[pct-l] Fire Closures in General

[Eric Lee (GAMES)]

Lou wrote:
>
I hope this message gets archived in its entirety; if everyone started speaking out like this the bureaucrats would finally be forced to do what they were hired to do, namely, allow us to use our nations' parks and wildernesses as we see fit, unfettered, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else
>

This is obviously going to go off-topic pretty quickly, but I'll share my thoughts anyway . . .

It's all very well for you to say you accept total responsibility for your own actions and don't want anyone to rescue you no matter what, but that's not realistic or fair to the people who are trying to do their jobs in dangerous situations.  Try thinking it through from other people's perspective.

Suppose you go out in the middle of a forest fire and get yourself trapped on a ridge, surrounded by flames.  A fire crew on the next ridge spots you and has to make a decision: do they risk the lives of their entire crew to try to save you, or do they just shrug and say, "Stupid jerk, let him burn."

Or suppose a pilot is about to drop a full load of fire-retardant slurry on a flare-up in order to prevent the fire from jumping the line.  Right as he's about to drop, someone radios that there's a hiker close to the target zone.  He knows that if you get hit by the full force of the drop, you could very well be killed.  Does the pilot abort and let the fire jump the line, or does he shrug and say, "Eh, he'll get what he deserves," and do the drop?

We have a social contract in this country that says emergency services workers (fire, police, medics, etc) will do everything in their power to protect our lives and property, up to and including putting their own lives on the line.  In return, we agree to stay the hell out of their way and not make their jobs and their life-or-death decisions any more complicated than they have to be.  Fire closures are a part of that.

You said above, " . . . as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else."  It's should be pretty obvious that screwing around in an active emergency zone has a very real potential for hurting someone else.  In emergency circumstances, you can get other people killed just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, regardless of your intentions.

Keeping the forest closed after the fire's out is a different matter, I suppose.  Fire-weakened trees are a very real danger, and one that would be unexpected for a lot of people.  Should the government keep the area closed until the risk factor returns to "normal", or just post a warning sign and let people make their own choices?  I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it's not the bureaucrat's minds you need to be changing, it's your fellow citizens who keep suing everyone in sight when they get themselves into some kind of unexpected danger and then claim that someone should have stopped them.  Yes, fear of lawsuits is a very real problem, but it's not the bureaucrats who created the problem, it's the people who file the lawsuits.  Go yell at them if you want to yell at someone.

Eric