Quote:
Originally Posted by Brush Okie
This is the reason you don't set a backfire.
Who was in the area between the backfire and the fire? You just do not know. Just because no one was killed does not mean they were in the right. Other hunters, perhaps a bunch of smoke jumpers on the way? You never know.
If they were really interested in saving the area build a fire brake. In fact you need to build a firebreak BEFORE you back fire. other wise you will burn both ways and enhance the fire not stop it.
Also notice it was BLM land they had grazing rights to NOT their own land, that means they can run cattle there but everyone else can hunt fish and use the area. Its not like they were trying to save their home and family. The devil is in the details.
There was more than one incident. on diffrent times. Notice on this one they set several fires. . I think they get their jollies setting fires myself.
It even says WHY they went after him. ie He broke the law.
|
"Who was in the area between the backfire and the fire? You just do not know. Just because no one was killed does not mean they were in the right. Other hunters, perhaps a bunch of smoke jumpers on the way? You never know."
We agree on this & I stressed that, what they did was horribly dangerous were there no communication. I dont know who the witness was or thier credibility in terms of them escaping the flames. Perhaps they are telling the truth, it doesn't say who they were or why they were there. I wasn't there so I won't stand here and say "BS" to thier testimony Although I will view it with a degree of questioning. Who were they? Why were they there? Were they there because they were involved somehow? If so, why weren't they charged also?
The article doesn't state that but those are the questions in my mind.
Hunters in the area? If there's a fire there or they even see smoke on the horizon? They probably should have had better sense than that. As for smoke jumpers, again same as what I originally stressed as a point.
As for the grazing rights, were those something they had to pay for? If that land burns & is no longer usable to them, are they then going to get repaid for those rights? Is that how it works? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I don't know if that's how it would work. If so, then yes they likely were lacking for a reason to do what they did. They know if it burns they'll not lose the financial investment, leave it go & focus on structures & safety. although I don't know where that would put them for grazing thier cattle?
I don't agree they got thier jollies just lighting fires, if the truth bears out they did genuinely excercise dangerously poor judgement, bonafide endangerment of firecrews & so forth, there's likely proper criminal law to cover such things.
This current situation, especially the terrorism charge, I don't agree is entirely appropriate.