Preventing the next fire

[jley]

Like all of you, I’m just sick about the fire in the gorge. The ashes of a place I love are literally falling down upon me. It's surreal, heartbreaking, maddening... I'm really at a loss for words. I don't think most of the hiking community and Portland in general has yet comprehended how this will fundamentally change a place so familiar and beloved. One idiot screwing up one time can have so much destructive power. Even if 99.99% of the rest of us are responsible, it doesn’t seem to matter.

Part of me wants to see the culprits lives ruined in some equitable fashion as what they’ve done. But that’s impossible, and it wouldn’t help anyway. I’m sure these kids feel as bad as any teenager can. But the damage is done - and still happening. All we can do is work like hell to prevent the next stupid person from starting the next one.

When I went to the eclipse in the Malheur National Forest, there were thousands of people in a tinderbox, waiting to be trapped at the ends of long forest service roads, surrounded by miles of dry forests ready to explode. It was only through luck that disaster was avoided. I talked to the Forest Service rangers about it and sure enough – they had to tell a bunch of people to put out their campfires that weekend. Who are these people? Are they were totally ignorant of the danger? Or are they afflicted with “I know what I’m doing” syndrome - unable to deal with any authority telling them what to do.

It's too late for much of the gorge. All I can do to maintain my sanity is focus my thoughts on the future - how do we prevent the next fire? I think the only answer is in public awareness and more importantly - public policing.

We need a much bigger public campaign of awareness about wildfire. We need clearer laws, and we need these explained in plain terms everyone can understand. Here’s what I propose:

Large (think billboard size), numerous, unmistakable red and black signs warning of dire consequences of lighting any fire in the forest. Every trailhead road entrance, every campground road entrance, and every major road intersection in a forest throughout the northwest needs a giant red and black sign with clear language that cannot be mistaken. The current signage is wimpy and dated. You’ve likely seen one here and there. I can’t even remember what they look like, but it’s to the effect of “please don’t start fires”, or with a catchy phrase that you have to interpret like "wanted - your fires dead out". WTF is that? There are other warning signs at trailheads, but they're lost among the myriad of stupid warnings about cougars or mosquitoes. The fire danger “clock face” signs are better, but they’re only at the Forest Service offices and a few other places. People don’t see or process them.

More importantly, there need to be clear fines for violations - no warnings - and clear rewards for reporting violations. The Forest Service and county sheriffs simply can't be everywhere, it's unreasonable to ask them to police these areas. I suggest a $5,000 minimum fine for violations, and an equal reward of $5,000 for recording and reporting violations. Nearly everyone carries a cell phone now. I hate to make us all into police, but it appears that’s what it takes. These signs could be seasonal, but they should be permanently installed, so they can be flipped open when conditions warrant. If you drive to any recreation location in a forested area, you ought to see 1-2 of these, and certainly one at the trailhead - away from all the menagerie of other warnings.

Of course, this new sign would need new laws behind it. But who exactly would be against that? Especially in this climate?

What do you all think? Any other ideas? What would your sign say?

[Aimless]

I hate to be so cynical, but I was a technical writer for a living for many years and people simply do not read if they can avoid it, and even if they do read something briefly, in passing, they often fail to process it enough that it will spark a single actual thought in their head. Your sign will mostly be read just about as far as the first three words, if at all, by the great majority. And those who do read the first three words will most likely make no connection between the words "ABSOLUTELY NO FIRES" and the Bic lighter they use to light their cigarette fifteen minutes later.

The people who can be reached are those who already have some personal, emotional connection to the message you want them to absorb, and that personal connection will be made by other means than a sign posted at a trailhead or campground, but rather through vital personal experience of a fire they've witnessed either in action, or through its destructive aftermath in a place they cared about or by its harming people they know and love.

This doesn't mean it isn't worth posting thousands of such signs, but it is to say their effect will never be equal to the task of drilling some caution into the public's mind far enough to stop the reckless or heedless ones.

[jley]

Ya, I'm a bit cynical about these things too, but giving up isn't an option. Plus, this isn't a technical manual, it's an ad. More than that, it's a new style of ad in an unexpected place. Things like that get people talking. If you can just reach just one person in any group, that could help. I'm also hopeful that by offering a significant reward for recording and reporting violations, it'll mean more eyes in the woods. The signs have to be repetitive, clear and simple.

Some of the same types who don't read, do pay attention to a chance to "play cop", or at least be aware that others are watching them (even if they don't like it). I hate to foster any semblance of a police state, but we're talking about public safety here, not to mention very expensive fires. Asking people to "not set fires" is a pretty small ask.

If the family who headed into the gorge this weekend knew they'd be easily busted by anyone recording them with a cell phone, perhaps the kids would have figured this out. Perhaps they'd have thought twice about what they did. Perhaps not, but I'll take perhaps as an improvement in the odds.

The only other option I could think of is massive closures of the forest when it gets too dry. Or, just resigning ourselves to a fate of endless horrible human-caused fires. Neither of those options sound good.

[romann]

I think I saw quite a few "Fireworks are prohibited" signs in the Gorge, doesn't seem to matter... Dunno what solution can be, maybe less popularization of hiking/camping so there will be less chance a random person will go on trail and cause trouble?

I am more understanding of "campfire escaped and caused a fire" scenario (understanding, but not justifying in any way) because so many people still cook on fire... I cooked on fire for several years (& was really careful with it!) because I didn't know of any other way, it's how I saw it when I was a kid. Then I read about gas stoves on this forum and got one from Walmart - I think it was a whopping 2.5 pounds with a full canister - that one day ignited and almost caused a fire itself. Then I learned about REI but it took a while before I was ready to pay for their small but expensive stove, that I'm happy with (gosh, so much time saving when cooking, why didn't I do it earlier!). See where I go? Someone who last camped as a kid will make a campfire because it's the only way they know it. Learning doesn't happen overnight, and many people camp so infrequently it doesn't seem worth it to learn and invest in expensive backpacking gear.

But this latest incident with kids shooting fireworks into the canyon - I just feel helpless about it; it's not they were trying to do a rational thing that went wrong, I'm not even sure what their thinking process was (if at all). There can be real serious punishment for things like that, billboard signs can be posted everywhere, and there always will be someone who doesn't care...

[drm]

I don't think most of the hiking community and Portland in general has yet comprehended how this will fundamentally change a place so familiar and beloved.

I don't want to get ahead of what we do and don't know. I had heard that the Indian Creek fire (which has now merged with the Eagle Creek fire) was low intensity and was just burning brush and not killing trees. I have no idea about the Eagle Creek fire's intensity but such fires won't affect our experience like high intensity tree-killing fires. Ground growth will grow back pretty quickly.

I do share the attitude about people who would be so stupid as to throw fireworks in the forest in these conditions, nor am I much interested in how sorry they are after the fact. A $5000 fine doesn't begin to address it if a wildfire results from their actions.

[jley]

A $5000 fine doesn't begin to address it if a wildfire results from their actions.

That's not the point of the fine. It's there as a deterrent, and in conjunction with the offered reward.

More importantly, the fine isn't just for those who start a fire like the one in the gorge. It's for any violation, even if it doesn't result in a out-of-control fire.

For example, in this case... if the kids had set off fireworks, but it didn't result in a fire (say the smoke bomb landed among some rocks), they'd still be subject to the $5000 fine. The woman who identified them would be able to claim a reward as well. The goal is twofold - both deterrence and putting more eyes on the ground.

None of this is intended as restitution. That's a whole other thing. In addition, these would be hefty minimum fines... no idea what the maximum would be.

[oldandslow]

The Federal Criminal Code already provides substantial penalties for damage to or destruction of Federal property. Under the general damage section 18 USC 1361 a fine of up to $250,000 may be imposed and imprisonment of up to 10 years. In the case of arson 18 USC 81 provides for imprisonment of up to 25 years and a fine of up to the cost of restoring the property.
Many criminologists believe the harsh penalties do not deter criminals because the criminals do not think they will be caught. Whether or not they are effective, the harsh penalties probably make the public at large feel better.
As far as signs are concerned, promoting the sale of Smokey Bear T shirts might be worthwhile.

[jley]

I am more understanding of "campfire escaped and caused a fire" scenario (understanding, but not justifying in any way) because so many people still cook on fire... I cooked on fire for several years (& was really careful with it!) because I didn't know of any other way, it's how I saw it when I was a kid. Then I read about gas stoves on this forum and got one from Walmart - I think it was a whopping 2.5 pounds with a full canister - that one day ignited and almost caused a fire itself. Then I learned about REI but it took a while before I was ready to pay for their small but expensive stove, that I'm happy with (gosh, so much time saving when cooking, why didn't I do it earlier!). See where I go? Someone who last camped as a kid will make a campfire because it's the only way they know it. Learning doesn't happen overnight, and many people camp so infrequently it doesn't seem worth it to learn and invest in expensive backpacking gear.

But this latest incident with kids shooting fireworks into the canyon - I just feel helpless about it; it's not they were trying to do a rational thing that went wrong, I'm not even sure what their thinking process was (if at all). There can be real serious punishment for things like that, billboard signs can be posted everywhere, and there always will be someone who doesn't care...

I hear you... for some people camping == camp fire. If they can't have a camp fire, they get the shivers and don't understand why they're even out there. It's irrational, but deep-seeded. I hiked with a guy on the CDT who would start a small fire every night. He didn't do this to cook, or even stay warm... he did it because that's what one did when camping. I tried calling him on it, but he was an old sort, and not willing to give up his ways so easily, and not willing to listen to new information. I didn't hike with him for long, mostly because of this. I was pissed about it, but what could I do?

Sometimes the only way to change attitudes is with a heavy smack in the face. A $5000 fine for something they thought was innocuous might help do that. If they complain about the fine, tough. The whole west is on fire, and a good number of those fires are human-caused. This is a crisis, and needs drastic solutions.

As for these kids, what should have happened is some other hiker or adult physically stopping them. Apparently they were setting off firecrackers before the smoke bomb. Why didn't anyone go grab them and give them a serious scare? Maybe if there was a $5000 reward, people would have been more inclined to do so.

[jley]

The Federal Criminal Code already provides substantial penalties for damage to or destruction of Federal property. Under the general damage section 18 USC 1361 a fine of up to $250,000 may be imposed and imprisonment of up to 10 years. In the case of arson 18 USC 81 provides for imprisonment of up to 25 years and a fine of up to the cost of restoring the property.
Many criminologists believe the harsh penalties do not deter criminals because the criminals do not think they will be caught. Whether or not they are effective, the harsh penalties probably make the public at large feel better.
As far as signs are concerned, promoting the sale of Smokey Bear T shirts might be worthwhile.

D&D-at-Foggy-Flat.jpg-red.jpg

What you stated is exactly part of the problem.

First - a fine up to $250,000... that's meaningless. It implies the minimum is $0. Nobody thinks they're going to start such a large fire they'll be subject that fine. I'm suggesting fines of $5000 for simply doing something reckless that doesn't even result in a wildfire. Start a campfire in a prohibited time/area, and $5000 fine - don't care if you had a fire extinguisher at the ready.

In addition, the penalties are not well-known or advertised. It needs to be explained in as few words as possible right where people need to be reminded of it.

As for criminals not thinking they'll be caught... that's the point of the reward.

Also, I like Smokey Bear, but I don't think it's effective. Smokey is all happy. Fire is horrible and destructive. The message needs to match the reality. While Smokey Bear is a very identifiable character, I question how effective it is at educating and ultimately changing behaviors to prevent wildfire. Sure, keep him around for nostalgia, but we need to do more.

[BigBear]

No amount of signage or fines can stop bad behavior if the threat of consequence is not enforced often and publicly.

It is posted everywhere that fireworks are illegal all of the time in national forests, national parks, national monuments and wildlife refuges. The signage had no impact on preventing either Eagle Creek fire this summer, even 60 days after the first fire broke out at Indian Creek. It's amazing to anyone with a positive IQ how a 2nd fireworks fire could have resulted after the first fire had closed the trail at 4-Mile Bridge. It truly boggles the mind.

In the current case, I hope authorities aren't conned by the "not me" denial.