I'm calling out CPW, change my mind

[GilligansWorld]

I have tried hard to think of a way in which this comparison is unfair, but the more I think about it, the more apt the comparison shows itself to be. This argument is like arguing drunk driving should be legal; both in the depth of its irresponsibility and the breadth of either ignorance or callouses disregard for ones fellow citizens.

This is a very good analogy -

It's encouraging to see that someone get this thank you!

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

 

[ScottB]

Here’s a link to a last minute closure to a few swa. The statement claims high fire danger but there’s not a fire close enough for concern. If there was a threatening fire why is there not an evacuation notice for residents? Also a snow storm is coming in 24 hours. I call bs, change my mind. https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pag...VvzJ4az3Z_-Q7hOhWeKWpBgKROGcX8aJndKAuvBnxk5uk

High fire danger does not always mean a fire is near. It just means the area and fuels are ready to burn. The AHJ uses drought conditions, fuel moistures, weather (current and forecast), and many other factors to determine fire danger. The state as a whole is in drought conditions and has seen the #2 driest years on record.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

A couple of weeks ago I was doing a black bear hunt in northern AZ. Fire restrictions were in-place so no camp fires. Every night you'd see a string of camp fires despite the restrictions. Couldn't get the Forestry Service out to bust them since they stop working at 5 PM due to COVID. Further compounding the issue was the sheer volume of trash that folks left behind.

My advice: place the blame on the idiots who are camping/hunting/hiking/shooting/etc that are too dense to follow the rules and not the bureaucrats the come up with the rules.

 

[spike camp]

A couple of weeks ago I was doing a black bear hunt in northern AZ. Fire restrictions were in-place so no camp fires. Every night you'd see a string of camp fires despite the restrictions. Couldn't get the Forestry Service out to bust them since they stop working at 5 PM due to COVID. Further compounding the issue was the sheer volume of trash that folks left behind.

My advice: place the blame on the idiots who are camping/hunting/hiking/shooting/etc that are too dense to follow the rules and not the bureaucrats the come up with the rules.

Lighting isn’t to blame for a lot of these fires.

It’s the hoards of disrespectful morons, that are the issue.
The officials are just doing what’s necessary.

 

[kid44]

If you hunt has been cancelled this year dur to the fires I am sorry. You can always hunt next year, regardless.
By having your hunt cancelled that means you may just live to hunt next year, and by live, I mean that literally.

 

[Bighorner]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was a refund offered in dollars and points if you drew a tag in this area. It's better than nothing if you feel the season is lost.

 

[Jethro]

I have tried hard to think of a way in which this comparison is unfair, but the more I think about it, the more apt the comparison shows itself to be. This argument is like arguing drunk driving should be legal; both in the depth of its irresponsibility and the breadth of either ignorance or callouses disregard for ones fellow citizens.

This is a very good analogy -

It's encouraging to see that someone get this thank you!

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

A more accurate analogy to this would be prohibiting everybody from driving because somebody may drive drunk.

Unfortunately you can't stop everyone from drinking and driving nor can you trust everyone to not build a fire when restrictions are in place. We end up all paying the price.

 

[Marbles]

A more accurate analogy to this would be prohibiting everybody from driving because somebody may drive drunk.

Unfortunately you can't stop everyone from drinking and driving nor can you trust everyone to not build a fire when restrictions are in place. We end up all paying the price.

I disagree. Closing areas when normally reasonable acts can start a fire (like a single shot from a rifle or sparks from a motor) prevents potential harm from people engaging in activities that may, or may not cause that harm. Just like a drunk driver may not kill anyone, but the risk has been deemed unacceptable by the majority of society. However, there are still people who argue that they are still safe to drive when above the legal limit and that exceptions should be carved out for them. Or, that they should only get in trouble if actually breaking other traffic laws. Yet, we still prohibit everyone from driving above that limit even though many chronic alcoholics actually are functional well above it (and some would even be in withdraw needing an ICU stay if they got down to the legal limit).

Prohibiting everyone from driving would be closer to permanently banning all outdoor recreation. You get closer to this with the hunter who misses his game animal at 300 yards and starts a fire that turns the whole place to ash,, depriving everyone else of its use, than you do with a temporary closure. Though this is still closer to a drunk driver causing a wreck that destroys an over pass than banning driving.

 

[Squincher]

I disagree. Closing areas when normally reasonable acts can start a fire (like a single shot from a rifle or sparks from a motor) prevents potential harm from people engaging in activities that may, or may not cause that harm. Just like a drunk driver may not kill anyone, but the risk has been deemed unacceptable by the majority of society. However, there are still people who argue that they are still safe to drive when above the legal limit and that exceptions should be carved out for them. Or, that they should only get in trouble if actually breaking other traffic laws. Yet, we still prohibit everyone from driving above that limit even though many chronic alcoholics actually are functional well above it (and some would even be in withdraw needing an ICU stay if they got down to the legal limit).

Prohibiting everyone from driving would be closer to permanently banning all outdoor recreation. You get closer to this with the hunter who misses his game animal at 300 yards and starts a fire that turns the whole place to ash,, depriving everyone else of its use, than you do with a temporary closure. Though this is still closer to a drunk driver causing a wreck that destroys an over pass than banning driving.

No, it's a stupid comparison. Drunk driving is always illegal and dangerous. A more apt comparison would be authorities closing a passable but snow covered highway because of the potential danger, thereby limiting access and use of public areas for which we have paid.

And SMH at the people who purposely live in poorly managed forest areas then cry for sympathy and concessions from everyone else when the predictable happens. You know you live in a potential tinderbox and stayed there.

 

[TheGDog]

Our “Rights” are not infinite- at times they are suspended for the safety of people around us.

You have freedom of speech but can’t yell fire in a crowded building because of the danger of panic.
A beach can be closed because of a riptide or algae bloom.
And a forest can be closed because of all the dangers that have been mentioned above.

It seems to me when some people go on and on about their rights they forget that rights come with responsibility. To themselves their neighbors and their fellow man. The forest is closed come help out or go hunt somewhere else or even stay home. It’s your choice you have that freedom.

In our crappy state (CA).... what upset me greatly is that they went and closed-down ALL the dang forests... Mine intended target was experiencing NO DIFFERENCE in conditions/temps/environment AND had NO FIRES going on in it! THAT was where my discontent lies.

THAT... was my problem when my state did that isht. IF they elected to disallow access to a forest which currently had a fire burning in it... I'd be upset... but I could at least understand that and wrap my head around it. (To some degree, it's big forest, and it's not like the whole damn thing can be burning at the same time.)

But this business of "Close 'Em All!!!" was just sheer massive laziness on their part. I'm sure they didn't want to have to deal with one section whining about why another section was allowed in. And to add to that... they don't reimburse for tags that have already been bought. So when they pulled this closure isht... it's like they're taking money out of my pocket, and in my case, with no fires there, nor any other change from normal, for no good reason.

Then... after they did allow us to go back in. They disallowed (and still are disallowing) disbursed camping. So that meant up at 3a drive out... hike in 6mi.... spend all day til PM... hike 6 back out... drive back home..... recup day.... then lather rinse repeat for the rest of that week I'd taken PTO for. That starts to take it's toll on ya when you've got some years on ya.

So anyhoo... this is where my contention with that type of notion comes in. When they just layout blanket statements like that which don't apply to all areas. Not cool.

 

[GilligansWorld]

Perhaps people aren't familiar with the geography of Colorado. Comments about having little compassion for people who live in dangerous areas.....

Fort Collins, where I'm from, sits along the I-25 corridor 60 mi north of Denver. If we didn't have the mountains to our west we would look a lot like what Nebraska and Kansas look like. We are basically situated on the steps of the Rockies - More planes than anything else.

I don't recall who made the comment but I am in no way shape or form living in a compromised area.

And even if I was - Even if I chose to make my home in an area such as red feather lakes - an area which has been evacuated - My house and my home and my safety Will always be more important and should carry much more significance than somebody's passion hobby if you will.

callus comments about not having any sympathy for people who have built homes in potentially compromised areas...... Brings my blood to boil. Entitlement makes you sound like a spoiled brat.

Empathy is the ability to put yourself in somebody else's shoes - and one of the comments that talked about pity not having a role here - empathy compassion and pity are absolutely necessary right now.

Vandy talking about how he lost I'm home in a hurricane? If I use the same mentality on vandy I would shame him for living in an area that could have potentially had a hurricane come through. I mean he must be stupid if he lives where a hurricane could come through in that frame of mind right?

No tragedy is tragedy empathy compassion and pity are always necessary regardless of how you got there.

Instead of trying to be divisive let's look for ways that we can be inclusive - I like the comments about donating time and effort towards volunteer fire departments. Those of you who don't have compassion probably should donate some of your time to a worthy cause and see a different chapter....



Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

 

[Billinsd]

Stay inside Gilligan, wear your mask Gilligan, dont go in the woods Gilligan...be a good boy, Gilligan.

"Gilligan go down to the shore, climb up a tree and look for icebergs!!" The skipper

 

[Marbles]

No, it's a stupid comparison. Drunk driving is always illegal and dangerous. A more apt comparison would be authorities closing a passable but snow covered highway because of the potential danger, thereby limiting access and use of public areas for which we have paid.

On the nature of the comparison we are not going to agree. However as I hold endangering public servants by driving on closed roads to be as reprehensible and illegal as drunk driving, I would agree with that comparison.

The public, through its duly appointed government has decided how it wants to use resources. We live in a constitutional republic, so the majority does not always win. However, in this case the constitution and the majority backs up the public representatives as there is a compelling public interest and less restrictive methods are unlikely to protect that interest.

And SMH at the people who purposely live in poorly managed forest areas then cry for sympathy and concessions from everyone else when the predictable happens. You know you live in a potential tinderbox and stayed there.

Entitlement drips very heavily from that statement.

 

[Billinsd]

The public, through its duly appointed government has decided how it wants to use resources. We live in a constitutional republic, so the majority does not always win. However, in this case the constitution and the majority backs up the public representatives.

as there is a compelling public interest and less restrictive methods are unlikely to protect....."

Absolutely for first block!! Second block, EH, maybe, maybe not and it doesn't matter much, burocrates cover their butts in California, maybe they are different in Colorado? With more and more droughts, more and more careless people and depending where you live, possibly over cautious burocrates managing our forests, this will be more and more common, as is happening. Where do you draw the line? That's the question. I don't know, but I certainly don't trust bureaucrats. Call me skeptical of anything and everything government. I'm sure glad we have a 2nd Amendment or else we would have more common sense and gun safety laws than we already have.

 

[Wapiti406]

A more accurate analogy to this would be prohibiting everybody from driving because somebody may drive drunk.

Unfortunately you can't stop everyone from drinking and driving nor can you trust everyone to not build a fire when restrictions are in place. We end up all paying the price.

I think a better analogy would be to compare the fire danger closures to low visibility closures of interstates and major highways during blizzards.

Nobody complains when the visibility is 40' and the overbearing government doesn't allow people to drive 10 mph down a road designed for people to drive 80. But, when it is drier than a popcorn fart and grass resting on an exhaust pipe for 60 seconds can start a forest fire; all a sudden peoples rights are being infringed upon?

 

[MattB]

Entitlement drips very heavily from that statement.

Indeed, we have increasingly seen that environmental conditions have caused areas which have not historically been threatened by wildfire to be at risk.

 

[Billinsd]

I think a better analogy would be to compare the fire danger closures to low visibility closures of interstates and major highways during blizzards.

Nobody complains when the visibility is 40' and the overbearing government doesn't allow people to drive 10 mph down a road designed for people to drive 80. But, when it is drier than a popcorn fart and grass resting on an exhaust pipe for 60 seconds can start a forest fire; all a sudden peoples rights are being infringed upon?

Neither driving or going into the woods is a Constitutional right. We elect politicians who appoint people who hire bureaucrats to manage the roads and the forests. I wouldn't want to go into the forest if it was actually dryer than a popcorn fart, people would probably self combust. I'd ask what criterion are burocrates using to close the forests? And how long have they been using this criterion? A week, a month, a year, ten years? If someone said the forest circus has been using the same criterion for decades to close the forests, I say wow, that's amazing and I'd back that. If the criterion get less and less to shut the forest down, like I imagine is happening, but could be completely wrong, I'd say hmm is that criterion too strick?

 

[Billinsd]

The "muh freedoms" crowd seems to forget the corollary to that- responsibility. Then again that's all part of the regression of Americans to a state of perpetual adolescence so it's to be expected...

The other extreme not questioning what our government is doing. I haven't read anyone saying their freedoms are being taken away, but could have missed that. It's a question of, are the burocrates over reacting. Seems like most here don't think so. I don't know, but don't trust burocrates.

 

[Stalker69]

Stay inside Gilligan, wear your mask Gilligan, dont go in the woods Gilligan...be a good boy, Gilligan.

The OPs post referenced several NFs closed that have ZERO fires burning in them. Zip, nada. zilch. I have no problem shutting down access to areas actually affected by fires. Dont give me your BS guilt trip by trying to say that because I oppose arbitrarily closing down NFs that I somehow don't feel for those who have been effected by tragedy.

Dude, your not the only one effected by this. Many are, if you don’t like it hunt else where. It’s not like you were asked to grace forests with your presents. No one will miss you this year nor any year after.

 

[Billinsd]

Blows my mind how some could careless for others because they want to do what they want. Maybe if people weren’t so dumb and starting fires or tossing cigarettes and used some common sense then it wouldn’t be an issue, unfortunately that isn’t our society.

This isn’t a political loss of right issue, it’s a lack of decency and respect for others issue. If my hunt gets canceled it gets canceled, not the end of the world.

Do you question government? If the evidence is overwhelming and it sounds like everyone agrees, good deal. People are getting dumber and dumber, is locking everything down because of them a good idea? A better argument is the forest is super dry and it's virtually impossible that someone intentionally, carelessly, or not carelessly could set off a giant fire and we don't want to risk that?