Just to maybe try to add some clarity to the podcast this morning, which was awesome.
When we talk about the standard being higher, we’re talking basically about a “you should know better” type of thing.
So as a former cop myself, we see this in law enforcement all the time where “based on an officers training and experience xyz” and that basically is saying I can justify what I did or didn’t do by my level of training and experience, however, that also holds me to a higher standard of “I should’ve known better”
So I’m under the impression that’s what they are saying when they say the standard is higher. I am not sure if they are saying the standard is higher to the level of probable cause needed is lower, or higher. But I presume they are saying that the standard to prosecute for reckless burning is a lot higher, based on the burn bosses experience.
Your podcast remarks about your experience in MT. reminded me of an assignment in Hibbing, MI in 76. Locals were not amused to see a shot crew from the west in their neck of the woods for the first time starting a burn out (initiated by Paul Gleason). A bunch of good old boys started patrolling the roads with shotguns. Once they witness the tactic work on this crazy bog/ spruce fire that would only get up and run from 2 to 4pm they showed up with big smiles and boxes and boxes of crusty old WW2 fusees. Epilogue: After a month on this weird fire we buried/hid the thing with D9 cats so we could go home. The fire could still be subterranean as far as I know?
As a retired T1 BB from the area of burn I was surprised that there was a burn under those fuel and weather conditions. A friend who has also burned thousands of acres in that fuel type happened to be driving by burn that day. He called me when he got home and stated "they have some cajones to be burning today".
Curious about RX.
It's all going to burn someday, still believe your better off ⛏️ ng your day.
It seems a lot of people feel this way. Again it’ll be interesting to see the actual burn plan come out and identify what was in what was not in prescription. There are other local firefighters who have reached out to me saying that they thought it was kind of wild to be put in fire on the ground that day. But again I don’t know what was in the burn plan so I can’t make that call or not until we see it.
I don’t think we have ever heard if the burn was officially within prescription when it was started? That would obviously make a huge difference if it was not, and was started anyway. I don’t recall you having made any update on this?
A 20 acres slop over on a prescribed burn is unfortunate but hardly an unusual outcome. Never going to get desired fuel reduction if the plan only permits firing with no potential for escape. Risk adverse prescription my result in acres treated with only limited fuel reduction value.
Here is the link to the Oregon Eagle article
(https://www.bluemountaineagle.com/news/wildfires/oregon/grant-county-sheriff-threatened-with-arrest-while-arresting-forest-service-burn-boss/article_b8b366e2-5ed4-11ed-9d52-6733cd3fc15d.html)
Hey Tim,
Just to maybe try to add some clarity to the podcast this morning, which was awesome.
When we talk about the standard being higher, we’re talking basically about a “you should know better” type of thing.
So as a former cop myself, we see this in law enforcement all the time where “based on an officers training and experience xyz” and that basically is saying I can justify what I did or didn’t do by my level of training and experience, however, that also holds me to a higher standard of “I should’ve known better”
So I’m under the impression that’s what they are saying when they say the standard is higher. I am not sure if they are saying the standard is higher to the level of probable cause needed is lower, or higher. But I presume they are saying that the standard to prosecute for reckless burning is a lot higher, based on the burn bosses experience.
Ok thanks for clarifying.
Your podcast remarks about your experience in MT. reminded me of an assignment in Hibbing, MI in 76. Locals were not amused to see a shot crew from the west in their neck of the woods for the first time starting a burn out (initiated by Paul Gleason). A bunch of good old boys started patrolling the roads with shotguns. Once they witness the tactic work on this crazy bog/ spruce fire that would only get up and run from 2 to 4pm they showed up with big smiles and boxes and boxes of crusty old WW2 fusees. Epilogue: After a month on this weird fire we buried/hid the thing with D9 cats so we could go home. The fire could still be subterranean as far as I know?
Ya conflicts like this are nothing new. Hey are just much more highly publicized now.
As a retired T1 BB from the area of burn I was surprised that there was a burn under those fuel and weather conditions. A friend who has also burned thousands of acres in that fuel type happened to be driving by burn that day. He called me when he got home and stated "they have some cajones to be burning today".
Curious about RX.
It's all going to burn someday, still believe your better off ⛏️ ng your day.
It seems a lot of people feel this way. Again it’ll be interesting to see the actual burn plan come out and identify what was in what was not in prescription. There are other local firefighters who have reached out to me saying that they thought it was kind of wild to be put in fire on the ground that day. But again I don’t know what was in the burn plan so I can’t make that call or not until we see it.
I don’t think we have ever heard if the burn was officially within prescription when it was started? That would obviously make a huge difference if it was not, and was started anyway. I don’t recall you having made any update on this?
The Forest service says it was, the land owners and sheriff debate that.
A 20 acres slop over on a prescribed burn is unfortunate but hardly an unusual outcome. Never going to get desired fuel reduction if the plan only permits firing with no potential for escape. Risk adverse prescription my result in acres treated with only limited fuel reduction value.