Forest Fires: Planned Ignition versus Planned Cuts

I just want to reiterate the obvious. We've talked about how BC's response to fighting forest fires has changed for the worse and how it is difficult to believe that these changes are simply negligence. It's hard to believe it's not intentional since they coincide with the WEF agenda.

Two examples that come to mind this summer are the Shuswap fire and the Kelowna fire. The Shuswap fire was made much worse by a planned ignition and the Kelowna fire never should have got that close to the town. It's on a lake. Water bombers can fill up right there. The NDP's negligence in that fire looked like they were simply trying to burn down a rival riding.

Two years ago the local media asked why giant water bombers were sitting idle while BC burns. Then the BC NDP responded with their ridiculous rationalization. They said we need smaller planes and helicopters that are more maneuverable. That is insane. Maneuverability has nothing to do with it. When you fight a fire the more water the better. A helicopter with a bucket is not it.

When you're fighting a fire which is better. Throwing a single bucket of water or turning on a fire hose? The fact that the BC NDP is refusing to use the large water bombers and put them up for sale is a scandal far worse than fast ferries. Using helicopters to light fires is another aspect of it.

Let's talk about planned ignition. The theory is, if you set a fire on the outskirts of a fire, by the time the original fire gets there it will be out of fuel and have nothing to burn. However, there is an inherit problem with that theory.

Let's do the math. Say we have a fire moving south. We light a fire south of that fire so it will run out of fuel when it gets to that point. Why is the fire moving south? It is because the wind is blowing south. If we light a fire south of that fire, why would that fire move north? It wouldn't. The logic is inherently flawed and they don't care because ultimately they don't want to fight fires they want to exasperate them to justify their agenda.

The fake news isn't covering the scandal because they want the drama. They want to show horrific images of destruction from fires so they can blame in on climate change and usher in the New World Oder. Climate change is no reason to throw away civil liberty and usher in the WEF's twisted brand of Communism. Neither is arson or negligence.

Let take the reasoning behind planned ignitions and apply it to a different solution. One that would be much safer and much more cost effective. Say we have a fire moving south. Instead of lighting a fire south of that fire which would probably move south, let's do a narrow clear cut south of that fire. Forest fires move fast don't ya know. Ya I know but so does machinery. Machinery cost money don't ya know. Ya I know but harvesting the trees would pay for it. Just sayn.