[ACCEPTED] A Hot Topic

by **The Atlae Isles** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 11:06 pm

Description: After the forestry department of @@NAME@@ started its controversial program of "controlled burns" - intentionally setting parts of forests ablaze to clear brush - it nearly sparked an evacuation of northwest @@CAPITAL@@. Many whose homes were in the path have come to your office with a burning intensity about this.

Validity: Those who selected Option #3 in Issue #628

[option]"I just don't see why this is an issue," yawns an official in the Forestry Department @@RANDOMNAME@@, casually lighting a cigarette with a disposable lighter. "Controlled burns are a proven way to reduce fires and a cheap way to do it, too. Fires are totally a natural part of the ecosystem, and we simply are making sure it doesn't get out of hand. So what if @@CAPITAL@@ almost got burned? We'll get better, I promise."
[effect]you've never lived in @@NAME@@ unless you've smelled smoke

[option]"You can't do this!" coughs @@RANDOMNAME@@, an environmental activist who was in your office last year protesting for animal welfare, eyeing the candle on your desk nervously. "The smoke from these controlled burns is just making more air pollution and inflaming my bronchitis. But besides that, those bumbling amateurs in red almost burnt my home down! Stop this so-called 'controlled burns' program and go back to actually fighting fires."
[effect]the @@DENONYM@@ Fire Department has been dubbed "the @@DENONYM@@ Water Delivery Company"

[option]"You know what's better than that? A compromise!" exclaims land developer and obsessive chainsaw salesman @@RANDOMNAME@@. "All you need to do is remove those small and non-merchantable trees by hand with chainsaws. It'll be expensive and not as natural, sure, but it leaves the forest there and it gets rid of the fuel for the fires, and there's no smoke! Do we have a deal?"
[effect]"the Sound of Chainsaws" has become a popular movie in @@NAME@@

Description: After the fire department of @@NAME@@ started its controversial program of "controlled burns" - intentionally setting parts of forests ablaze to clear brush - many, including pyrophobes and pyromaniacs, have come to your office to either come to a solution or burn down your office.

Validity: Those who selected Option #3 in Issue #628

[option]"I frankly do not see the fuss about this." Says notable pyrophobe and @@CAPITAL@@ Fire Chief @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Controlled burns are a proven way to reduce fires, regardless of being counter-intuitive. Clearing brush will decrease the amount of fires. Now excuse me, I have to discuss this building's evacuation procedures."
[effect]@@DENONYMPEOPLEPLURAL@@ scratch their heads wondering why the fire department is setting things on fire.

[option]"This is government-sanctioned arson!" Cries notable rancher, @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@. "If the gov't won't let me set a fire on my land, then the gov't shouldn't be allowed to set fire at all! The fire department is for extinguishing fires and that's it!" He then proceeds to light a cigarette, and drop it on the carpet. He quickly picks it up back again before the Fire Chief could reprimand him.
[effect]The fire department has been reduced to a water brigade.

[option]Coughing from the smoke, old man @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@ speaks up. "Why do we need a fire department to fight against forest fires? The simple solution is to log the forests. No forest fires, and we bring jobs to @@NAME@@. It's that simple." He coughs again and leaves the office quickly.
[effect]Forests have been something in the places of childrens' and history books.

[option]Suddenly, you smell smoke, and the fire alarm rings. Your frantic aide, @@RANDOMNAMEFEMALE@@ runs to you and says, "Forget forest fires! People die in domestic fires, and we need to get them out! Now hurry! This building is on fire! Run! Run! Run! Get out!" She takes a fire extinguisher and puts out the blaze that was once a lamp. "That was just one of them. Single file, please."
[effect]Every firefighter fighting forest fires were redirected to @@LEADER@@'s house.

by **Australian rePublic** » Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:12 am

Very very interesting concept. Here in Australia, we have controlled burns. Where are the environmentalists?

by **Trotterdam** » Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:28 am

The Atlae Isles wrote:[option]"I frankly do not see the fuss about this." Says notable pyrophobe and @@CAPITAL@@ Fire Chief @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Controlled burns are a proven way to reduce fires, regardless of being counter-intuitive. Clearing brush will decrease the amount of fires. Now excuse me, I have to discuss this building's evacuation procedures."
[effect]@@DENONYMPEOPLEPLURAL@@ scratch their heads wondering why the fire department is setting things on fire.

That doesn't seem right. A pyrophobe would be someone who is uncomfortable of setting anything on fire for any reason, even when it's known from experience to be a good idea.

Meawhile, the pyromaniacs you promised never showed up.

The Atlae Isles wrote:[effect]Forests have been something in the places of childrens' and history books.

Children's books? That gives me an idea:
[effect]more people believe in unicorns than in the forests they are said to live in

by **The Atlae Isles** » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:30 am

Australian Republic wrote:Very very interesting concept. Here in Australia, we have controlled burns. Where are the environmentalists?

Well, this is @@NAME@@. Personally, I like controlled burns, but some countries don't really fund controlled burns.

Trotterdam wrote:
The Atlae Isles wrote:[option]"I frankly do not see the fuss about this." Says notable pyrophobe and @@CAPITAL@@ Fire Chief @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Controlled burns are a proven way to reduce fires, regardless of being counter-intuitive. Clearing brush will decrease the amount of fires. Now excuse me, I have to discuss this building's evacuation procedures."
[effect]@@DENONYMPEOPLEPLURAL@@ scratch their heads wondering why the fire department is setting things on fire.
That doesn't seem right. A pyrophobe would be someone who is uncomfortable of setting anything on fire for any reason, even when it's known from experience to be a good idea.

Meawhile, the pyromaniacs you promised never showed up.

Shoot, I forgot that! I'll put it in.

The Atlae Isles wrote:[effect]Forests have been something in the places of childrens' and history books.
Children's books? That gives me an idea:
[effect]more people believe in unicorns than in the forests they are said to live in

Maybe. What about @@ANIMAL@@? Because that certainly exists, but that's what we use for animals.

by **Trotterdam** » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:47 am

The Atlae Isles wrote:Maybe. What about @@ANIMAL@@? Because that certainly exists, but that's what we use for animals.

We have issues about specific animals, like sharks. Using @@ANIMAL@@ in weird places can be funny, but this isn't the right time for it.

'Course, I'm one of the unusual nations where unicorns aren't so mythical, but I can't expect issues to acknowledge that.

by **Ransium** » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:34 pm

This is a topic I'm very passionate and knowledgeable about. I know too much detail does not make for great issue fodder, but I suggest you try your best to integrate my comments in the best way you can. I will not let an issue on prescribed fire come out that isn't well-steeped in the facts.

Description: After the fire department of @@NAME@@ started its controversial program of "controlled burns" - intentionally setting parts of forests ablaze to clear brush - many, including pyrophobes and pyromaniacs, have come to your office to either come to a solution or burn down your office.

Fire departments typically wouldn't be in charge of prescribed fires (I'm going to abbreviate this term to RXN fire throughout my comments), Forestry Departments would. 628-3 makes it clear it would be Forestry department's domain. Personally, I think a much more interesting spark for this issue would be a controlled burn that got out of control and became a wild fire. There have been numerous examples of this in the past in the US, including a time or two that got congressional review. I'm not going to keep commenting on it but the mashing of city fire departments and RXN fire is irksome to me, because typically these folks wouldn't have the training or tools necessary for RXN fire.

Validity: Those who selected Option #3 in Issue #628

Thanks for thinking of an issue I authored (though I know Trotterdam told you to do it)

[option]"I frankly do not see the fuss about this." Says notable pyrophobe and @@CAPITAL@@ Fire Chief @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Controlled burns are a proven way to reduce fires, regardless of being counter-intuitive. Clearing brush will decrease the amount of fires. Now excuse me, I have to discuss this building's evacuation procedures."

Generally when prescribed fire is used, it is done so because the ecosystem is one that is highly adapted to and even dependent on fire disturbance to function (ie plants that can't reproduce without fire). It's okay to mention the counter intuitive nature of RXN fire but you dwell on it far too much considering how much of interest there is about it. Other upsides are: it also can be a fairly cheap way to reduce fuel hazards over a large area, it can be focused on removing small trees and ground fuels which aren't merchantable in a logging mill sense, and it has the mystic of being 'natural' (particularly in ecosystems that are adapted to frequent fire) and therefore often supported by environmental groups.

[option]"This is government-sanctioned arson!" Cries notable rancher, @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@. "If the gov't won't let me set a fire on my land, then the gov't shouldn't be allowed to set fire at all! The fire department is for extinguishing fires and that's it!" He then proceeds to light a cigarette, and drop it on the carpet. He quickly picks it up back again before the Fire Chief could reprimand him.

As I mentioned earlier I think an escaped fire is the most interesting down side. Other potential downsides are: air pollution (this is a big one, which 628 cited as a much problem with wildfire in the first place), that potential timber is going to uneconomical use, that precious fire-fighting resources are being used for this end, and depending on the legal review process that it can be very expensive

[option]Coughing from the smoke, old man @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@ speaks up. "Why do we need a fire department to fight against forest fires? The simple solution is to log the forests. No forest fires, and we bring jobs to @@NAME@@. It's that simple." He coughs again and leaves the office quickly.

Not a fan of this option, it's pretty much a rehash of 628-1, nations receiving this issue already chose 628-3. In reality the sort of trees your typically going to target with your standard RXN fire are going to be sub-merchantable size trees anyway. You might think about making this into starting a biomass power plant and using these small trees to generate power.

[option]Suddenly, you smell smoke, and the fire alarm rings. Your frantic aide, @@RANDOMNAMEFEMALE@@ runs to you and says, "Forget forest fires! People die in domestic fires, and we need to get them out! Now hurry! This building is on fire! Run! Run! Run! Get out!" She takes a fire extinguisher and puts out the blaze that was once a lamp. "That was just one of them. Single file, please."

Not a fan of this option at all. It's barely lucid, it's not really clear what is being advocated in terms of policy, and there are already at least three issues that deal with city fire fighting/the after effects of city fire.

by **Trotterdam** » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:51 pm

Ransium wrote:Fire departments typically wouldn't be in charge of prescribed fires (I'm going to abbreviate this term to RXN fire throughout my comments),

How does "prescribed fire" abbreviate to "RXN fire"? How often does anything abbreviate to an "X"?

Ransium wrote:Generally when prescribed fire is used, it is done so because the ecosystem is one that is highly adapted to and even dependent on fire disturbance to function (ie plants that can't reproduce without fire). It's okay to mention the counter intuitive nature of RXN fire but you dwell on it far too much considering how much of interest there is about it. Other upsides are: it also can be a fairly cheap way to reduce fuel hazards over a large area, it can be focused on removing small trees and ground fuels which aren't merchantable in a logging mill sense, and it has the mystic of being 'natural' (particularly in ecosystems that are adapted to frequent fire) and therefore often supported by environmental groups.

I'm wondering, what is the effect of forest fires on the animals in the forest, rather than the plants?

~~PETA~~PETE-like groups might not be happy about letting a bunch of squirrels get burned alive, even if you assure them that it'll help the next generation of squirrels prosper in a healthier habitat.

Ransium wrote:As I mentioned earlier I think an escaped fire is the most interesting down side. Other potential downsides are: air pollution (this is a big one, which 628 cited as a much problem with wildfire in the first place),

Also look at #685, which looks at the air pollution from another perspective.

Ransium wrote:that potential timber is going to uneconomical use,

Ransium wrote:Not a fan of this option, it's pretty much a rehash of 628-1, nations receiving this issue already chose 628-3. In reality the sort of trees your typically going to target with your standard RXN fire are going to be sub-merchantable size trees anyway.

Hmm? So do loggers want these trees or not? Are you saying they want to wait and log 'em when they're bigger?

by **Ransium** » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:54 pm

Also the subject is fire and that's the best title you can come up with?

Some of these might overlap with existing issues:
burning questions
A hot topic
Forest management causes firey debate
Prescribe fire heats up debate
Adding fire to the fuel

by **Ransium** » Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:01 pm

Trotterdam wrote:How does "prescribed fire" abbreviate to "RXN fire"? How often does anything abbreviate to an "X"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rx I don't know why there's an N at the end. I didn't make it up!

Trotterdam wrote:I'm wondering, what is the effect of forest fires on the animals in the forest, rather than the plants?

Not my specialty, but since RXN fire are not typically as hot and fast moving as wildfire charismatic ones would be able to get away. Small ones not so much maybe. But anything in a fire adapted ecosystem should have some defense mechanisms

Trotterdam wrote:Hmm? So do loggers want these trees or not? Are you saying they want to wait and log 'em when they're bigger?

I don't have time to answer your question in-depth. I will say that's part of it and also depends on how hot the RXN fire is supposed to be.

by **The Atlae Isles** » Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:39 pm

Ransium wrote:-snip-

Acknowledged. Will get to work on that.

Ransium wrote:Also the subject is fire and that's the best title you can come up with?

Some of these might overlap with existing issues:
burning questions
A hot topic
Forest management causes firey debate
Prescribe fire heats up debate
Adding fire to the fuel

lol that's actually a point. I am bad at titles, though. I like "Adding fire to the fuel" and "A hot topic."

by **Australian rePublic** » Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 pm

How about "@@NAME@@ on fire!"

by **Trotterdam** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:44 am

Ransium wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rx I don't know why there's an N at the end. I didn't make it up!

Hmm. It looks like RXN is a forced abbreviation of "reaction". Which still doesn't explain what it has to do with prescriptions, in either medicine or forestry.

by **Emericia** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:55 am

Ransium wrote:Fire departments typically wouldn't be in charge of prescribed fires (I'm going to abbreviate this term to RXN fire throughout my comments), Forestry Departments would. 628-3 makes it clear it would be Forestry department's domain. Personally, I think a much more interesting spark for this issue would be a controlled burn that got out of control and became a wild fire. There have been numerous examples of this in the past in the US, including a time or two that got congressional review. I'm not going to keep commenting on it but the mashing of city fire departments and RXN fire is irksome to me, because typically these folks wouldn't have the training or tools necessary for RXN fire.

This is dependent on the country you live in. Where I live the bush fire brigade performs all control burns.

by **The Grim Reaper** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:06 am

Trotterdam wrote:
Ransium wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rx I don't know why there's an N at the end. I didn't make it up!
Hmm. It looks like RXN is a forced abbreviation of "reaction". Which still doesn't explain what it has to do with prescriptions, in either medicine or forestry.

Literally none of this is actually relevant to the draft, though. Long story short, "Rx fire" means "(you are) to take fire", or rather, "a prescribed fire". "Rxn fire" is intended to change the tense of the verb such that "Rxn fire" becomes "a prescription fire".

Abbreviation is not appropriate for the issue, probably, though. "Prescribed fire", no matter what the tense, is probably not mainstreamed enough to use on its own, let alone in the abbreviated form. Now that we've cleared that up, though, Ransium and all those so inclined can continue to use "Rxn fire" and "Rx fire" to their heart's content and be confident that I put far too much time into writing up what is at most an extraneous description of a minor quibble.

Emericia wrote:
Ransium wrote:Fire departments typically wouldn't be in charge of prescribed fires (I'm going to abbreviate this term to RXN fire throughout my comments), Forestry Departments would. 628-3 makes it clear it would be Forestry department's domain. Personally, I think a much more interesting spark for this issue would be a controlled burn that got out of control and became a wild fire. There have been numerous examples of this in the past in the US, including a time or two that got congressional review. I'm not going to keep commenting on it but the mashing of city fire departments and RXN fire is irksome to me, because typically these folks wouldn't have the training or tools necessary for RXN fire.

This is dependent on the country you live in. Where I live the bush fire brigade performs all control burns.

Rural fire brigades, in countries that have them, are often responsible for the infrastructure and assets necessary in /performing/ the controlled burns, yes, but they don't often have decision making authority. That's usually left to Departments of Forestry or Parks or Environment or Land Management. In some rural areas, it is possible for local authorities (Fire Marshals, for example) to authorize private burning-off as well - which tend to be the ones that, in the USA, get out of hand.

@Author:

Is the use of "gov't" as an abbreviation meant to represent an accent, or just a shortening for the purposes of writing? In the first case, I'm not quite clear on how that would be pronounced - nor what accent it would represent - and in the second case, it's a bit impolite to the editor who would go through and lengthen it. Can we get some clarification?

by **Ransium** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:20 am

Thanks for clearing that up! To be clear I wasn't advocating putting the RXN in the draft I was just abbreviating because I was trying to get all my comments in during my lunch.

Re: jurisdiction - Always interested in how fire is managed in other places, my experiences are very much colored by western US land management. I think given this is a follow up issue though, there is no debate, the original makes it clear it's forestry department jurisdiction in this nation.

by **Annihilators of Chan Island** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:23 am

I'm disappointed there wasn't any nutty pyromaniacs in this issue that want to set everything they possibly could on fire. You promised them, but didn't deliver them. I have no words.

by **Australian rePublic** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:19 pm

Annihilators of Chan Island wrote:I'm disappointed there wasn't any nutty pyromaniacs in this issue that want to set everything they possibly could on fire. You promised them, but didn't deliver them. I have no words.

This

by **The Atlae Isles** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:07 pm

I'm sorry, I was busy. I will get to the pyromaniacs as soon as I can.

Emericia wrote:
Ransium wrote:Fire departments typically wouldn't be in charge of prescribed fires (I'm going to abbreviate this term to RXN fire throughout my comments), Forestry Departments would. 628-3 makes it clear it would be Forestry department's domain. Personally, I think a much more interesting spark for this issue would be a controlled burn that got out of control and became a wild fire. There have been numerous examples of this in the past in the US, including a time or two that got congressional review. I'm not going to keep commenting on it but the mashing of city fire departments and RXN fire is irksome to me, because typically these folks wouldn't have the training or tools necessary for RXN fire.

This is dependent on the country you live in. Where I live the bush fire brigade performs all control burns.

So...you know what, I'll get to work on this tomorrow. Sorry for the delay...I'll just change fire department to Forestry Department anyway, though.

by **The Atlae Isles** » Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:36 am

Second draft bump.

by **Australian rePublic** » Mon Apr 24, 2017 2:56 pm

I would still add the environmentalist complaining about the fires. In the description, I would change @@CAPITAL@@ to the western part of @@NAME@@. Apparently, from what I've read online, these kinds of ecosystems exist in the west of continents more than the east

by **The Atlae Isles** » Mon Apr 24, 2017 4:28 pm

Australian Republic wrote:I would still add the environmentalist complaining about the fires. In the description, I would change @@CAPITAL@@ to the western part of @@NAME@@. Apparently, from what I've read online, these kinds of ecosystems exist in the west of continents more than the east

Controlled burns, from what I've read, are conducted everywhere, not just in ecosystems described.

Personally, I don't think an environmentalist complaining about the fires would be in order. One could always choose Option 2, which I think would be in the more anti-controlled burn environmentalist stance. (No air pollution also means no mining, yadda yadda)

by **Ransium** » Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:06 pm

From a scientific perspective it's an improvement. I still dislike 3 as it's covering ground already tread by the parent issue and would certainly cut it. None of the effects lines are currently keepers although that's pretty standard (you shouldn't capitalize the first word, FYI). I think more policy needs to be recommended 1) should explicitly enhance the amount of or lessen the environmental planning needed for fire 2) might propose doing the work with chainsaws or an extremely aggressive fire fighting policy 4) is probably fine but personally I would say something like let's remove all restrictions on arson or something. Overall a bit more humor, perhaps in the dialogue tags for 1&2 would help as well.

by **The Atlae Isles** » Thu May 18, 2017 8:22 pm

Another draft bump.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Fri May 19, 2017 1:54 am

Why bump without acknowledging or acting on the comments made since your last post? It doesn't exactly encourage feedback if your'e not going to listen to that feedback.

by **The Atlae Isles** » Fri May 19, 2017 7:23 am

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Why bump without acknowledging or acting on the comments made since your last post? It doesn't exactly encourage feedback if your'e not going to listen to that feedback.

But I did listen to Ransium. I cut #3 (which was about cutting down all the trees) and added a few things. (Although, I accidentally deleted my second draft while editing so I can't tell either)

[ACCEPTED] A Hot Topic

[ACCEPTED] A Hot Topic

Who is online