Fort McMurray wildfire

jacee · May 6, 2016

I fully agree. But I do have a background in municipal disaster preparation. I suggest that the mere fact of the results indicates that the preparations were inadequate.

There is nothing they could gave done to stop the fire from jumping the river, once the wind changed. The best they could do was get people out safely, and they did that amazingly well.

May I assume that since everything possible was done properly that we can anticipate a repeat of this tragedy?

You can't stop Mother Nature.

**We can stop replanting clear cut with monoculture tinder boxes though.

Mother Nature corrects that error by burning it to regenerate natural diversified forests.

.

jacee · May 6, 2016

Legally, yes. According to section 17 of Alberta's Emergency Management Act:

Any person who

(a) contravenes this Act or the regulations, or

(b-)* interferes with or obstructs any person in the carrying out of a power or duty under this Act or the regulations,

is guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year or to a fine of not more than $10 000 or to both imprisonment and fine.

ref: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/E06P8.pdf#page=12

* How can I disable the emoji that automatically displays when I leave out the "-"

The ones who don't leave are likely those without the financial, physical, mental and social resources to do so. Threatening legal action isn't much of an answer to that. Providing them with the means to get to safety would be more help.

.

jacee · May 6, 2016

I never suggested the Alberta NDP caused the fire........the piss poor response will be something they wear though.

Absolute nonsense.

This was a highly successful evacuation from a situation no one could prevent.

Using this tragedy for political sniping is pathetic.

.

Edited May 6, 2016 by jacee

GostHacked · May 6, 2016

Apparently there are some people who have decided to ride it out in Fort McMurray. I am not sure that it is the brightest thing to do. But do authorities have the right to force people out of their houses?

My recollection is that during floods, hurricanes et al, people were warned to leave but never forced to do so?

Can a person be arrested for not leaving?

I would not force those that do not want to leave. Arresting them would be a waste of time. Simply say ... 'OK, yer on your own, we won't be back to help' .... and let them make the decision.

?Impact · May 6, 2016

The ones who don't leave are likely those without the financial, physical, mental and social resources to do so. Threatening legal action isn't much of an answer to that. Providing them with the means to get to safety would be more help.

.

I agree, and that is exactly what I heard is happening. My previous answer was directed specifically at the question Big Guy posed.

Additionally there are some stragglers who, quite understandably, want to protect their assets. They might mistakenly think that a garden hose is going to protect their house, or they are worried about looters. The best action is for them to leave, and as I understand it the RCMP have been telling them that and people have been complying.

msj · May 6, 2016

I have found your comments during this tragedy to be the most offensive.

.

Aw.... that's too bad if I have hurt your feelings.

Sarcasm doesn't carry well sometimes so whatever.

May I suggest you don't read my posts?

Edited May 6, 2016 by msj

overthere · May 6, 2016

They can help with evacuations, creating fire lines, helping the fire crews.

No the Army cannot. They have no equipment, no training and in a fire of this ferocity would end up as blackened corpses in short order.

You can't stop Mother Nature.
**We can stop replanting clear cut with monoculture tinder boxes though.

Mother Nature corrects that error by burning it to regenerate natural diversified forests.

.

Very little of area around Ft Mac, or in NE AB in general, has trees large enough to log, and clear cuts are not done.

Edited May 6, 2016 by overthere

overthere · May 6, 2016

Nope......but the $15 million removed from the budget would have hired a whole bunch more (6 month term) wildefire fighters earlier this year, personal able to contend with not only the Fort Mac fire, but the others throughout Alberta.....clearly enabling a far larger initial response from the Province, at the very least a response when those on scene were asking for additional help over the weekend and not days late when the city started burning and the fire was licking cars full of people escaping on the highway........

........And then there is the Federal Government's response (or lack there of)........either the Notely Government was neglectful in asking the Feds for help earlier or the Federal Government crapped the bed in its response.......then there is a chance that both levels are at fault.

Either way, cabinet ministers should be resigning over the piss poor response to the burning down of a Canadian city.............if this is how the Federal Government responds to a forest fire, we on the West Coast are truly screwed when the "Big One" wipes out South-Western British Columbia......

I am not a Notley fan, but IMO the provincial response to date has been very good. The evidence that they did their main role well and properly? When the fire was 'licking' the city, there have been no know casualties. And so far, the entire city has not burned to the ground.

The only political assholery I've seen has been Ralph Goodale, who has spent hours in front of the cameras patting himself on the back about the role of the federal government so far. In reality, the feds have had very little involvement in managing and directing the actual situation. You'd never know it from Goodales grandstanding and puffery.

msj · May 6, 2016

No way man! Looks like oil sands output will be cut and Canada's production will be down about 25%.

Clearly another "Thanks, Notley!" moment.

Amirite, right wingers, amirite?!?

Derek 2.0 · May 6, 2016

nice try! That $15 million cut is split across tanker contracts ($5.1 million) and base management... which doesn't include costs for firefighters/equipment (those are funded through general revenue). As I'm aware the same 2 companies that have always provided tanker contracts are still operating to the same level they always have in the past... the related $5.1 million cut means their contacts only run to August after which an 'as needed' requirement will guide the hiring of planes.

.

I'll have to ask for your source.........and yes cuts do/did effect aerial tanker contracts.......you speak to "the two companies that always provided tanker contracts", but were remiss in mentioning that in the previous Alberta budget, the Alberta (PC) government reduced the overall numbers of tankers they contracted from said companies, removing one tanker group that was based in Lac la Biche for decades......Lac la Biche is a ~1 hour flight South of Fort McMurray.....

The Notely Government reduced funding further, and you suggest it has no impact?

Edited May 6, 2016 by Derek 2.0

Derek 2.0 · May 6, 2016

There is zero chance that she takes any accountability at all for her response, either in her actions or her words

Of course she won't..........last year the BC Government was lucky after cuts to the aerial tanker program.......Alberta not so much.

Derek 2.0 · May 6, 2016

I am not a Notley fan, but IMO the provincial response to date has been very good. The evidence that they did their main role well and properly? When the fire was 'licking' the city, there have been no know casualties. And so far, the entire city has not burned to the ground.

I guess "very good" is subjective.......what percentage of the city is currently gone?

The only political assholery I've seen has been Ralph Goodale, who has spent hours in front of the cameras patting himself on the back about the role of the federal government so far. In reality, the feds have had very little involvement in managing and directing the actual situation. You'd never know it from Goodales grandstanding and puffery.

Can't disagree with you there.

waldo · May 7, 2016

The Notely Government reduced funding further, and you suggest it has no impact?

you quoted what I wrote... do you really need to be walked through this sentence: "...the related $5.1 million cut means their contacts only run to August after which an 'as needed' requirement will guide the hiring of planes."

is it August yet?

.

.......you speak to "the two companies that always provided tanker contracts", but were remiss in mentioning that in the previous Alberta budget, the Alberta (PC) government reduced the overall numbers of tankers they contracted from said companies, removing one tanker group that was based in Lac la Biche for decades......Lac la Biche is a ~1 hour flight South of Fort McMurray.....

... the thrust of your pointed finger was the current Notley NDP government. Your linked article addressing intentions of the former Alberta Conservative government states, "The provincial government is expecting to save $2 million by hiring one less air tanker group this year, but that doesn’t mean any of the water-bomber bases in Alberta, like the one west of Lac La Biche, will be left high and dry. Instead, it means aircraft will likely be moving around the province more, depending on where their services are needed." Notwithstanding... with the NDP government change, did that intention, referred to as "planning to hire one less tanker group", actually happen?

.

Derek 2.0 · May 7, 2016

you quoted what I wrote... do you really need to be walked through this sentence: "...the related $5.1 million cut means their contacts only run to August after which an 'as needed' requirement will guide the hiring of planes."

is it August yet?

.

No, I get that..........and the remaining ~$10 million?

... the thrust of your pointed finger was the current Notley NDP government. Your linked article addressing intentions of the former Alberta Conservative government states, "The provincial government is expecting to save $2 million by hiring one less air tanker group this year, but that doesn’t mean any of the water-bomber bases in Alberta, like the one west of Lac La Biche, will be left high and dry. Instead, it means aircraft will likely be moving around the province more, depending on where their services are needed." Notwithstanding... with the NDP government change, did that intention, referred to as "planning to hire one less tanker group", actually happen?

Moving around more.........as in spread thin? As noted in the article:

“One of their contracts won’t be renewed,” said Duncan MacDonnell, spokesperson for Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. MacDonnell noted that the government would be able to quickly re-enter that contract, if needed.

Did the NDP Government re-enter said contract with BC's Conair? Would one expect Conair to keep a portion of its fleet parked well waiting for Alberta to "re-enter" the contract?

------------

I note the NDP government didn't restore the previous Government cuts, to a decades long basing of water bombers just South of the now raging wildfire, despite warnings from the Wild Rose opposition in 2015.......instead, the NDP Government cuts the budget further, despite warnings from the Wild Rose opposition.......

waldo · May 7, 2016

you've provided nothing to support anything you've stated. You're now backpedaling away from that $5.1 million cut that has no impact... and now you throw out the other $10 million reference without saying word-one about it. Here's a thought: why not shift away from your unsubstantiated finger pointing and state what perceived impact you believe that other $10 million had in regards the current wildfire. Step-up instead of weaseling out!

.

Derek 2.0 · May 7, 2016

you've provided nothing to support anything you've stated.

I'm still await your cites :lol:

Derek 2.0 · May 7, 2016

No the Army cannot. They have no equipment, no training and in a fire of this ferocity would end up as blackened corpses in short order.

The army did exactly (With over 1500 personal) that several years ago here in British Columbia, with a one day training session from the BC Forest Service........It's hard, labor intensive work......not putting a man on Mars. :rolleyes:

msj · May 7, 2016

Would be interesting to know from someone with real knowledge as to the efficacy of one or two more water bombers on the scene.

Maybe in a few months we'll get that answer in a report from the experts rather than all this MMQB'ing nonsense.

bush_cheney2004 · May 7, 2016

Would be interesting to know from someone with real knowledge as to the efficacy of one or two more water bombers on the scene.

Martin Mars has not been contracted...getting ready for the Oshkosh Air Show in Wisconsin. I might go this year !

Edited May 7, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

msj · May 7, 2016

Sure, I've seen them fly over Port Alberni when I'm there in the summertime.

Not very effective for fighting fires is what I understand from various sources who are involved in fire crews.

Big loads so look bad ass but put some steep terrain in place and the effectiveness is terrible.

bush_cheney2004 · May 7, 2016

There are many types of aerial firefighting platforms...often they are repurposed aircraft that do not get the same level of maintenance and support.

If there were standing wildfire contracts, they could/should have been used Sometimes fire crews are not very effective too.

jacee · May 7, 2016

Would be interesting to know from someone with real knowledge as to the efficacy of one or two more water bombers on the scene.

Maybe in a few months we'll get that answer in a report from the experts rather than all this MMQB'ing nonsense.

It's unlikely that any amount of human intervention could have stopped this fire:

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/edmonton/fort-mcmurry-wildfire-funding-1.3570772

But when asked why a firebreak wasn't built around Fort McMurray to prevent a repeat of what happened in Slave Lake, Morrison offered a blunt assessment.

"I want to be clear," he said at the same news conference where Notley spoke. "With the nature of this fire and the dangerous conditions we have, no size of firebreak would hold this fire from doing anything. This fire jumped the Athabasca River, which is over a kilometre wide."

.

Edited May 7, 2016 by jacee

waldo · May 7, 2016

I'm still await your cites

let's recap: you finally pulled away from your unsubstantiated finger-pointing at that $5.1 million funding cut as it had no bearing on the Ft. Mac wildfire... you didn't acknowledge you were wrong; rather, you simply deflected to the other part of the overall funding cut... the other $10 million dollars. When I ask you to state what perceived impact you believe that other $10 million had in regards the current wildfire, you weasel out - of course you do!

asking me for cites is quite lame given my statements were very precise and a googly on those statements would take you to many references. Since I'm responding to you... does this mean you will actually step-up (and not weasel out) and respond to the request you appear to be wildly running away from? Here, just a couple of many available: CBC....... Postmedia Edmonton Journal

I await you responding... I await you stating what part of that (other) $10 million cut had any impact on the current wildfire... as you say, "I await your cite(s)".

.

jacee · May 7, 2016

Gotta have a laugh ...

fort-mcmurray-fire-what-people-brought-with-them-

The bear's head ...?!? Lol

.

msj · May 7, 2016

It's unlikely that any amount of human intervention could have stopped this fire:http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/edmonton/fort-mcmurry-wildfire-funding-1.3570772But when asked why a firebreak wasn't built around Fort McMurray to .......[/b]

.

Not sure why you are bothering to read me since you obviously do not understand a friggin' thing I'm saying.

I think Derek and others in this thread are the Monday morning QB's who from their arm chairs and with the benefit of hindsight get to "Thanks Notley" like fools.

That is, I think they are so heavily partisan, in Derek's case, or so heavily invested in hindsight bias and the recency effect, in Big Guy's case, as to be irredeemable and deserving of nothing more than mockery.