OT: new forest fires

firkin

firkin

Joined
Jan 26, 2002
Messages
2,737
All I can muster is W.T.F???:confused:

Yes that stands for just what you think...
WHAT THE $%^&

Here in the Republik of Californistan I hear on the news:

Some of the much admired sequoa trees are in danger of being burned down and it is *ALL* because a 63 year-old gandmother committed the unforgivable henious sin of lighting an "illegal" fire to roast some hot dogs....

Excuse me, she is totally to blame and completely responsible for the uncounted years worth of unburned fuel that has accumulated due to the last few decades of forestry policy of the US Gov? This fire is all her fault????

...We, found it politically expedient to build a time bomb in your neighborhood--and it took many years; but should you be present when it explodes, it is entirely and completely your fault...

Sorry, but I don't buy this steaming shite.

Grow a neural net if you can't manage a brain.

Sorry for the rabid rant, but I had to say this.

Signing off and still smouldering. :grumpy: :barf:
 
Evidently continuing to produce soundbytes showing the illusion of "Doing Something" is vastly more important than actually taking some steps toward resolving the problem.

Sigh.
 
Media update:

Last report said the woman was 45 years old, had been arraigned, no plea. (It's the news on TeeVee, what can one expect? 63, 45, eh? Evil hot dogs still in story)

...due to decades of irresponsibility on our part, normal activities have become dangerous, you are criminally liable for any consequences should you perform engage in normal activiÝies...

Don't know what legnths were gone to to warn of fire danger in this specific area, but I still think this total abrogation of responsibility stinks more than decade-old ludefisk stored at equatorial temperatures.:barf: :barf:


edit--
I grew up in the area of central Oregon, worked summers logging and appreciate what "fire danger" means in those circumstances...any place we worked was watched for fire till after sunset, and sometimes our work hours were reduced in extreme conditions. We had a small tanker and pump on hand to prevent burning up the companies interest in case of ignition. I can't truely imagine the fire potential of an area that has not been cut or allowed to burn for many decades...this is a truely frightening thought to me.
 
It seems to me that nature takes care of things better than man but when greed and arrogance step in things go to hell in a minute.
 
The fires that burn when no burning has taken place for decades are 'unnatural' resulting in destruction of native species seedstock. Trees reseed during a normal fire.

logging would have taken a lot of danger out of this situation.

I wish the little old lady had been cooking vegi burgs instead. It is amazing to me the feds will send someone away for at least 20 years for accidental fire starting, but rapists get an average of what? 3 years, five?

There is no adequate way to 'punish' someone for a forest fire, unless it can be shown to be arson.

munk
 
Originally posted by munk
It is amazing to me the feds will send someone away for at least 20 years for accidental fire starting, but rapists get an average of what? 3 years, five?

There is no adequate way to 'punish' someone for a forest fire, unless it can be shown to be arson.

munk
Click to expand...

no contest, the "system" is broken and needs fixin'
however ignorance is no reason to forgive accountability and, in a perfect world, the punishment should be commensurate with the crime.
Hot dogs or veggies burgers, she reportedly INTENTIONALLY set a illegal fire with devastating results. Very different from "accidental". If found guilty she should be punished.
I don't agree with the way the system handles many crimes, including rape, but don't feel that is an appropriate comparison in this context...the system is broke, and needs fixin, that is a separate topic.
Now the forest service worker in CO who admittidly set the Hayman fire might walk on a technicality, what about justice there?
No Munk I don't like the way the system works either and feel as frustrated about it as most if not more so:rolleyes:
 
Hot dogs or veggies burgers, she reportedly INTENTIONALLY set a illegal fire with devastating results. Very different from "accidental". If found guilty she should be punished.
Click to expand...

Yes, she should be punished for setting an illegal fire. She intentionally set the fire. Should she be punished any more severely than someone who was also intentionally set an illegal fire that was discovered before it spread, or was properly and safely contained by the firesetter? The production of devasting results was not the intent, unlike arson. What about someone that sets a "legal" fire which subsequently goes out of control?

Don't know if failure to report the out of control fire was involved or legal ramifications of that.

The forest service employee should be punished the same as anyone else by the legal system. Then she should be fired without severence benefits for utter disregard for and failure to live up to her responsibilities. Her bahavior is no different than a police officer who endangers the public while mis-using the authority of the position to pursue a personal matter.
 
They should be punished. But as the original thread starter opined, 80 years of terrible well intentioned, 'caring' mismanagment did this; not a gal with a grill. Making her the scapegoat leaves the underlying condition and real responsilbility unchanged. It smacks of Big Business and our Federal buracracie's cute game of finding sacraficial lambs to take the rap for their own entrenched criminal behavior. What do you want to bet Cal loved a no logging policy and a roadless access in the forests around Sequoia (sic) park?

munk
 
That was a good link. I just had a thought; allowing our forests to become over loaded with fuel and not expecting a disaster is the real insanity. It is exactly the same as passing codes and laws against firearms and then expecting criminals not to take advantage of the situation.

munk
 
Why is it when an accident happens, there is always someone to blame?

I thought an accident was....
an accident.
 
Those are thoughtfull questions Pen. Thing is, this gal knew she had no business with the grill at that time, unless I got it all wrong.
If there were no fire restrictions and someone started a blaze by accident, I wonder what would happen to them?

munk
 
Depending on the circumstances the person could be held liable for the costs and damages. In a case of an accidental wildfire there are two key questions to be answered:

1. Was the person who started the fire aware of the risks and restrictions?

2. What actions would a reasonable person have taken under the circumstance?

These questions allow for a lot of "gray area," but more often than not the answer to #1 boils down to a land management agency's obligation to inform and educate the public, and #2 boils down to an individual's duty to conduct himself in a responsible manner. Both sides must be held accountable to the same standard.
 
Very good. The problem though is that when you have that much fuel ready to blaze, it is going to go. We can't manage our forests thinking no one is ever going to make a mistake or be selfish and light a grill.

That's crazy on its face. In other words, it is reasonable policy applied to an extraordinarily mad circumstance. Instead of winning the lotto it's like drawing the ace of spades. We can all turn towards the perp and say, " Look what you've done to our beautifull forests!!" And wipe our hands of the matter.

Our fire lookouts coming back? I read something about Oregon.

munk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top