Fire Danger High - Stay safe - Page 5  

Quote:

Originally Posted by MastersRacer 

 

FWIW (presumably not much), I was the first, I believe, to mention firearms in this thread. I did not do so as a political statement. I mentioned them because they utilize combustion to operate and that combustion, while typically confined to the gun, is not infallibly contained. In a stage 2 fire ban, I couldn't understand why a device that generates fire in such a fashion wouldn't be banned from use. I didn't understand why the use of a gun wasn't being banned or even controlled as chainsaws are. Each piece of equipment has a high enough likelihood to start a fire in a Stage 2 fire ban situation to be treated with some restrictions or prohibitions. That chainsaws were restricted and firearms not puzzled me. I may have sparked a political debate but I was not being political in my statement.

 

Carry on.

 

Understood.  Modern ammunition burning very cleanly is really the answer to your specific question.  It is a shame that the issue became politicized in a way that kept that from being heard.   A different way of looking at it is the fact that, in terms of fire hazard, hunting jackrabbits with an airgun or with a "regular" rifle can be viewed as interchangeable in terms of fire risk.  (Not in terms of other risks, and in each case safe shooting is a priority.) 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

It's the summertime -- lots of threads don't get a new reply for a week or more.  That hardly makes them "dormant." 

 

I was quoting a prior post that remains in this thread, and my post was spurred by a conversation I'd had, with a real-world person who actually backpacks, about some of the stupid things we'd seen.  That includes several funny toilet stories, not least issues with burning toilet paper (which actually isn't cool anymore, due to the numbers of fires it has in fact caused, when done by car-campers and backpackers alike).  Toilet paper conflagrations can result in fun had for all, even for the family dog -- which can lead to yet more fun for the ride home.

 

My post was grounded in the real world, responsive to a prior post, and highlighting one thing that people reading this could potentially learn that would enable them to, say, backpack with lower fire risk -- namely, ideally use natural substitutes for toilet paper, and/or always pack it out, and whatever you do, don't burn your toilet paper.  Seems to me that this was a classic use of the internet.  Of course, attempts by some people to suppress views they don't like, even on relatively "open" forums, are also classic uses of the internet. 

 

View it as similar to telling homeowners that many succulents both make striking groundcovers, and good firebreaks when planted around homes, due to their high water content.  Because it is grounded in reality, it may be offensive to some, but it still is legitimate to mention.  (Not cure-alls, btw, anymore than appropriate roofs and other ways of limiting fire hazard for homeowners, but they can help.  I know how some people can take things out of context, particularly when trying to push an agenda, and yes a house surrounded by succulents for sure can still burn.) 

I was actually being quite generous in my last post. The post you responded to was three weeks old ... and you already responded to it three weeks ago.Just ... let .... go.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeUT 

I was actually being quite generous in my last post. The post you responded to was three weeks old ... and you already responded to it three weeks ago.Just ... let .... go.

And I added new information to it today.  That is the way the internet works.  It is helpful, on-topic, responsive information, which people reading this can actually use.

The fact that there are a group of posters on here who may object to someone posting on, for instance, the fire hazard presented by backpackers dealing with waste issues -- as people who actually backpack know, these issues are an unavoidable relaity of time spent in the outdoors -- is unfortunate.  But, the fact that discussing these issues is objected to by some, evidently, doesn't mean that they should be avoided. 

Just like intelligent approaches to landscaping, roofs, and other issues can reduce homeowner fire risk (again, reduce some, not all, risk)  intelligent approaches to backpacking can reduce the fire risk from that activity. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

And I added new information to it today.  That is the way the internet works.  It is helpful, on-topic, responsive information, which people reading this can actually use.

 

The fact that there are a group of posters on here who may object to someone posting on, for instance, the fire hazard presented by backpackers dealing with waste issues -- as people who actually backpack know, these issues are an unavoidable relaity of time spent in the outdoors -- is unfortunate.  But, the fact that discussing these issues is objected to by some, evidently, doesn't mean that they should be avoided. 

 

Just like intelligent approaches to landscaping, roofs, and other issues can reduce homeowner fire risk (again, reduce some, not all, risk)  intelligent approaches to backpacking can reduce the fire risk from that activity. 

Except that the thread had moved on (or just back on track) several weeks ago, and you're just rehashing an old argument in a passive way because you talked to someone with a little insight.

For the record, I wasn't even arguing the backpacking point and have no reason to suppress your voice or whatever it is you're implying. I'm just saying, call a spade a spade.

Woke up to rain this morning and a forecast of more this afternoon. Things haven't been nearly as bad here as elsewhere, but the rain is needed for the crops nonetheless. I have talked to a few farmers and after losing last year's crops to record flooding and now a bad drought this year at least one has told me he just can't farm anymore if this year's crops die from drought. 

It's amazing how 2011 was the wettest year since records started being kept in I believe 1886. This year is the driest since 1956 so far. Crazy how this weather has been. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeUT 

Except that the thread had moved on (or just back on track) several weeks ago, and you're just rehashing an old argument in a passive way because you talked to someone with a little insight.

 

For the record, I wasn't even arguing the backpacking point and have no reason to suppress your voice or whatever it is you're implying. I'm just saying, call a spade a spade.

People circle back to threads with new info, spurred by real-world interactions, all the time.  Moreover, my response both was directly responsive to a prior post, and also responsive to the "Fire Danger High - Stay Safe" theme of the thread.  I've given, in this thread, quite a bit of concrete info on ways people who actually use the outdoors might be safety conscious during times of elevated fire danger, either while recreating, or around their own homes if they live in such an area.  It is curious that "some people" don't like such factually based contributions, that are grounded in actual use of the outdoors.

Say someone on here wants to go backpacking.  Even come the fall, maybe they're thinking about stove choice -- they can now say, Hey, a number of backpacking fires have been caused by alcohol stoves.  There's even a site or two with nice summaries of the pros and cons of these stoves, such as http://www.thesodacanstove.com/alcohol-stove/myths.html , "The fuel can easily spill if you knock the stove over or someone bumps the table too hard where you're cooking. Once, while trying to snuff out the flame, I accidentally knocked a lit soda can stove into my lap and my crotch caught on fire. So yes, they can be dangerous, but all stoves can be dangerous if you don't treat them with respect. Remember these simple precautions:", decide whether the pros of the stoves make sense for them, and remember the common-sense safeguards noted there.  Say a homeowner is trying to decide whether native plants or succulents are going to be the best choice for a garden border around their home -- again, it should not be controversial to discuss these real issues.

As far as the weather, weather varies.  In large parts of ski country, it does get pretty dry on a predictable basis, though, so a lot of these issues are there every year for people who use the outdoors year-round.  Some years are just worse than others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/sunday-review/the-long-dry-history-of-the-west.html?_r=1  This suggests that what seems abnormal to us may again simply be natural shifts back to "regular" weather.  One further practical thing for people to keep in mind in terms of staying safe when using the outdoors in dry periods is simply going cookless as an option.  In much of ski country in the west in particular, summer gives long days and generally bright sun, so in addition to easy cookless staples, with a ziploc and some water you can even do pretty well with a lot of dehydrated foods by just using time as opposed to temperature to work on them.  This even works for coffee, it may not be Starbucks but it's not bad. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/sunday-review/the-long-dry-history-of-the-west.html?_r=1  This suggests that what seems abnormal to us may again simply be natural shifts back to "regular" weather.  One further practical thing for people to keep in mind in terms of staying safe when using the outdoors in dry periods is simply going cookless as an option.  In much of ski country in the west in particular, summer gives long days and generally bright sun, so in addition to easy cookless staples, with a ziploc and some water you can even do pretty well with a lot of dehydrated foods by just using time as opposed to temperature to work on them.  This even works for coffee, it may not be Starbucks but it's not bad. 

So we shouldn't stop shooting, but we should stop cooking. Right...

  Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeUT 

So we shouldn't stop shooting, but we should stop cooking. Right...

I think what is happening here is that "some posters" are trying to re-inject a very politically charged element into this thread.

FWIW, I was out just the other day in an area with a fire ban, where year-round hunting is allowed.  Totally safe, and yes I went cookless.

I also a couple weeks earlier was by yet another site that had experience a large backpacker-caused fire, this one yet again from backpackers trying to burn toilet paper, and dubbed the "Charmin fire" in its case.  http://articles.latimes.com/1997/aug/24/news/mn-25534  This I reiterate is not speaking against backpackers.  While on the one hand regular users of the outdoors can see frequent evidence of backpacker-started fires, I've also been in the area of fires started by all sorts of other user groups, including federal employees. 

If people who actually are concerned about fire risk and not trying to demonize one user group want to learn more about how to go cookless, so that they can minimize the risk of their being "that guy" during a dry spell, yet still be able to make coffee, it's worth checking out. 

As for the effects to a discussion forum when not-so-stealth political agendas try to take over discussions at the expense of facts, we can see the process here.

FWIW, the other thread is still cookin' in the Politics and Hot Topics forum.  Well, not really, but there's other fun stuff happening there.  Thought about you two when this happened a couple weeks ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Lee 


Huh, that article doesn't mention backpackers.

Uhh...http://postholer.com/faq.php#Fire safety  You may live in some odd place where car campers all try to burn their paper but backpackers never do (or did), but backpackers have started a number of real-world fires doing things like this.  A couple more listed there too btw.  And those are only representative and big ones.  And we can play this game in just about every popular backpacking venue in the country.  It's not a surprise, in the real world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

Uhh...http://postholer.com/faq.php#Fire safety  You may live in some odd place where car campers all try to burn their paper but backpackers never do (or did), but backpackers have started a number of real-world fires doing things like this.  A couple more listed there too btw.  And those are only representative and big ones.  And we can play this game in just about every popular backpacking venue in the country.  It's not a surprise, in the real world.

  Too damn funny - you're killing me here.  But a couple-three requests: First, can you back up to that earlier article that you linked and show me where it says "backpacker"?  Not camper or hiker - backpacker.  Then can you show me where I said that backpackers never cause fires - not where I said they don't cause a lot, but where I said the don't cause any?  Lastly, this has been a busy fire season in the US - as of 8/24 there have been over 43,000 fires so far this year.  So, would you tell me that backpackers have started a lot of those, and like how many?  A reality-based ballpark figure would be okay.  I'm hoping for more than your usual anecdotes and bullshit here.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

I think what is happening here is that "some posters" are trying to re-inject a very politically charged element into this thread.

 

FWIW, I was out just the other day in an area with a fire ban, where year-round hunting is allowed.  Totally safe, and yes I went cookless.

 

I also a couple weeks earlier was by yet another site that had experience a large backpacker-caused fire, this one yet again from backpackers trying to burn toilet paper, and dubbed the "Charmin fire" in its case.  http://articles.latimes.com/1997/aug/24/news/mn-25534  This I reiterate is not speaking against backpackers.  While on the one hand regular users of the outdoors can see frequent evidence of backpacker-started fires, I've also been in the area of fires started by all sorts of other user groups, including federal employees. 

 

If people who actually are concerned about fire risk and not trying to demonize one user group want to learn more about how to go cookless, so that they can minimize the risk of their being "that guy" during a dry spell, yet still be able to make coffee, it's worth checking out. 

 

As for the effects to a discussion forum when not-so-stealth political agendas try to take over discussions at the expense of facts, we can see the process here.

LOL. If you were worried about "injecting politically charged element," the thing to do would be not to respond. But you weren't really to worried about that, heh.

As for me, I was pointing out hypocrisy, no political statement necessary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Lee 

 

  Too damn funny ... First, can you back up to that earlier article that you linked and show me where it says "backpacker"?  Not camper or hiker - backpacker....

Let me help a brother out.  I assumed most people understood that hiker and backpacker in this context are pretty much the same.  Thru-hiking the AT or PCT are very common forms of backpacking, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thru-hiking , http://thru-hiker.com/materials/index.php ,  and in fact its popularity is one reason why so many fires are caused by backpackers in places like the PCT. 

Sorry if I didn't realize you didn't know what the term meant.  Because it is such a common activity, even many people who don't themselve thru-hike or backpack understand what the activity is, so Ithink I just took it for granted. It is pretty basic, and we are talking about outdoor issues, so I think it was reasonable for me to make that assumption, but for the future I will try to remember that some basic terms and concepts may not be understood by "some posters" on here, particularly those who it seem keep trying to inject rather charged views into the thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeUT 

LOL. If you were worried about "injecting politically charged element," the thing to do would be not to respond. But you weren't really to worried about that, heh.

 

As for me, I was pointing out hypocrisy, no political statement necessary.

You seem to dislike the fact that I recommended people at least consider going cookless -- and then you tried to inject a topic that you both don't seem to comprehend, and that had been calved off into a separate thread and then effectively banned into a private forum.

Let me ask, have you gone cookless and found issues with it?  If so, what were those issues?  Because personally, in the summertime, which tends to also be the period with elevated fire hazard that people are concerned about, for trips up to 3-4 days cookless is pretty easy to do well.  Have you found differently? 

Why is it hypocritical of me to say cookless can be a good solution?  I may be out again this weekend, and will go cookless if I do.  I just got back from a paddle, and honestly would have liked to fry some hotdogs or such, but went cookless.  No hypocrisy there.  Another acitivty that was raised in this thread happens to be far, far safer than lighting up a stove, so it is totally rational to go out and enjoy the safe activity and to leave an acitivity with greater risk for another time. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trekchick 

My knee-jerk reaction to this is...........

Seriously?  We're doing this again?  Really?  

 

Lisa stop looking at Bart

Bart stop touching Lisa

Don't make me turn this car around!

 

Then I read that last post by CTKook and I thought...........

Wow, Hiker and backpacker are the same?  

 

 

I find new ways that I'm ignorant every day that I read this thread.

 

If you don't know what thru-hiking is, and are trying to make judgments in this thread, then at least read the f'ing wiki and stop being so proud of your ignorance.

There are reasons why the signal to noise ratio here is often so horrible, and just this type of arrogant igonorance is part of it. 

^^^Ohh no he deeehint!  I have a suggestion.  Maybe we can this further in to a "How not to look like a total greenhorn" thread with all kinds of sweet photochoppers..

Know who else can't tell campers from hikers from backpackers??  Spiderman!

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/backpacking_v_thruhiking.html  A little more help for the proudly ignorant.

I increasingly realize that many posters in this thread do not seem to have the vocabularly generally shared by people who do the activities in question.  While things like thru-hiking have in fact been around for a long time, it is true that people who don't use the outdoors a lot may not be aware of them.

Check it out.  It's a real thing, in the real world.

As is going cookless, for people who actually use the outdoors.

Is backpacking related to traversing?  Depending on what the dog ate, she might start fires.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stranger 

Is backpacking related to traversing?  Depending on what the dog ate, she might start fires.

If you're alluding to the gravity traverse thread, that was also a real thing that lots of people on here kinda mocked because, well, they'd never heard of it.

Only difference is that, while gravity traversing is also pretty common, there are a very large number of people who thru-hike in multiple venues every year.  In particular for a ski crowd, just as I know people who head to Indian Creek and people who go fishing or surfing for the summer, there are always one or two squirreling away the $$ for their thru-hike.  And, for summer recreation, it's common to bump into a portion of the AT or the PCT, etc.  So, the fact that thru-hiking draws not just blank stares, but posts from people expressing incredulity at the fact that thru-hiking and backpacking are overlapping versions of the same basic activity, is a bit much.

Again, it's ok not to know these things, but to actively try to engage in misinformation denying that they exist, because a poster has not themselves heard of them (or just doesn't like guns, an earlier topic that appeared in this thread) is a bit much.  Noting that thru-hiking is a real thing -- which it is -- is perfectly reasonable, assuming that talking about real, legal, very popular outdoor activities like thru-hiking is considered ok on Epic.

Thru-hiking.  Check it out. 

This thread started in June when wildfire risk in Colorado was out of sight.  Now the fires are in large part in California, and a whole lot of them seem to be lighting originated. 

The endless arguing in this thread is really getting tiresome.  I realize we all have the option to unsubscribe, or just not clickt o read the next inane post.  However, I can help by closing this.  I have no objection to discussing wildland fire as news, science or a social dilemma, but the bickering is ridiculous.   Let's move on.