kepPNW wrote:
Offering a bounty on people who put others in jeopardy may serve all the bloodlust needs expressed these last few days
I hear lynch mobs do a fine job of serving that need, and they don't burden the pocketbook of the taxpayer.
And if "eyes on the ground" are needed (my impression was that plenty of "eyes" witnessed this event), then I believe the NSA has an app for that. (But bringing everyone into the fold as Stasi-style informants is definitely a more feel-good solution.)
Certainly, the "no fireworks" signs at trailheads are on par in terms of effectiveness with "no littering" signs. As Matt has previously suggested here regarding illegal camping at Jeff Park, slapping people with large fines would potentially deter people via word of mouth - but only if the FS had the enforcement manpower - and budget - to carry it out. (People tend to obey laws when they think there's a good chance of being caught.)
As noted, though, there is a vestigial mindset in this country that to go outdoors requires you to have a fire, regardless of whether fires are allowed. (We saw 2 fires at Mirror Lake in the Wallowas last month. Every trail into that area has signs warning that fires are prohibited.) This problem requires re-education efforts, similar to promoting Leave No Trace. People simply need to be discouraged from having fires at all. Campgrounds with metal firepit infrastructure are one thing (that said, the last time I was at a campground, our neighbors packed up and drove off leaving their fire embers smoking - I spent some time pouring water on them), but the next generations need to be taught that fires do not belong in the backcountry basically
ever.
However, this was not a campfire run amok: as mind-bogglingly inconceivable as throwing fireworks into dry brush during a heatwave is, this was still just kids being dumb. There is no magic solution for that, as children (keep in mind - a 15 year old is a
child)
literally do not (yet) have the part of the brain that enables them to make smart decisions. I doubt there's an amount of money you can offer strangers that will provoke them to "physically" intervene (America has ingrained norms against interfering with others, not to mention that this potentially runs afoul of assault laws). The first step to reduce the danger of fireworks I can think of is the same one proffered by the
Merc: as fireworks are currently illegal in Oregon, Washington needs to step up and join the party. Certainly people can buy them online, etc etc etc, but statistically, you make it difficult for people to buy fireworks anywhere near here and the prevalence of fireworks in this area drops to near zero. I will let the Merc weigh in on what society has to lose by banning fireworks:
...the pros and cons of fireworks... wrote:CONS
[...among others]
- They, on occasion, can burn down close to
5,000 10,000 32,000 acres of gorgeous and scenic land (so far), cause unimaginable damage to our natural resources, cause unimaginable strain to our public resources, create states of emergency, bring our infrastructure to a skidding halt, make the air unfit to breathe, block traffic, disrupt commerce, potentially ruin the tourism-based economies of our small towns, strand 153 hikers overnight in an incredibly dangerous and traumatic event, decimate sites that bring pride and wonder to the region, threaten our homes, dirty our streets, kill untold thousands (perhaps millions?) of wild animals and insects, encroach upon our vital water supply, and make vast swaths of pristine wilderness uninhabitable for all living things.
PROS
- They momentarily distract the most primitive part of our lizard brains with 1 to 2 seconds of sparkly lights and boom sounds. End of list.