Lower North Fork Fire & Prescribed Fire Review

19 Apr 2012 10:36 #291 by jf1acai

I have this little app on my phone called WeatherBug. For pretty much the entire month of March it was sending me "Fire Weather" warnings. And I'm thinking to myself, "wow, this app has an incredible grasp of the obvious." Never underestimate the power of power to nullify an innate grasp of the obvious.


The Fire Weather Watch which became a Red Flag Warning for 3/26 was the first fire weather advisory issued by the National Weather Service which included the area of the LNF Fire in 2012.

There had been many advisories issued, but they did not apply to the area of the prescribed burn.

Experience enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again - Jeanne Pincha-Tulley

Comprehensive is Latin for there is lots of bad stuff in it - Trey Gowdy

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 Apr 2012 12:00 #292 by ScienceChic

homeagain wrote: INPUT on last nite's meeting with the officials?........anyone care to share their impressions of the meeting?

As netdude succinctly and perfectly put it last night, it was a whole lot of them covering their butts. My video is still processing, I'll get it uploaded as soon as I can, sorry for the delay.

It was pretty amazing though, at February's meeting, there were 62 people and I was the only one with a video camera. Last night, it was standing room only, with well over 175 people there, and I had 1 of 7 cameras - Channel 7, News 4, Fox 31 were there among others, as were state reps, state senators, Sheriff Ted Mink, and Elk Creek Fire Dept. Quite the show.

"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 Apr 2012 12:58 #293 by Photo-fish

Science Chic wrote: Last night, it was standing room only,


Ther was one empty seat next to me. :wink:

´¯`•.. ><((((º>`•´¯`•...¸><((((º> ´¯`•.. ><((((º>`´¯`•...¸><((((º>´¯`•.. ><((((º>`•´¯`•...¸><((((º> ´¯`•.. ><((((º>`•.´¯`•...¸><((((º>

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 Apr 2012 13:26 #294 by ScienceChic

Photo-fish wrote:

Science Chic wrote: Last night, it was standing room only,


Ther was one empty seat next to me. :wink:

Yeah, but who'd want to sit by you? :Whistle :wink:

lol :jk2: :wave: I had a big ole tripod, I couldn't...

"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 Apr 2012 14:12 #295 by CC
Could someone please explain to me how they were criminally negligent.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 Apr 2012 14:38 #296 by Beeks
"A person acts with criminal negligence when, through a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise, he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur or that a circumstance exists."

In short, they weren't. Not the popular view for sure......

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 Apr 2012 14:53 #297 by akilina
From wikipedia

In criminal law, criminal negligence is one of the three general classes of mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") element required to constitute a conventional as opposed to strict liability offense. It is defined as an act that is:

careless, inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or in the case of gross negligence what would have been reckless in any other defendant.


Sorry beeks, don't think so. They are liable. Careless, Inattentive, Neglectful, Willfully blind. By their own admissions they failed to send a person out on the 3rd day when their protocols called for it. They failed to check weather and have a sufficient number of people on Monday when they knew that high winds were expected.

Jeffco Sheriff is also liable. They failed to give proper notice to 278 people with reverse 911. They failed to assess the situation and to listen to the fire chief when he called for Type 3 team. There are so many failures.

If any individual did what they did they would be found grossly negligent.

There are so many failures, call it the perfect storm, or whatever crap you want to call it, it doesn't relieve liability. We did our very best. As Netdude said in another post (paraphrasing) - your very best got 3 people killed and 27 structures burnt not to mention all the other people impacted.

All they are trying to do is cover their backsides. So far it only looks like it is pissing people off.

IN NOVEMBER 2014, WE HAVE A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAN OUT THE ENTIRE HOUSE AND ONE-THIRD OF THE SENATE! DONT BLOW IT!

“When white man find land, Indians running it, no taxes, no debt, plenty buffalo, plenty beaver, clean water. Women did all the work, Medicine man free. Indian man spend all day hunting and fishing; all night having sex. Only whit man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that.” Indian Chief Two Eagles

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 Apr 2012 15:07 #298 by Beeks
Civilly perhaps, but I doubt anyone could make a criminal case out of it. I'm no attorney, nor are most folks on here, I guess we'll see what happens. I certainly don't dismiss the pain and suffering of any of these folks, what happened was a tragedy of the greatest degree.

On the subject of CYA, I don't see it. CYA implies that they're lying, or at least hiding the truth. I don't think there's some grand conspiracy. They f'ed up, they've said so for the most part.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 Apr 2012 15:49 #299 by ScienceChic
Whew. The video is finally done processing. It's posted in the meeting announcement thread here and I've got time stamps so you can forward to the part you want to see most.

"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 Apr 2012 16:03 #300 by homeagain

Becky wrote: Everyone take your blood pressure meds....We are in for a bumpy ride.

On Oct. 13, as firefighters built a blackened line meant to contain a controlled burn, embers jumped a road and sparked a small fire.

The crew had it contained within 10 minutes, but it should have left a lasting impression, according to the head of a team that reviewed what happened: The topography made this a potential trouble spot when it came time for the burn itself, especially if winds kicked up.

Yet the Forest Service sent only a three-person crew to patrol the perimeter of the 50-acre burn area on the day it jumped the line, even though a red-flag warning had been issued the previous afternoon.

The firefighters on site were busy with two other spot fires that escaped elsewhere, the report said. By the time the incident commander spotted heavy smoke near the site of the October fire and found another one burning there, his rig was out of water.


http://www.denverpost.com/investigation ... north-fork

Jeffco release report on Lower North Fork Fire

"The reports confirm previous assumptions that a prescribed burn conducted by the Colorado State Forest Service caused the fire. Based on the review of all available documents and witness interviews, it was determined that the CSFS followed or exceeded the parameters set by the Lower North Fork burn plan, and that no criminal violation of the Colorado Revised Statutes occurred," the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office said.

However, a report by the governor's office, released on Monday, showed that the state forest service violated its own burn plan by not patrolling the area of the controlled burn on Sunday -- the day before the controlled burn blew up into the Lower North Fork Fire.


http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/30 ... etail.html

WTH

Would someone please explain to me,the apparent discrepancy within the red bolded quote........it appears 180 out from the previous
findings......you can NOT meet/or exceed and STILL not follow protocol....WTH?????

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.297 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
sponsors
© My Mountain Town (new)
Google+