and tie" decision in some office. If the person in charge of the fire is irresponsible, the size of the fire is irrelevent.
1 little oops and there goes a few million $ in firefighting equipment and manpower to work.
#15
Re: Another piece of bureaucratic idiocy
Jun 26th, 2010
We go to put out beach fires several times every summer as I'm sure Les does as well. Many of them would qualify for land clearing fires because stupid people keep adding wood. A small fire probably won't set overhanging branches on fire where a larger one will. When the wind comes up the larger the fire the more and larger embers travel farther as well. A 1/2 meter dia. fire is more than large enough to cook on and as Anna said much easier to put out.
#16
Re: Another piece of bureaucratic idiocy
Jun 26th, 2010Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave
I sure see your point taxslave, which is valid solely because of the number of idiots who go "camping". I think normal people can handle a fire of whatever size and are aware of such things as dryness of the woods, humidity, wind, temperature etc and have the sense if it is at all dry just not to bother with a fire. Too bad the top 80% in hte intellect department are ruled by the bottom 20%. I remember an incident about 35 years ago when I took the family camping at Goldstream Park near Victoria, when we got to the gate we were informed the campsite was full and then he summoned us ahead and said there was a spot after all, when we got to the site a couple of young fellas were packing up their gear- they decided they wanted a fire and took their axe and started cutting a standing green tree, so they got the boot. A couple of real Einsteins those boys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We go to put out beach fires several times every summer as I'm sure Les does as well. Many of them would qualify for land clearing fires because stupid people keep adding wood. A small fire probably won't set overhanging branches on fire where a larger one will. When the wind comes up the larger the fire the more and larger embers travel farther as well. A 1/2 meter dia. fire is more than large enough to cook on and as Anna said much easier to put out.
#17
Re: Another piece of bureaucratic idiocy
Jun 27th, 2010
I haven't kept track of the number of non structural fires that I have attended but at least 80% are human caused. This includes car fires that got into the road side areas which may not have been totally preventable. But I have also put out several abandoned campfires that I came across before they expanded.
#18
Re: Another piece of bureaucratic idiocy
Jun 27th, 2010Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave
Precisely. We go to put out beach fires several times every summer as I'm sure Les does as well. Many of them would qualify for land clearing fires because stupid people keep adding wood. A small fire probably won't set overhanging branches on fire where a larger one will. When the wind comes up the larger the fire the more and larger embers travel farther as well. A 1/2 meter dia. fire is more than large enough to cook on and as Anna said much easier to put out.
Beach fires are not bad. Around here they are built a fair distance from forest and bush and built on a range of bases from sand to boulders.
Cooking fires can be as small as a 1 liter fire. Most fires we use out camping are about a third to a half meter. And that's enough to simultaneously heat a pan, a coffee pot, and a pot of spuds. It's also large enough 8 people can be seated around roasting 'shmallows and dogs. A 2 liter bottle of water can extinguish a third meter fire.
#19
Re: Another piece of bureaucratic idiocy
Jun 27th, 2010
Very Simple. The forests are vey dry. You are lucky that you are able to light a bonfire at all. Now you are bitching about the measurements that you are allowed to set!! Wildfires in B.C last year do you recall? Beautiful forests gone!! Not worth a weenie roast, wouldn't you agree?
Similar Threads
8
4
8
0
0