Sickening...

[BucksEng91]

Is anyone else as sick to their stomach at this bullsh*t as I am?:
http://www.firehouse.com/lodd/2001/wash/wa_APjul31.html

Dead firefighters so we can make sure a few random fish aren't harmed...

Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who takes these Sierra Club fascists seriously anymore should have their head examined. These people are an amoral cancer.

[BG204]

I agree 100%.

[MrFreeze]

Don't lynch me, but I belong to the Sierra Club. I'm certainly not militant, and I'm building a big block Chebby motor to put in my '49 that I'll be disappointed if it gets more than 10-12 MPG. I would hate to think that these guys died because of that sort of red-tape. But this to me at least represents somewhat of a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. You're a smart guy no doubt 'cuz I've seen some of your other posts. There is more to the story. How did it leak to a Republican politician from CO (was it CO?)? I think Ockham's razor isn't always the answer. If there is a strategic (i.e. should they have been fighting it v. containment) question, and it sounds like there is, then heads should roll. But the fact is they were there, they were fighting it, and they did die. In all the time that elapsed from 0530 to what, like 1700 hrs? that the bureaucracy was bickering over what to do, how come no one came up with a plan B? These guys need a water drop, we can't give it to 'em, what are we going to do instead?

[toneloc177]

Isn't this country great? 4 lives were lost because of red tape! Shouldn't preservation of life and wildland take precedence over taking a few hundred gallons of water from some pond? It's not like they were dumping crap into the water, they were just taking some in an emergency situation . . . and because of that delay, 4 brothers and sisters are dead, some not even older 20!

[RJE]

Mr. Freeze, maybe Bucks is painting it with a broad brush, but I still agree with him.

I've had some experience with the Sierra Club, and most of the members I encountered were pretty rational. And for years I was a member of the State of MO Conservation Society (of which 88% (at the time) were HUNTERS). Then again, while in the Navy, I swamped a Greenpeace Zodiac 3 times in one day while they kept trying to drive their boat through our live fire zone. We'd drive them off with 2-1/2" fire hoses. They'd motor off (slowly), bail them out, then come back. Now that's STUPID.

The big picture is, irrespective of eco-groups or eco-terrorists, that the Endangered Species Act has repeatedly caused loss of livelyhood (see stories about the farmers who've been run off their land because the Feds stopped selling them irrigation water promised since 1906! to save a suckerfish) to now, real loss of life.

I respect, and care for, the "environment". But I don't care what various (intentionally NOT naming names here) groups say, animals lives do not carry the same "value" as those of our fellow human beings.

Of course, a lot of the problems with "wildland" fires is because we keep trying to put them OUT. It's actually good for the forests (within reason) to burn them off once in a while, as I'm sure you all are aware.

[SilverCity4]

I almost started a thread on this very topic, but decided to wait until more information was available. But since you brought it up...

I personally believe that the perfect world for enviromental tree-huggers (excluding Mr. Freeze...if the Sierra Club finds out about your car they'll probably revoke your membership!!)is one without people. There's nothing wrong with setting aside some areas to be natural preserves. There's nothing wrong with limiting hunting on endangered species.

BUT, if I buy a home in the country, and a family of buck-toothed three-legged spotted gophers that are endangered move into my garden, I'M the one that can't do anything about it?! Don't think so, buddy. Consider nature. Natural selection, specifically. I'm bigger, stronger, smarter (maybe). Who's moving? It should be the gophers. But thanks to the feds, I probably can't do anything about it.

If more details come out, and it is determined that these four firefighters died because someone was worried about some fish (I don't care how endangered they were, and don't give me the line about "They may hold the cure to cancer, blah, blah, blah..") then someone's priorities aren't for people, or for the acres upon acres of land and animals that are now dead and/or homeless due to the progression of the fire.

However, my opinions on tree-huggers aside, if the orginal answer on the helicopter was no, then they should have come up with Plan B, as Mr. Freeze says. I'm interested to see the timeline from the request for the helicopter to the deaths of our fellow firefighters.

[MrFreeze]

Here's my take: Avoidable events led up to a point in time from which there was no escape, both literally and figuratively. Same process for ANY "accident". That point in time happened to be the decision NOT to pull water from the river/stream. If it's just wilderness, let it burn. If there is an interface, it might be questionable. If there is a threat to personnel, whether civilian or fire, pull the water.

[MrFreeze]

Oh yeah Greenpeace...Those guys are wacked. First of all, "rainbow warriors"? Whatever. Shoulda just shot 'em, swamped the boat, and called it an accident...
See my experience, albeit limited, with wildland is in Alaska, where millions of acres can burn and not bother anyone, so it's all very hands off.

[Dalmatian90]

If the water source was that environmentally sensitive, it should've be marked in advance on the maps/plans "Not usuable for tanker supply from _______ to ________ "

If you really, really need it, apologize later for, um, spilling the coffee over the map making it illegible until a new copy was brought up and when we said Rush It, somehow the mailroom thought Rushmore It, so it came by way of South Dakota.

My take on it is it's a non-factor in the end that's being battered around as a political football.

After all, one could easily feign Shock, Horror, look another firefighter died because the building trades continued to oppose residential sprinklers. After all, the sprinklers would've put the fire out had they been there. It's true, but there is probably other causes that had a more direct effect.

--------------
Was thinking the other day though, could you imagine having to fight WWII over again and spend several years preparing the environmental impact studies to support the industrial and military needs!

[Althea Forhan]

Isn't it counterproductive to not dump water to save some fish, which allows the forest to burn, which destroys the habitat for the spotted owl? How ironic: The Sierra club can't see the forest for the trees!

Althea

[MrFreeze]

Ahhh, but the fire also cleans up the underbrush for the surviving owls which facilitates the snatching of the fat mice that have been feeding on all the nutrient-rich fresh growth that is fertilized by the ashes of the dead owls. Owls are cannibals. The circle of life...

[Althea Forhan]

Yeah, I know. Just thought I'd have a little fun in spite of tragedy. Some of the local Hard-core enviromentalists have protests about wildland tactics: Can't cut firebreaks on top of the ridge because that's cutting down trees: can't use retardant because it's a chemical: can't do water drops because that diturbs sediment in the lakes....it goes on. Some times they just go to far.

[PEIPat]

I agree with the plan 'B' idea. Isn't 12 hours enough time for command to figure out an alternate water source location, and plan an emergency extraction if all else fails. What went wrong? 12 hours is a long time to study such a predicament, even with other incident issues to deal with.. But then again, all the facts are not in yet are they?

PS- Our prayers and thoughts are with the families, friends, and firefighters who were close to those who have passed.

[ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: PEI Pat ]

I had a roaring argument with a Ranger over policy as to weather or not I was able to send a bulldozer into an area that was enviromentally sensitive. But that person was willing to send a handcrew in. I said bull****, If you won't let me use a bulldozer to cut a line I ain't letting you put a handcrew in as he was placing them at risk by putting them in front of the fire.
Jeez guys, IT ain't worth it for a friggin' tree or a three legged black stripe gopher. Trust me, they will survive.

[bgfdchick]

Hmmm...either animals drown, or burn. What a toss-up.

I lost all my admiration to those who protect the environment after I heard of organizations that set fires "in the name of the environment". And I don't think the government has any clue on how to "save" our environment and endangered species, either.

I feel that all life deserves protection, no matter how small. However, we must look at it in a balance. As sad as it may be to lose a species off the earth, allowing a forest to burn put even more lives (both human and animal) at risk.

Why are we concerned anyway? With the advancements in cloning, extinction may not even be a problem...(just kidding!)