Can someone explain why the Fire Danger map doesn't dictate lifting the ORV ban?

[JIL_24/7]

Hi,
Just curious other's thoughts on this. The webpage for BC Fire Danger says, "The computer-based CFFDRS is the primary fire management decision aid in Canada. With it, fire managers can assess the potential for ignition, spread and burning intensity. This information is used for making fire prevention, preparedness and suppression decisions, as well as other general fire management decisions." However, the map in recent days has drastically changed and shows the vast majority of the Cariboo is moderate to very low fire danger with no areas in the "extreme". If this CFFDRS model is the primary decision aid then what is holding up lifting the ban? I am not a conspiracy theorist by nature, but this feels like maybe there is more to it than science. I am more than happy to be corrected if I am missing something. Just trying to understand. If you would like to check the website here is the link:
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/sa...us/fire-danger

[rimfire]

EDIT: Double post.

[rimfire]

Hi,
Just curious other's thoughts on this. The webpage for BC Fire Danger says, "The computer-based CFFDRS is the primary fire management decision aid in Canada. With it, fire managers can assess the potential for ignition, spread and burning intensity. This information is used for making fire prevention, preparedness and suppression decisions, as well as other general fire management decisions." However, the map in recent days has drastically changed and shows the vast majority of the Cariboo is moderate to very low fire danger with no areas in the "extreme". If this CFFDRS model is the primary decision aid then what is holding up lifting the ban? I am not a conspiracy theorist by nature, but this feels like maybe there is more to it than science. I am more than happy to be corrected if I am missing something. Just trying to understand. If you would like to check the website here is the link:
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/sa...us/fire-danger

Governments are quick to react and slow to act. Give it time. Also, check out the listing under "low":

"Fires may start easily and spread quickly but there will be minimal involvement of deeper fuel layers or larger fuels."

Even "Low" is still a decent risk of fire.

[JIL_24/7]

Agreed, however, there is no lower rating than "Low". I would be really curious if someone could find the data for last September and compare it to the current conditions. Like I said, I'm not throwing a fit here, I am just trying to understand the rationale at this point. If the ban is being left in place because of external pressures and concerns over the moose hunt as has been insinuated by some government officials then let's deal with that. I just prefer transparency. I am trying to find the quote I am referring to, but it was along the lines of, "the moose are good, especially since there are restrictions in place (including UTV), if those restrictions were to be lifted then we would re-evaluate the moose hunt". To me that's a veiled sentiment saying that they are also attempting to protect moose numbers by keeping the ban on. And yes I have more skin in the game as we have a draw in September, so I clearly see my own bias in all of this, but how will those with October draws feel if the fire danger remains appropriate for UTV use and the ban continues?

[rimfire]

Agreed, however, there is no lower rating than "Low". I would be really curious if someone could find the data for last September and compare it to the current conditions. Like I said, I'm not throwing a fit here, I am just trying to understand the rationale at this point. If the ban is being left in place because of external pressures and concerns over the moose hunt as has been insinuated by some government officials then let's deal with that. I just prefer transparency. I am trying to find the quote I am referring to, but it was along the lines of, "the moose are good, especially since there are restrictions in place (including UTV), if those restrictions were to be lifted then we would re-evaluate the moose hunt". To me that's a veiled sentiment saying that they are also attempting to protect moose numbers by keeping the ban on. And yes I have more skin in the game as we have a draw in September, so I clearly see my own bias in all of this, but how will those with October draws feel if the fire danger remains appropriate for UTV use and the ban continues?

Technically, there is a "very low" but they do not explain it.

[srupp]

Hmm Pm sent on time and date of atv ban removal.
Cheers
Srupp

[Dougielightning]

I've been looking hard online for any indication of this ban being lifted. Is there something online in regards to this happening, thanks in advance .

[Pemby_mess]

To my knowledge, these kind of rating systems contain connotations wrt both risk probability and risk consequence. Generally weather conditions and fuel status would escalate both variables simultaneously. However, often one could see a situation where the probability of ignition goes low, yet the expected fire intensity remains high. It's reasonable to ascertain that is where we are now.

The danger scale is only a rough guide with regard to what one expects to see for potential fire behavior. Management decisions have to incorporate all the details that may not be reflected in that rough guide.

[butthead]

well the state of emergency is lifted
but now word from any gov agency as to weather the bush is open to quading yet

[swampdonkey]

As of noon tomorrow it has been lifted in kamloops area