Fort McMurray wildfire

6079_Smith_W wrote:

As for these workers "failing miserably" we might want to consider how things would go differently if they were not there.

I really don't want to get into a "you're minimizing the efforts of the workers" squabble.

I really want to know why it is seemingly impossible to protect towns from fires. Like, stop them cold, before they invade populated areas. What would it take? Clear-cutting a certain radius?

I'm really trying to ask some simple basic questions.

You have fires in your province, Unionist.

You know as well as I do that very often they cannot be extinguished, only managed.

And if you don't want me to misinterpret maybe don't use terms like "failing miserably" to describe the efforts of people who are working as hard as they can.

How many people have died in this fire?

If it was as simple as getting out the backhoe and cutting a firebreak, I expect it would probably have been done. Never mind that sparks fly for kilometres.

(edit)

Hurtin Albertan may have answered your question back at #30.

Cross posted with you U.

Like I said, I think Hurtin Albertan may have answered your question at #30.

And as I said, one of the things I remember from last summer is firefighters doing preventative work to protect houses, cabins and other buildings, just as you think they should. Sometimes it worked; sometimes it did not.

That job,  and helping people get out.

But yes, I am kind of shaking my head at the notion that there must be some way to stop these fires (you say from doing any damage? Sure. Whatever) if we only had the will and did it right. When we are talking about hundreds of fires, it ain't quite that simple.

Unionist wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

You have fires in your province, Unionist.

Oh, thanks, here I thought I was just insulting Albertans for being the only ones in the world incapable of controlling fires. Here I thought I was just asking a serious question about science and the limits of human ability to manage nature. Thanks for reminding me that this is about some vile childish squabble!

Quote:

You know as well as I do that very often they cannot be extinguished, only managed.

You can't read? Let me walk you through it. I'm not talking about "EXTINGUISHING" fires. I'm asking whether it's possible to prevent forest wildfires from invading populated areas. Got it? Yes? No? 

Quote:

And if you don't want me to misinterpret maybe don't use terms like "failing miserably" to describe the efforts of people who are working as hard as they can.

Ok, sorry for scorning the efforts of all the Noble Heroes who are Sacrificing Everything to Save Us from Doom. Is that better? Is that what you need to hear?

Quote:

How many people have died in this fire?

Oh Christ, you're right, no one has burned to death or been asphyxiated - and here I am - a QUEBECER - mocking and debasing the HEROIC fighters who have saved EVERYONE from DEATH!!! I humbly apologize. No, wait, I self-destruct - is that enough??

Quote:

If it was as simple as getting out the backhoe and cutting a firebreak, I expect it would probably have been done. Never mind that sparks fly for kilometres.

Now we're getting somewhere. You have finally settled down (MAYBE) and are thinking about my question. Sparks fly for kilometres? Really? How many?

Oh wait. I don't think you know. Or care.

Let me close on this note:

Glory to our Heroes! We owe them everything!!

All right.

My penance is done.

here in BC unionist the wildfire branch of the ministry of forests has been trying to get urban rural interface areas cleared out and ladder fuels removed for the past 15+ years. they've warned and warned this very thing would happen.  they've fought an uphill battle. few if any municipal governments will be proactive and put the money and power they've got to get it done.

then we've got the no clear cutting anywhere NIMBY people and.....this will be a major BC city coming to a news venue near you.

speaking of cities and workers. an employee of the City of Tabor AB just got suspended because he said "karma....".

Look John, I absolutely know that you aren't horn-laden demons any more than we are.

You certainly aren't the only ones who fall into that defensive hyperbolae when one is simply trying to make a point.

But neither do I think anyone in our oil-producing provinces has a leg to stand on if they think the oil industry, and in particular the very wasteful process of oilsand extraction isn't open to criticism.

Same thing for the fact our governments, in particular our last federal government has tied our economy to the oil industry in an unsustainable and damaging way. Damaging in terms of what we saw when oil prices dropped, and damaging in the way they have dismantled environmental protections, targetted First Nations and other critics, and muzzled scientists.

Damaging because its particulary dangerous product played a role in burning a town to the ground when a train caught fire.

Damaging in terms of the pipeline leaks, the earthquakes which are starting. The poisoned water.

And damaging because it is a part of the worldwide system that is pumping carbon into the environment. The system that is raising global temperatures, causing the conditions that has resulted in the increase in wildfires which is only going to get worse, not better. The same wildfire which burned La Ronge last year and Fort Mac this year.

So no, we don't have to suck it up and take the good with the bad, and not just because the way this industry is being developed at an increasing rate isn't good at all. And no one in Alberta or Saskatchewan has a leg to stand on if they think they have any right to use other provinces as a distraction and an excuse because of the accident that we happen to live where the oil is. 

If we want to talk about good management of your resources and your finances I think the crunch that happened when oil prices dropped shows pretty clearly that our provinces should be ashamed at the way they have pissed away surpluses and resource money.

I'm really glad Unionist asked those questions, that was going to be my next information dump/post but I had a busy weekend and didn't have the time or the inclination to post much.

In the meantime, FireSmart is the Canadian term, Firewise is the American term, not sure what the Australians call it but regardless of the name or terminology, it's all pretty much the same stuff.

FireSmart can refer to the things an individual homeowner can do if they live on a farm, other rural locations, cabin at the lake, etc etc.  It could also apply to homeowners living in cities surrounded by forests but maybe not as much, since the lots are smaller in towns and you can't do vegetation management on your neighbour's trees.  Google search for the Firesmart Homeowner's manual, doesn't matter much which province's manuals you look at, they should all be the same.

FireSmart can also apply to the defensive measures that a community or town or what have you can undertake.  In that case google search for the FireSmart community preparedness guide or something along those lines.

Firesmartcanada.ca is a good website that should answer a lot of questions, but will likely raise a lot of new questions as well.

If any of you are more interested in the tactical side of things, then google "S 215" or "S 215 wildland" and you should find various hits that lead you to different versions of the S 215 Fire Operations in the Wildland/Urban Interface training course, didn't have the time to see if this sort of google search will help you find an actual training manual or if it's just links to various training providers.

I'd be more than happy to try and give my input on some of the questions raised, just keep in mind this is my opinion on things.  And I'm still pretty busy with work.

Anyways hope this helps some of you that are more interested in learning about this, I'll try and post more if I can.

Hurtin Albertan wrote:

I'm really glad Unionist asked those questions, that was going to be my next information dump/post but I had a busy weekend and didn't have the time or the inclination to post much.

In the meantime, FireSmart is the Canadian term, Firewise is the American term, not sure what the Australians call it but regardless of the name or terminology, it's all pretty much the same stuff.

FireSmart can refer to the things an individual homeowner can do if they live on a farm, other rural locations, cabin at the lake, etc etc.  It could also apply to homeowners living in cities surrounded by forests but maybe not as much, since the lots are smaller in towns and you can't do vegetation management on your neighbour's trees.  Google search for the Firesmart Homeowner's manual, doesn't matter much which province's manuals you look at, they should all be the same.

FireSmart can also apply to the defensive measures that a community or town or what have you can undertake.  In that case google search for the FireSmart community preparedness guide or something along those lines.

Firesmartcanada.ca is a good website that should answer a lot of questions, but will likely raise a lot of new questions as well.

If any of you are more interested in the tactical side of things, then google "S 215" or "S 215 wildland" and you should find various hits that lead you to different versions of the S 215 Fire Operations in the Wildland/Urban Interface training course, didn't have the time to see if this sort of google search will help you find an actual training manual or if it's just links to various training providers.

I'd be more than happy to try and give my input on some of the questions raised, just keep in mind this is my opinion on things.  And I'm still pretty busy with work.

Anyways hope this helps some of you that are more interested in learning about this, I'll try and post more if I can.

Wow, thanks so much for this, Hurtin - got more than I bargained for! Now I'll shut up and read until I've learned enough to ask some intelligent questions. May take a while...

Paladin1 wrote:

Babble would be such a better place if all posts had to get approved by you first.

I understand that now the discussion has taken a serious turn, your frustration level is growing. Go play with your guns and work it out.

Unionist"zone of protection" around properties. wrote:

So what is a "zone of protection", and why can't it be created around towns? If (as the other male said) one of the three factors in these fires is fuel (dry leaves, needles, etc.), then can the fuel be eliminated at a sufficient distance - or is that utterly unrealistic?

i talked about this up above. guess you ignored.

yes they can create it. not unrealistic and most provincial wildlands fire service officials having been stating for years get a 'zone of protection' and get rid of the ladder fuels in this area between wildlands and urban.

it's called an interface area. municipal and provincial governments don't wanna foot the bill to fall trees and get rid of ladder fuels. imv they'd rather dish it out when everything burns and they can get federal help.

plus you have push back for those who want trees up to their house and no deforested zone of protection.

it's kinda like the people who pulled their dikes down to get a river view then get flooded out.

Alberta has had a FireSmart Community Grant program for awhile now.  Not sure how much $$$ the province puts into the fund, I'll see if I can find some numbers.

Communities in the Forest Protection Area (and maybe outside of it) can apply for funding to complete various FireSmart projects.  Sometimes it gets spent on consultants who help the community write up plans, sometimes it's spent on buying gear for the fire departments, sometimes they do various vegetation management programs. 

Not sure how much funding is made available for these sorts of projects in other provinces.

Like anything else, interest comes and goes.  It has been a major priority in the past, some work gets done, then for whatever reason it becomes a lower priority until Slave Lake or Ft McMurray happens.  Then it becomes a major priority again and the cycle continues.  It's really kind of depressing.

And it's not uncommon to get push back and resistance when a community tries to do a vegetation management strategy, even something as low impact as thinning out trees and pruning the branches on surrounding vegetation, let alone clearing away all the trees.

I suppose as these horrible incidents occur again and again there should be less push back in the future, I hope.  Guess we'll see.

Sometimes the old burns stop new forest fires, sometimes they don't.  I worked on the huge giant Richardson Backcountry wildfire north of Ft McMurray a few years ago.  That fire got up to an insane size of 700 000 hectares or thereabouts.  Someone made up a map with the fire perimeter overlaid on a map of PEI, they were about the same size.  Yes, that's right, Prince Edward Island.

Anyways, there were all sorts of old burns around it, as the fire grew in size the fire behaviour people would figure on it stopping at the old burns, but the fire would hit the old burns and keep going.  Not as fast, not as intense, but it didn't stop.  Lots of stuff grows in after a burn, the more recent the old fire was the less fuel would have grown back and the better chance of it acting as a fuel break.  In theory.

For an individual structure, the key factors are how it's built and what it's made out of, the space between the structure and the fuel, and the type or species of the surrounding forest.

Pretty straightforward stuff, nothing too complicated.  I won't go into too much detail.  You can keep your grass short and maintained, if you can get your grass to stay green and lush it won't or shouldn't burn.  Best if the exterior is non flammable, like stucco or brick or metal.  Large logs typically used in a log cabin aren't so bad, takes a lot to start them on fire.  In theory.  Vinyl or wooden siding isn't so great.  You could also have some sort of decorative gravel flower bed to keep flames away from the building, I've seen a few houses that have that feature.

A large cleared space around the structure, if you are willing to remove trees and shrubs from around your house.  It doesn't have to be completely tree free or vegetation free, some species like pine and spruce are more flammable than leafy deciduous trees, but under extreme conditions these burn too.  Pruning the lower branches off the trees helps keep the fire on the surface oif the ground, and hopefully prevents the entire tree from going up in a big flaming torch, causing more radiant heat.  If trees are too close together, a torching tree can spread easier from one tree to another, so thinning them out helps.  In a perfect world your house is surrounded by deciduous trees, but these will burn too.

Proper spacing between buildings helps too, also having fire resistant decks or porches is a good thing too.  Not stacking all your fire wood up against the house.

Smaller windows that aren't single pane glass, if windows break for whatever reason fire brands can get inside the house.  Or possibly transmit the radiant heat from the fire to the interior even if the window stays intact.  You should have shutters available to cover up the windows to help stop this.

A metal roof is better than asphalt shingles, which are better than cedar shakes or pine shakes.  Closed off eaves so embers can't get into the nooks and crannies and start things on fire.  Closed in spaces under decks or porches to keep fire out. 

Access is also important.  If you expect a fire truck to come to your house, then don't have a narrow windy road with no room for a fire truck to be able to turn around. 

In a perfect world a lot more houses and buildings would be built with these factors in mind.  Not every house was built this way though, it can be pretty expensive to re-side your house, or replace the roof, or replace large single pane windows with smaller triple pane glass or what have you.  And if you have a small lot in a subdivision, your neighbour might have trees that put your house at risk, but you can't do anything to those trees unless you get your neighbour to do it.

I've spoken with home owners who outright told me that they were happy having pine and spruce trees right up to their house, even with the risk it posed.  They said they could always rebuild their house.  I think they were underestimating the financial and emotional cost of losing your house to a forest fire, people are strange sometimes.

To protect a community, you probably need 3 things.  Funding, the will to do it, and buy in from the residents.  Ideally you have all 3, you probably won't see much success if you only have 1 out of 3.

We try and do cross training with fire departments, making sure our radios can talk to their radios, or our hoses can connect to their hoses.  In an interface fire, we would deal with the burning or at-risk-of burning trees, and the fire department would deal with the burning or at-risk-of-burning structures.  Learning just what each other can do is important, there are a lot of misuderstandings and msiconceptions on both sides.

Identifying key infrastructure helps, you don't want to lose the water source for the town if you are fighting fire.  Protecting the hospital or the senior citizens home might be more important than protecting the liquor store.  Pretty basic stuff.

Thinning and pruning the surrounding trees might not stop the fire, but it should help lower the intensity of the fire so you can fight it safely.  In theory.  You could totally remove the trees if you get the public to support the idea, easier said than done in my experience.  I'm not convinced you would get the public support to remove all the trees for a 1 or 2 km distance around a community.  Trees grow back, it's not so ideal to do vegetation management if you don't maintain it.

You can clear away or build fuel breaks, again these probably won't stop a raging Intensity Class 6 crown fire but you might be able to use them to safely do a back fire or burnout operation, basically fighting fire with fire.  Again, sometimes easier said than done, and you may have to have the right conditions for it to work.  Timing is everything, as the saying goes.

Setting up sprinklers is always a good idea, but you may not have enough sprinklers available at the time, or the crews to set them up properly, or the time to do it, or the water to feed them.  The logistics involved in a big sprinkler deployment can be pretty challenging.

You can pass various legislation to ban cedar shake roofs, or promote metal roofs, if you have the political will and public support.

You can develop new housing projects or subdivisions so the houses aren't crammed close together, maybe you also ban planting more flammable trees on people's lawns, have more than just one road in and out, have water sources designed into the subdivision so you could use that decorative water feature in the middle of the ring road to fight fires or feed sprinklers in an emergency, but this doesn't do you much good on pre-existing stuff that lacks these features.

Educating the public is a big thing too, people generally do not understand fire and have huge misconceptions on what happens in a fire, or what we can realistically do, or how much of a risk they might be in, etc etc.  That's mainly why I have been posting all of this stuff.

Break Free or Burn in Hell: A Message From the Canadian Tar Sands  -  by Paul Street

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/09/break-free-or-burn-in-hell-a-mess...

"What's it got to do with fossil fuels? Quite a lot..."

Canadian Capitalism and the Fort McMurray Wildfire

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/05/10/alfi-m10.html

"The Fort McMurray wildfire is not a natural but a man-made disaster for which the capitalist profit system bears responsibility."

Hurtin Albertan wrote:

As for how we go about fighting a forest fire, it's hard to explain really.  Each fire is different.  So much depends on the weather, topography, fuels, and fire behaviour.  Also what resources you have at the time, how much other resources you can call on and how long it takes them to get to the fire, etc etc.  Best I can do would be to give a very generic sort of idea of what goes on.

Why is an ATV ban in place? Does it have to do with sparks from the exaust? I thought spark-arrestors on the muffler mitigated that from happening?  Are emergency services also banned from ATV use?

quizzical wrote:

Unionist wrote:

So what is a "zone of protection", and why can't it be created around towns? If (as the other male said) one of the three factors in these fires is fuel (dry leaves, needles, etc.), then can the fuel be eliminated at a sufficient distance - or is that utterly unrealistic?

i talked about this up above. guess you ignored.

Sorry, you're right, I totally missed your post on this last week. I just picked up the thread after you asked whether anyone knew what caused the fire. Thanks for the info, by the way.

Hurtin Albertan wrote:

 "Zone of protection" could be used in either context of the defensible space around a farmhouse or cabin, or the treated space around a community.  Without seeing exactly how it was used it's hard for me to say.

In the video posted earlier, he was definitely talking about a zone surrounding a "property". I asked about whether it was realistic to expand that to a zone surrounding a community. Obviously quizzical had dealt with that earlier (hadn't noticed), and you've provided a lot more detail (thank you!).

So - would 1 or 2 kilometres of "interface" be sufficient? That's assuming of course: 1) it makes ecological sense; 2) we could ever convince communities to create and (as you point out) maintain such a zone.

lagatta wrote:

On another matter, did anything come of the Russian aid offer? Seems to me that they know a thing or two about boreal forests.

[url=http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/justin-trudeau-turns-down-russi... Trudeau turns down Russian, U.S., Mexican offers to help fight Fort Mac wildfire[/url]

Why would it be up to him at all? Natural resources is provincial jurisdiction, no?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Why would it be up to him at all? Natural resources is provincial jurisdiction, no?

i don't get this either. i don't think he can refuse on behalf of the provinces.

when i was in BC Forest service there were BC fire fighters going to whatever province they were needed in and some went to California, and i know some who have gone to Austrailia. the provinces with no fires provide fire fighters to other provinces.

it's not volunteer fire fighting they get paid. there's a contract drawn up and the countries or provinces pay the BC government for the fire fighters wages.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Why would it be up to him at all? Natural resources is provincial jurisdiction, no?

 

It's not about "natural resources". It's about relations between states. Pretty sure that's the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament.

No, it isn't. Our provinces have all sorts of agreements with neighbouring states. And Natural resources is a provincial jurisdiction.

I can see why a state might approach the PM rather than going to the premier, but I don't see that he has any authority to refuse it.

Trudeau Criticized For Refusing International Help For Fort McMurray Wildfire

http://globalnews.ca/news/2690570/trudeau-criticized-for-refusing-intern...

"As the wildfires continue to rage in Alberta, the news that Canada has turned down resources to help fight the flames has sparked some outrage. The US, Russia, Mexico, Australia, Taiwan, Israel and the Palestinian Authority are reported to have offered assistance.

'There is no need to accept any international assistance at this point, but we certainly thank everyone for their generosity,' Trudeau said Monday..."

Notley, Energy Executives To Discuss Fort McMurray Wildfire's Impact on Oilsands Operations

http://globalnews.ca/news/2689347/its-essential-to-those-companies-that-...

NDPP wrote:

Trudeau Criticized For Refusing International Help For Fort McMurray Wildfire

http://globalnews.ca/news/2690570/trudeau-criticized-for-refusing-intern...

"As the wildfires continue to rage in Alberta, the news that Canada has turned down resources to help fight the flames has sparked some outrage. The US, Russia, Mexico, Australia, Taiwan, Israel and the Palestinian Authority are reported to have offered assistance.

'There is no need to accept any international assistance at this point, but we certainly thank everyone for their generosity,' Trudeau said Monday..."

 

Notley, Energy Executives To Discuss Fort McMurray Wildfire's Impact on Oilsands Operations

http://globalnews.ca/news/2689347/its-essential-to-those-companies-that-...

Politics as a game is what turned people off politics and leads them to say politicians are ALL alike. It's why people like Trump and Ford and even Trudeau win power.

In my opinion any thinking person knows that Trudeau would not have refused the help if the people in charge of fighting the fire said it would be beneficial.

Everyone knows the media goes for sensationist headlines but when it suits your purposes you fall for it.

The US and Canada even have a formal arrangement. If international help made sense I am sure whomever is leading the firefight and Notley would have requested it.

Notice the NDP has had the sense not to try to politicize the fire.