OT: You can't make this shit up department
BillB
Tennessee officials have instituted a ban on all backcountry campfires,
because of "extremely high danger levels for fire outbreaks."
"Dry weather has impacted the entire state, especially in West Tennessee,"
said Assistant Commissioner for Tennessee State Parks Mike Carlton,
"Humidity is very low and with fronts bringing high winds, we want to take
every precaution necessary to protect people and land."
This next part kills me....
Carlton also offered several basic fire safety tips, like, "Never leave a
fire unattended, even for a minute."
So they'll douse your campfire to protect people and land, but they'll let
your house burn out of control.
Jerry Sturdivant
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:kfXro.15763$Ib3....@newsfe21.iad...
Sure; like your campfire under safe conditions: if you don't intentionally
ask that it be put out, it will be left burning.
Jerry
>
> http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_185919.asp
>
>
>
joeturn
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree with Jerry N Stuga Vitch on this one.
I'll explain:
If a jet plane should swoop down and cause the fire to scatter.you
could not tell if the rocket plume was just smoke and mirrors or just
ground effect!
joeturn
I think BillB is just PULLING you leg on this,he assumes that the
homeowner did ask for his fire to be put out and that the fire
fighters just watched his house burn following orders from
Silverstien!
Now Jerry;
BillB does not know of your Expertise in these matters!
BillB it goes back to the laws of phisics if Jerry says that
interlaced smoke could travel over 60 frames a second then it could
out run a security camera. So why on earth would anybody build a fire
and leave it unattended unless Silverstein gave the order to PULL IT?
Pepe Papon
Of course, it's two different sets of people involved: state vs. local
government.
BillB
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:vrm2b6d601ujflvfp...@4ax.com...
> Of course, it's two different sets of people involved: state vs. local
> government.
I know. That was part of the point. One hand doesn't know what the other is
doing. Time for a top-down redesign?
susan
I guess I'm being PDS - every state I have lived in has times when there are
restrictions on campfres etc.
Jerry Sturdivant
"joeturn" <joetu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3526e61e-296a-45bf...@j25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
I told you these conspiracy nuts were weird.
x
news:K7iso.3857$7z4...@newsfe17.iad:
> I guess I'm being PDS - every state I have lived in has times when
> there are restrictions on campfres etc.
If you've ever seen the forest when a fire was running wild
And you loved the things within it like a mother loves her child
Then you know why Smokey tells you when he sees you passing through
Remember please be careful it's the least that you can do
BillB
"x" <a@b.c> wrote in message news:rlmso.3381$OB2....@newsfe02.iad...
> If you've ever seen the forest when a fire was running wild
> And you loved the things within it like a mother loves her child
> Then you know why Smokey tells you when he sees you passing through
> Remember please be careful it's the least that you can do
If you ever see a house on fire,
be sure to stop. The plight is dire.
Tell the owner in the yard,
that you take Visa or Mastercard.
BillB
>>I know. That was part of the point. One hand doesn't know what the other
>>is
>>doing. Time for a top-down redesign?
>
> Point not well-taken. We're talking about a statewide policy
> decision vs. a specific case in one small locality. And the
> decisions are based on entirely different sets of criteria.
I'm not sure how I can make it more clear for you.
You have one level of government saying the wildfire danger to the public
and to property is so grave you can't have a weenie roast, and you have
another level of government saying there is nothing wrong with letting a
major structure in a rural area burn out of control because someone owed
$75. You have one level of government saying, "Never leave a [camp]fire
unattended, even for a minute," while another level of government refuses to
even show up at a major blaze.
I don't think those two points of view can be reconciled by any reasonable
person.
Jerry Sturdivant
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:eCzso.4754$c94....@newsfe07.iad...
If the burning structure was a danger to the surrounding forest, then yes,
put it out. Apparently it wasn't endangering anything but the neighbor's
house.
That returns us to (or still leaves us with) the original problem. Do some
people get fire protection free while other pay? Does that not eventually
lead to a problem of no fire protection?
Jerry 'n Vegas
da pickle
> That returns us to (or still leaves us with) the original problem. Do some
> people get fire protection free while other pay? Does that not eventually
> lead to a problem of no fire protection?
Well, to be fair, some people who live in communities actually do get "free"
fire protection. It is not at issue here, but in any city, there are people
that do not pay any taxes and yet they get a lot of services that are paid
by the people that do pay the taxes. In some rural areas, there are people
that do not pay any county taxes and yet they get a lot of services for
"free." (I presume that this is the sort of "free" you were talking about.)
I still do not understand why no volunteer fire department was not contacted
in the actual fire we are talking about. I realize that asking questions is
absolutely forbidden in this thread so I will let it go with a comment
rather than a question.
Jerry Sturdivant
"da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Jc2dnbnxFMQ...@giganews.com...
> "Jerry Sturdivant"
>
>> That returns us to (or still leaves us with) the original problem. Do
>> some people get fire protection free while other pay? Does that not
>> eventually lead to a problem of no fire protection?
>
> Well, to be fair, some people who live in communities actually do get
> "free" fire protection. It is not at issue here, but in any city, there
> are people that do not pay any taxes and yet they get a lot of services
> that are paid by the people that do pay the taxes. In some rural areas,
> there are people that do not pay any county taxes and yet they get a lot
> of services for "free." (I presume that this is the sort of "free" you
> were talking about.) I still do not understand why no volunteer fire
> department was not contacted in the actual fire we are talking about.
Apparently there's an area where the city FD can't (or won't) get to. That
area would need the volunteer fire department. The area this guy lived in
could be reaches, so those residence have to pay if they wanted coverage.
Jerry 'n Vegas
Pepe Papon
I'm not sure how I can make it more clear to you. Officials in a
small town made a decision in one specific, isolated case that was
unrelated to forests. State government officials made a policy
decision on a policy that affected forests statewide.
We've already discussed the wisdom or lack thereof of the local
decision ad nauseum. For the sake of argument, let's imagine that we
all agree that the local decision was wrong. Given that, do you have
a point? Should something else be done differently?
BillB
> I'm not sure how I can make it more clear to you. Officials in a
> small town made a decision in one specific, isolated case that was
> unrelated to forests.
Exactly. They weren't even considering the grave danger to life and property
their decision represented, a consideration another level of government
clearly recognized.
>State government officials made a policy
> decision on a policy that affected forests statewide.
Which would include the stand of forest and grassland around Cranick's
property? You don't see that a rural house fire left to burn out of control
during extreme forest fire conditions poses exactly the risk to people and
property that the state government was concerned about, leading to a ban on
campfires?
> We've already discussed the wisdom or lack thereof of the local
> decision ad nauseum. For the sake of argument, let's imagine that we
> all agree that the local decision was wrong. Given that, do you have
> a point? Should something else be done differently?
Yes, something should be done differently! Take these life and death
decisions out of the hands of unqualified high school graduates who have
spent their whole lives in South Fulton and who have the common sense and IQ
of a donkey. Make a state law that city fire departments MUST respond to
*all fires* within their subscription area, and can apply to the state
government for reimbursement if the property was not covered by
subscription (similar laws exist in other jurisdictions). Create maps
delineating responsibility such that no area in the county is without
coverage. While you are at it, make a law that any money paid to the
locality by the state be recoverable from the homeowner in the form of an
in rem claim against the property (these laws also exist elsewhere).
There is no way you should be able to "opt out" of fire protection in the
first place. If your muni taxes aren't paid, that doesn't mean you have
opted out of police protection. That would be an absurd policy....just as
absurd as the present fire protection policy in South Fulton (which will no
doubt change after this fiasco). There are other, far more reasonable
remedies than just canceling emergency services for that person, which poses
a risk to *everyone* in the community.
da pickle
>>> That returns us to (or still leaves us with) the original problem. Do
>>> some people get fire protection free while other pay? Does that not
>>> eventually lead to a problem of no fire protection?
>>
>> Well, to be fair, some people who live in communities actually do get
>> "free" fire protection. It is not at issue here, but in any city, there
>> are people that do not pay any taxes and yet they get a lot of services
>> that are paid by the people that do pay the taxes. In some rural areas,
>> there are people that do not pay any county taxes and yet they get a lot
>> of services for "free." (I presume that this is the sort of "free" you
>> were talking about.) I still do not understand why no volunteer fire
>> department was not contacted in the actual fire we are talking about.
>
> Apparently there's an area where the city FD can't (or won't) get to. That
> area would need the volunteer fire department. The area this guy lived in
> could be reaches, so those residence have to pay if they wanted coverage.
I am sorry, Jerry ... I just do not understand the point you are trying to
make.
In this case, the location was not in the geographic limits of the town.
From what I have seen, there are numerous volunteer fire departments in the
area. The city had a deal with certain out of town locations that they
would respond if the residents paid a fee for the service. (Some
unincorporated areas have homeowners associations that function much like a
town government ... if you do not pay your association fees, they can kick
you out of the neighborhood.) Some unincorporated areas depend on county
services. The sheriff's office provides police and often volunteer fire
departments provide fire fighting services. (This is what happens in the
area where I live ... even though I am just a few hundred feet out of the
city limits.)
I do not pay for city services and I do not get them. In an unusual set of
circumstances, the city ends their water mains a few hundred feet beyond the
city limits. Because they are available, I was able to add a water meter
(actually two) at the highway and at my own expense put in about 6000 feet
of water lines. I get city water ... but I have to pay for it. (I do not
have to pay the sewer add on because I do not receive sewer service.) If I
do not pay the water bill, they cut off the water. Actually, the same is
true for electricity too. I could have had natural gas service but I chose
not to do that. If I want propane, I have to pay for someone to deliver it.
They would stop coming out if I did not pay them.
Once again, if I have a fire, I need the volunteer fire department. I am
darned sure that if a fire on my property threatened to start a fire that
might spread to the city and the volunteer firemen needed help, the city
would send all that they could to help. I am also sure that if the trailer
fire in this case threatened to be bigger than could be contained, the town
fire folks would have fought it hook and ladder and so would all the area
fire departments.
x
> If you ever see a house on fire,
> be sure to stop. The plight is dire.
> Tell the owner in the yard,
> that you take Visa or Mastercard.
Standing in the yard
Looking at the card
See when it expires
We don't fight all fires
Pepe Papon
>> We've already discussed the wisdom or lack thereof of the local
>> decision ad nauseum. For the sake of argument, let's imagine that we
>> all agree that the local decision was wrong. Given that, do you have
>> a point? Should something else be done differently?
>
>Yes, something should be done differently! Take these life and death
>decisions out of the hands of unqualified high school graduates who have
>spent their whole lives in South Fulton and who have the common sense and IQ
>of a donkey. Make a state law that city fire departments MUST respond to
>*all fires* within their subscription area, and can apply to the state
>government for reimbursement if the property was not covered by
>subscription (similar laws exist in other jurisdictions). Create maps
>delineating responsibility such that no area in the county is without
>coverage. While you are at it, make a law that any money paid to the
>locality by the state be recoverable from the homeowner in the form of an
>in rem claim against the property (these laws also exist elsewhere).
Fine. Why didn't you just say that in the first place?