Fort McMurray wildfire

Smallc · May 10, 2016

Ok...he shouldn't be at the site that's being evacuated but why not at the evacuee centers in Edmonton, Lac la Biche or Calgary. What's the risk or harm or issue with that?

I was assuming those places would pose logistics and personnel challenges. The guy loves a camera. There's a reason he's not there yet.

He has been quoted as saying he would visit in the coming weeks which may be 'soon' in our books but probably will seem like a very long time to those who are homeless and dealing with everything that's happening. I'm trying to not to be partisan on this one but I do think that's crap.

Him visiting won't change any of that.

-1=e^ipi · May 10, 2016

There's two kinds of people in this thread. Those who defer to the experience of the people on the ground and those who are kicking around a political football because they think they know better.

There is a difference between necessity and desirability.

Saying that domestic resources are sufficient does not mean that foreign resources are not helpful.

Accountability Now · May 10, 2016

I was assuming those places would pose logistics and personnel challenges. The guy loves a camera.

And so the worst thing that will happen is people might not get fed for an extra 10 minutes because he's there? You are REALLY stretching this one thin.

There's a reason he's not there yet.

Perhaps he should state why he's not going. He has stated why he's not visiting the front lines and I can accept that however I can't accept the weak excuses for not visiting the evacuee centres. Without a visit, people are coming to their own conclusions like family vacation getting in the way or his hatred for Alberta. The longer he takes, the more radical the conclusion.

Him visiting won't change any of that.

Trudeau is the LEADER of our country. Him visiting would provide LEADERSHIP to those who need it most right now. Within leadership comes hope, perseverance, and many other good qualities.

Do you honestly believe there is nothing good of him visiting at this time. Coming in a few weeks will result in resentment.

Big Guy · May 10, 2016

A few observations;

You are either part of the solution or part of the problem. JT (and entourage) visiting during the busy time would be part of the problem.

Watching CNN this morning; - headline - "Canadian Town in Ashes" - Fort McMurray in Northern Canada devastated and possible uninhabitable." CTV - "About 10% of Fort McMurray has been lost. Downtown building, all schools and hospitals saved, most infrastructure functional." HUH!!

There is a difference between a fire "out of control" and a fire endangering a town. A fire endangering a town has top priority since lives are in danger. There are many fires "out of control" throughout uninhabited Canada - and have been for years.

There was a major screw up! This fire began in the vicinity of Fort McMurray on Sunday. I have been following reports and explanations where the fire was fought within "the limitations of staff and resources" WHAT!! Those in charge had three days to bring in addition help from all over Canada, the USA, Mexico and apparently Russia.

We need an honest and impartial investigation to guarantee that this does not happen again.

overthere · May 10, 2016

I withdraw my comment that Trudeau better hurry up and get here before the cameras go home.

I forgot- how could I- that our leader travels with an entire national TV and radio network at his disposal.

Smallc · May 10, 2016

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-fort-mcmurray-fire-friday-1.3575607

Anything else?

BubberMiley · May 10, 2016

There was a major screw up!

You might want to go right to the firefighters who've been fighting for the past week and let them know just how incompetent they are.

Smallc · May 10, 2016

Everyone knows everything about stuff they know nothing about.

Big Guy · May 10, 2016

You might want to go right to the firefighters who've been fighting for the past week and let them know just how incompetent they are.

Firefighters go and do what they are told. Municipal and provincial leadership decides how many firefighters to have, what resources are to be available to them and the creation of a disaster plan.

Please spare me your indignation and rah rah for the front line troops. No one here has been critical of the front line troops - just that there were not enough of them. They admit it and you seem to want to ignore it. That is you choice. You may be pleased and complacent with the outcome and expect this to happen again.

I do not. Those on the ground and especially those whose homes were destroyed were let down. And I will bet that in time, after an investigation, that they will find that assistance should have been requested way before it was and obviously too late. I hear arguments that it was "a hundred year phenomena" and other excuses. You would think these folks would have learned from that Slave Lake fire - a few years ago not "100 year phenomena".

Investigate this fiasco or get ready for Slave Lake, Fort Murray ....

Edited May 10, 2016 by Big Guy

Smallc · May 10, 2016

Firefighters go and do what they are told. Municipal and provincial leadership decides how many firefighters to have, what resources are to be available to them and the creation of a disaster plan.

No one knew on Sunday that the wind would create an inferno on Tuesday.

msj · May 10, 2016

Investigate this fiasco or get ready for Slave Lake, Fort Murray ....

I'm sure this will be investigated.

Probably from people with wisdom and knowledge and without the prejudgement and prejudice of thinking it a "fiasco."

As for more cities burning: no surprise to me if it happens.

A trend like this probably should be expected if dry conditions continue to persist. I fear for Vancouver Island given how dry the past couple winters/springs have been and how dry/hot the summer was last year.

Which should lead to thoughts about prevention: how do we create fire buffers so if one neighbourhood goes up in flames the one across the way won't? how can we stop humans from starting fires in the first place (without shooting smokers - although they deserve it, imo) ? Etc etc

I'm sure there are lots of good questions and solutions that would come from urban planners, climatologists, fire/safety specialists, homebuilders, other scientists etc.

Big Guy · May 10, 2016

...

Probably from people with wisdom and knowledge and without the prejudgement and prejudice of thinking it a "fiasco."

...

I hope so. They might be a little more forgiving then those folks who lost their uninsured homes by this preventable disaster.

msj · May 10, 2016

I hope so. They might be a little more forgiving then those folks who lost their uninsured homes by this preventable disaster.

Well, those who lost their uninsured homes should be thankful for taxpayers like me who will be footing the bill.

Oh, and thankful for a system that got them out of alive.

And thankful it was not worse and that the infrastructure will already start to be repaired within the next few days.

Etc.

As a taxpayer I am thankful for those who insured their homes.

Big Guy · May 10, 2016

No one knew on Sunday that the wind would create an inferno on Tuesday.

When one prepares an emergency plan you do so on contingencies. This is 2016. There are computer models of weather and climate patterns. Instant information on wind patterns. Computer projections on all possible natural conditions. Instant communications.

Do you really accept, "Oops, the wind has increased and changed directions". I have been involved in disaster preparation in an area in Southern Ontario. Our potential problems are more water related (storms etc) than trees but we also have heavy tree cover.

Like in a war, a battle plan is developed for any contingency - including the 100 year standard - with a check list developed as to the escalating response based on a escalating problem - with extra room for error in areas of habitation. It is updated every year based on any observable changing patterns and infrastructure changes.

I understand that we have a difference in view of what should be expected from our natural disaster prevention organizations.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Big Guy

Smallc · May 10, 2016

When one prepares an emergency plan you do so on contingencies. This is 2016.

There is an element of risk in everything. As much as we like to think so, not everything can be prevented, no matter the year. Now, we learn from this, and make it less likely to happen in the future, where reasonably practicable.

Big Guy · May 10, 2016

There is an element of risk in everything. As much as we like to think so, not everything can be prevented, no matter the year. Now, we learn from this, and make it less likely to happen in the future, where reasonably practicable.

I certainly agree with you and hope that is the final outcome. I have had numerous difference of opinion with members of our local municipal Council. Their outlook continues in the nearsighted approach of most governments - it is reactive. They tend to do things in reaction to a problem grown to a point where it now has to be addressed.

I believe in the proactive approach. Identify the problem starting to develop and alleviate it before in becomes major. The difficulty with that is the solution to any problem costs tax payers money. If it is used to solve something obvious then it is accepted by most citizens. When it is used to prevent a growing problem then the taxpayer always questions the outlay.

Perhaps what we are talking about here is risk management - a lengthy and complicated topic.

cybercoma · May 10, 2016

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-fort-mcmurray-fire-friday-1.3575607Anything else?

Oh sure. He goes when things are safe. What a pathetic coward. /s

Accountability Now · May 10, 2016

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-fort-mcmurray-fire-friday-1.3575607

Anything else?

Ya...how about going a week earlier?

?Impact · May 10, 2016

I hope so. They might be a little more forgiving then those folks who lost their uninsured homes by this preventable disaster.

The Miramichi wildfire in New Brunswick was about 10 times the size (based on current size of Fort McMuray wildfire, and killed over 300 people. I would say we have done a lot to improve the outcome over the intervening years. The experts will do a proper analysis of the current fire after things have settled down, and help us to learn from mistakes made. I expect the biggest questions will be around when the decision was made for a full evacuation, I am not so sure that much more could be done to protect property, but I await detailed studies.

I remember hearing one report that the fire was already well established when first detected, but I await more definitive reports to clarify or counter that point. If so, perhaps more could be done with technology to improve early detection. One of the complicating factors here is that this is still relatively early in the season, and perhaps some resources were not fully at the ready. I saw one television report showing firefighting aircraft still in the hanger completing over-winter maintenance.

Edited May 10, 2016 by ?Impact

overthere · May 10, 2016

When one prepares an emergency plan you do so on contingencies. This is 2016. There are computer models of weather and climate patterns. Instant information on wind patterns. Computer projections on all possible natural conditions. Instant communications.

Do you really accept, "Oops, the wind has increased and changed directions". I have been involved in disaster preparation in an area in Southern Ontario. Our potential problems are more water related (storms etc) than trees but we also have heavy tree cover.

Like in a war, a battle plan is developed for any contingency - including the 100 year standard - with a check list developed as to the escalating response based on a escalating problem - with extra room for error in areas of habitation. It is updated every year based on any observable changing patterns and infrastructure changes.

I understand that we have a difference in view of what should be expected from our natural disaster prevention organizations.

It is an absolute certainty that at some point a massive earthquake will devastate the Lower Mainland in BC. It could be in 10 minutes, it might be in 1000 years. But it is a certainty. It will probably be accompanied by tsunami and major flooding. In your world view, should the population of Vancouver be moved to high ground right now? If not, why not?

I am sorry that you have never seen and don't understand forest and grass fires. They can and do move as fast as the wind blows. This must be a difficult time for you. Alberta sends its best wishes.

overthere · May 10, 2016

The Miramichi wildfire in New Brunswick was about 10 times the size (based on current size of Fort McMuray wildfire, and killed over 300 people. I would say we have done a lot to improve the outcome over the intervening years. The experts will do a proper analysis of the current fire after things have settled down, and help us to learn from mistakes made. I expect the biggest questions will be around when the decision was made for a full evacuation, I am not so sure that much more could be done to protect property, but I await detailed studies.

I remember hearing one report that the fire was already well established when first detected, but I await more definitive reports to clarify or counter that point. If so, perhaps more could be done with technology to improve early detection. One of the complicating factors here is that this is still relatively early in the season, and perhaps some resources were not fully at the ready. I saw one television report showing firefighting aircraft still in the hanger completing over-winter maintenance.

It would not have made the slightest difference if the aircraft were full of water and in the air and en route once the fire was establsihed-and the wind was blowing hard. Once established, there is no possibility of extinguishment or control, It becomes a fight to save infrastrcuture. If there is no buildings at risk, fires like this are not fought at all. I agree that investigations now will center on whether or not the amount of damage to Fort McMurray was appropriate in the circumstances.

Oh, and fires are much more easily detected if they are caused by lightning, since all strikes are monitored and recorded and communicated, nearly in real time. But this one was not lightning, and it is harder to predict when a person does something stupid or criminal, and starts a fire..

Smallc · May 10, 2016

Ya...how about going a week earlier?

He would have been in the way.

Smallc · May 10, 2016

The thing about this fire is that it is so big and so hot that it is unique, almost unheard of in Canadian history. And as a result of that it is difficult to fight. In fact, nearly impossible. And as it has grown to cover more than 2000 sq. km, the approach to fighting this fire has evolved from one of fighting the fire, to containing and directing it away from critical infrastructure and populated areas. The Alberta Wildfire department has said that this is too big to be extinguished by humans, and the only way it's going to be put out is burning itself out, or significant periods of heavy rain. When bombers are attempting to drop water on the burning areas, it is evaporating before hitting the fires. Reports have said the fire is burning between 700 and 1000 degrees.

And so in a situation where Trudeau isn't qualified or trained to make decisions, he is listening to the guidance of the people who are educated and do this for a living. The experts. He's in his offices, working on the logistics of what they need, not out getting in the way in Fort McMurray, or pulling resources away from where they're needed for the sake of a photo op. And he's letting the heroes that have prevented a devastating situation from becoming the end of Fort McMurray do their jobs.

----

The Alberta department has stated that the airspace cannot safely support more air traffic than it already has. Bringing in more would create a risk, with potential for collisions.

----

So yes, Trudeau has no clue what he's doing. But he's relying on the advice and guidance of the people who do to make sure he makes good, informed decisions, doesn't overstep his bounds and Alberta gets what it needs in it's time of need.

http://rs1-22.wix.com/theyegsbreakfast#!Trudeau-Doesnt-Know-What-Hes-Doing/c1kod/5731295f0cf2aaefd5f681c0

What doesn't seem logical to some, changes with knowledge, I would hope.

?Impact · May 10, 2016

The thing about this fire is that it is so big and so hot that it is unique, almost unheard of in Canadian history

Yes, this is a huge fire and we won't know its true extent until it is eventually extinguished. It is however far from largest in Canadian history. What makes it 'unique' is its proximity to a major modern settlement.

As I stated earlier, the Mirimichi fire was about 10 times this size, and it destroyed about 1/3 of Fredericton and several smaller communities. About 5 years ago, and not that far north from the current wildfire was the Richardson Fire which was about 3-4 times the size of the current one and also threatened some of the oil-sands operations. The Chinchaga wildfire was the largest in Alberta, about 6-7 times the size of the current on. These all pale however in comparison to those in other parts of the world, like in Indonesia (Kalimantan and East Sumatra) which had one about 15 years ago that was over 50 times this large.

Accountability Now · May 10, 2016

He would have been in the way.

Not at the shelters.

Rona Ambrose wasn't in the way. As per your linked article:

Trudeau thanked interim Conservative Leader Rona Ambrose for her "strong" engagement on the ground and Canadians for their generous contributions to the relief efforts by the Canadian Red Cross.

Ambrose, who represents the riding of Sturgeon River–Parkland in Edmonton, has been in the region since last Friday.