Are Shooters To Blame for Western Wildfires?
There are, however, fire risks associated with some kinds of ammunition in a specific range of conditions. Steel core ammunition — typically military surplus ammunition from overseas — can spark momentarily against rocks and minerals, and if that rock is in tinder-dry underbrush the possibility for a fire does exist. Likewise, incendiary ammunition — typically military tracer or civilian tracer training rounds — can spark fires in dry brush.
As fellow PJ Media contributor Robert Zubrin notes, however, the mismanagement of wildlife resources has done more to contribute to the conditions to create wildfires than any shooter has:
As I write these lines, vast wildfires are sweeping through my home state of Colorado and other areas of the American West. Last week, two of my employees had to leave work early to rush home to evacuate their families from imminent danger. Hundreds of houses have already been destroyed, and thousands of acres of trees incinerated, and unknown myriads of wild animals burned alive.
This disaster was predictable, and promises to get worse. Over the past decade, from British Columbia to New Mexico, the world’s most rapid deforestation has been underway in the North American West, with an average of nearly six million acres of forest lost per year — roughly double the three million acres per year rate in Brazil. The culprits here, however, have not been humans, but Western Pine Beetles, whose epidemic spread has turned over 60 million acres of formerly evergreen pine forests into dead red tinder, dry ammunition awaiting any spark to flare into catastrophe.
Yet while the global green movement has made a cause célèbre of the Amazon rain forest, they have done nothing to oppose those destroying our woods. Quite the contrary, they have been doing everything in their power to assist the wreckers. Indeed, over the past decade they have launched over a thousand lawsuits to block every attempt by the National Forest Service or others to take necessary counter measures.
“Green” activists have not only contributed to forest fires by creating the conditions for tree-killing beetles to thrive by fighting logging efforts, but also through refusing to let wildfires run their natural course and restricting prescribed burns that are designed to reduce the threat of uncontrolled fires by burning away tinder-dry underbrush.
If the media wants to place blame where blame belongs for western wildfires, the shooters that sparked just 5% of the blazes are the least of their worries. The so-called environmentalists that ultimately contribute to the tinder-dry conditions fueling the fires bear far more responsibility.
Most grazing has been stopped though regulations. Wood harvesting stopped no or few beetle killed trees being removed before they infect everything around. Regulations stopping spraying and who will and how will it be paid pay for if the cattle or harvesting permits have been pulled? The multiple state and fed agencies bureaucracy getting decisions through on how to fight the fire. Next the question what money will be applied causes slowdowns along the way. The fire is a symptom of a much greater illness. It was going to happen sometime whether man made or nature made.
These beetles have spread, all over the U.S., from government forests to private forests and woodlands. But these radical red greenies blame everyone else but never look in the mirror at the one who’s really to blame, the one who is making up people to blame and demonize.
The radical green activists are now in control of the US Forest Service. They are motivated by Gaia worship and not science. Good logging practices would have mitigated some of these problems but the radical green activists, both in and out of the Forest Service, with the aid of the courts have made sure that logging was stopped in many places. Now the bill has come due and the forests will be thinned one way or the other. We are seeing the other, fire, now.
They are NOT motivated by Gaia worship. If they were they wouldn’t cause the conditions that turn mother gaia into a giant tinder box killing all plant and animal life within. This is about control. If some guy can support his family by hunting and fishing they are going to stamp it out. If a company can log a forest and provide lumber to the world for construction projects they are going to stamp it out.
The watermelon analogy is correct. They are control freak commies who hate humans. If the whole planet has to burn to kill off the evil humans they will set the blaze themselves.
I’m sorry, but for some reason you’re refusing to make an essential distinction between immediate and underlying causes. In the case of the Utah fires, for example, those identified as having been started by shooters–which have been disproportionately significant for fires in the urban-wilderness interface, and therefore pose the greatest threat to people, homes, farms and ranches, have included fires that the target shooters self-reported, witness accounts, and evidence at the location of initial ignition.
I’m fully willing to blame the enviros for some of the underlying problems. And the media often fails to report the beneficial impacts of forest fires.
But when the fire danger is extreme because of underlying conditions, careless shooters who stupidly ignore the conditions should be held to account. In Utah, at least, there has been a significant involvement (and reporting in the media) from gun and shooting interests to call attention to the dangers and ask those using guns to take appropriate precautions.
I doubt if anyone here disagrees with that statement.
And you are correct, we need to make some distinctions here.
I think the correct distinction is between the immediate cause of a particular fire (cigarette, lightning, incendiary rounds fired by idiots), and the prevailing conditions which make more and more fires into almost automatic large disasters.
The blame for the latter belongs with the greenies.
20 fires sounds like a lot until you realize it’s only about 5% of the fires. And the way the media has reported on those shooter-caused fires is totally misleading. If a fire was caused by a shooter’s cigarette butt or parking his hot ATV over dry grass, it’s counted as a shooting-related fire and it’s strongly implied that it was started by bullets.
Has anybody noted the report that an Al-Qaeda magazine contains a recent how to article on starting forest fires here in the U.S.? (see http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d46_1336103325 )
Yeah, it figures that al qaeda would need to give its inbred moron horde instructions on how to do something a ten-year-old boy–or a drunken frat boy–could do without even trying. And ask Tojo how that whole “Burn America to the Ground” strategy worked out.
The AQ dilettantes who read that Jihadi “Soldier of Fortune” crap are chubby urbanites with beard anxiety who fantasize about charred corpses, not charred tree stumps in the middle of nowhere.
Common sense tells us not to create sparks in dry tinder rich conditions. It tells us not to set off fireworks, throw lit matches on the ground or to build a fire that sends sparks into the air. Last summer we had untold numbers of wildfires, some getting within a quarter mile of my house – that one was caused by a still full of hot coals smoker being pulled behind a truck, sending out a plume of sparks alongside the road.
If shooting particular types of ammunition in particular locations can cause wildfires, it is common sense to try and alert the shooting public to the danger and ask them not to. If the word doesn’t spread, or the shooters ignore the advice then temporarily banning shooting in those areas is just common sense.
I am a strong 2nd amendment proponent. I don’t believe there should be any restrictions on the ownership of firearms – but I also believe that there are times and places where shooting is dangerous and should not happen. I don’t see this as a threat to the 2nd amendment – but I do see a threat to it by shooters who are acting in ignorant and dangerous ways. Starting wildfires because of a desire to shoot is ignorant.
The author says that 5% is the least of worries. Not if it is your house that burned down. Not if it was your cattle that died because they couldn’t escape. 5% reduction is nothing to sneer at, if you are in the line of a fire roaring at you at incredible speed. Not if you are one of the people putting their lives on the line to contain those fires. Not if you are in a C-130 that is headed into the ground.
Taking extraordinary measures to reduce an effect by 5% is not always common sense, and frequently has unintended consequences that cost society more than it gains.
if common sense had been in play the shots would not have caused a forest fire as the fuel would not have been as abundant.
The Salt Lake Tribune claims that 20 wildfires have been triggered by irresponsible shooters in Utah, including the Saratoga Springs Fire and the Dump Fire, but provides no support for the claim.
And yesterday’s Seattle Times parroted an AP rewrite of that article, eagerly wishing for new regulations to restrict gunfire, but giving no detailed evidence for musketry-as-pyrogenics. You’d think the AP were in cahoots with Eric Holder, trying to supress shooting by all means necessary, mendacious or not. Actually, that’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it.
You’d think the AP were in cahoots with Eric Holder, trying to supress shooting by all means necessary
Bingo!
20 fires? All started by shooters? That’s mind-boggingly amazing. I’d like to see the raw reports on these 20 fires instead of AP’s synopsis.
When Rangers aren’t allowed to perform valid stewardship over our forests, causing a single fire to consume 18,000 acres, the fact that a careless camper/shooter/what-have-you started it becomes irrelevant.
Environments who cry over the felling of a single tree (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G880gxjj9dI&feature=related) should be held accountable.
I’m a lifelong shooter (50 years), the son of a gunsmith, a reloader, and a 2nd Amendment absolutist.
The problem of shooting caused wildfires isn’t always due to the use of incendiary rounds.
Neither is it due to steel cored or steel jacketed bullets causing sparks when they hit rocks. I have enough experience to know that blaming sparks is laughable.
The problem arises from hot bullets landing in dry grass or brush. Steel jacketed bullets themselves are hot enough to set tinder on fire. I’ve personally witnessed it myself and I’ve been told about it happening by other shooters. Just last summer at the range I shoot at a steel jacketed bullet skipped over the berm and landed in dry pine straw, setting it on fire. I was standing next to the shooter when it happened. I’m not aware of any such incidents with copper jacketed or lead bullets.
Lead and the soft metals used to “jacket” (encase) bullets are not metals that will spark when they hit earth or brush.
Says the AP: Utah officials believe steel-jacketed bullets are the most likely culprits, given one shot that hits a rock and throws off sparks can ignite surrounding vegetation and quickly spread. Popular exploding targets are also blamed for causing wildfires.
Details, details….
Yes, and shooters are also responsible for 2,000 guns crossing the Mexican border,also bad breath and the common cold. Ban guns.
The Saratoga Springs fire was almost certainly not started by target shooters. I live within sight of Lake Mountain, which runs north-south along Utah Lake. Saratoga Springs is on the north side. There is a long-standing informal target shooting range on the south side of the mountain which supports little to no vegetation. The fire was on the north side–miles away, where no target shooting is permitted because much of the lower part of the mountain is actually within city limits.
What if no one is to blame?
Mitigation is a important tool used against catastrophic wild fires. It would be very informative to survey the 300+ homes lost to the Co. Waldo fire to see how many had Cedar shingled roofs. Mitigation also includes thinning through timber cutting, fire wood harvesting, and grazing. All of which are banned or limited by environmental nut law suites.
.
I just saw some pictures of the fire sent by a friend there. No cedar roofs, but plenty of brush near houses.
It’s much prettier that way, right?
Right. And that bonfire that was your house is pretty too.
Idiots.
I doubt there are many cedar roofs left in such areas, but there is no shortage of other kinds of stupidity.
I’m not a target shooter, but I did used to hunt with shotgun. This is the first time I’ve ever heard of incendiary shotgun shells. What? They burst into flame on impact? Please enlighten me.
They’re called “Dragon’s Breath” rounds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvuWNnKy6t8
I have shot small arms for almost sixty years, and never have known of a modern bullet causing a brush fire. (I have no experience with steel projectiles.) However, I have known several fires caused by black powder weapons. The villain is the wad, which is ejected while smoldering. I have seen a fire started 20 feet up in a tree by the burning wad. In dry conditions, this weapon should not be used where tinder can be ignited, and, as many know, the wad does not fly like a bullet. It has an irregular trajectory. Keep it on the range.
If I sat on a jury hearing that a man shot an incendiary round into dry brush, I would vote to lock him up for a long time, or have him buy a score of burnt out homes.
I believe in the our Second Amendment only for responsible adults.
You can make logical, common sense arguments until you’re blue in the face, but nothing is going to change until we replace the idiot liberals in the government and institute some tort reform to remove these environMENTAL group’s “standing” to sue.
As long as the Greenies,as you call them, have the sympathetic ear of the MSM your all just pissing in the wind about whos to blame.That story wont be told outside of blogs like these and especially NOT in the DC offices of the most blessed EPA and Interior.
The firefighters that fought the Waldo Canyon fire near Colorado Springs are complaining. So are the ones that have fought the High Park, Springer, Little Salt, Treasure, and a half-dozen other fires in Colorado. When “environmentalists” use lawfare to keep the Forestry Service and local communities from doing what’s necessary to reduce the local fire danger, they should be counter-sued for ten times the cost of the fire. If someone dies in the fire, it should be twenty times the cost of the fire. If a FIREMAN dies trying to fight an out-of-control fire because their efforts to remove excess fuel has been stymied by “green” lawsuits, everyone involved in the lawsuit should be charged with accessory before the fact in manslaughter. If greens are to blame, they should be the ones held accountable.
Who are the real villains, Old Patriot?
Not “Greens” and not the Forest Service, who understand forest ecology and the importance of clearing deadwood and underbrush.
How about “Climate Change” deniers who have prevented action to stop warming of our planet – resulting in pine beetles surviving winters that are too warm and too short to kill them off.
How about Republican legislators who have advocated for cutting funds for firefighters, firefighting equipment and weather monitoring?
Whaaa?
truckeenr,
It DOESN’T matter if the USFS/ BLM or the Greens, ‘..understand forest ecology..’ because the aforementioned sure DON’T use their science acumen and provide piss poor results to deter most fires with their clearing brush/ underbrush and wildfire defensible spaces, respectively.
‘Climate change deniers’ – sadly you sam to be of the, ‘Settled Science’ variety when it comes to this topic.
Provide ONE, one conference of the Federally funded NWS/ DoE/ PNNL/ NASA/ NCAR and UNFCCC etc., who’ve extended an olive branch to private sector climate scientist’s/ anti-NWO seeking types to discuss such matters. What good, what’s accomplished at a conference/ science gathering if EVERY attendee is in lock-step agreement? Nothing..
As for R’s ‘..cutting funding..’ – the ONLY action the R’s did regarding the public sector union areas you’ve discussed is PROVE these federal departments (i.e. Democratic voter strongholds) have provided little/ no fiscal restraint for DECADES. Now the municipality/ county/ state etc., bill has come due and like ALL Federal entities – go to The Hill and ask for more. Insanity!
I grew up near Waldo Canyon in Woodland Park. I have friends when younger worked at the noe burned down Flying W Ranch. Like Bob Owens, VodkaPundit Stephen Green I’m sure they have colleagues and/or friends who have had to evacuate the Springs area recently.
I was a volunteer for Golden’s FD and saw A LOT of action during the ’02 Hayman wildfire. Funding/ manning for Rural FD’s HAS to be addressed. For the 4 seasons I volunteered, most volunteers DIDN’T SHOW or provided but a couple hours PER WEEK of their time! Whereas ‘man hours’ on paper didn’t reflect AT ALL the actual abled bodies those department’s in-action.
Lastly, the other portion of your gib regarding cutting funds to, ‘..weather monitoring..’ SHOULD be cut!
Modern technology/ AWOS and other ground weather equipment has PROVEN we needn’t human presence at TENS OF THOUSANDS of little/ no weather sites nationwide. Not to mention the THOUSANDS of poorly placed AWOS/ ASOS station’s needing to be moved and/or removed due to skewed data (situated on blacktops/ in/near streets, highways and runways/ too close to buildings, on and on).
Thanks for your lengthy reply. Here in the Sierras, both private and public entities have done a tremendous job of clearing undergrowth and dead trees. Not perfect, by any means, but pretty darn good, especially near highly populated areas. Perhaps your environmental wackos are different from ours……because our greenies aren’t getting in the way of sound practice.
As for climate change being “settled science,” yes it is. There may be quibbles on the margin, but it is the best theory we have for now – man has upset the balance of nature and the planet is warming as a result. Extreme weather events are predicted by the theory.
You claim that Republicans have proved that union firefighters and police don’t add value. Wow! Neither big business nor governments foresaw the huge acceleration of medical costs – and yes, the bill is due. Republicans in Congress have failed to pass Obama’s jobs bill – which would have provided funds for strapped local and state governments.
1. It’s “Sierra”. No “s” on the end. It’s already plural.
2. AGW is a flat out lie. It’s no more “settled science” than the moon being made of green cheese. People who understand science know this. When you have people who have long advocated lying to shape public opinion, and are CAUGHT lying to shape public opinion, being the only people who are allowed to speak on the subject, I guess you can call that settled, but it sure ain’t science.
3. Where did you ever get the silly idea that the federal government is responsible for local firefighting budgets?
@Mark v –
1. Those of us who live here sometimes call them “Sierras” with an “s”. Local custom. So while you may be technically correct, in this case, you are colloquially wrong.
2. “Settled science” means that there is an agreed on theory that describes reality better than prior theories. AGW describes the extreme weather we’ve been having, along with many other observed phenomena – better than other theory. In fact, extreme weather is predicted by AGW, as is generalized warming (over 2000 heat records set in June in the USA). Of course, you can choose not to believe that theory – only 98% of climatologists do, after all – but unless you have a better explanation for these events, to call it a flat-out lie doesn’t make sense. Your claim that AGW’s proponents have advocated lying confuses them with deniers, many of whom, strangely enough, have former ties to cigarette makers who claimed no relationship between smoking and cancer; and are paid by Koch brothers, Exxon and others with an interest in the status quo.
3. I didn’t claim that the Federal Government was “responsible for local firefighting budgets,” but nice attempt at making your point by saying I did. Do you always argue like that? FEMA offers grants to state or district firefighters to help with the kinds of disasters in Colorado. Furthermore, as noted in the Washington Post (Headline: Senate blocks money for teachers, firefighters – 10/20/2011):
Nine days after President Obama’s $447 billion jobs package was blocked in the U.S. Senate, one of the plan’s key components — which would provide $35 billion to states and local governments to hire teachers and first responders — suffered the same fate late Thursday.
Secondly, those in the employ of the USFS, BLM etc., who ‘..clear brush..’ are Summer hires with NO science background/ education and often times scoff or shirk what’s asked of them.
Did you know that the Last Chance fire in Colorado that burned 44,000 acres of ranch land and most of Last Chance, CO was started by a car with a flat tire from the sparks from the tire rim? Maybe when we ban guns we should ban cars.
I can see it now, instead of the outright banning of automobiles, the politicians will “fix the problem” by creating the offense of “Felony Flat Tire”. See? If you were a responsible driver, you’d have your tires inflated to the proper air pressure, as so informatively “suggested” by “Big Bro” hiz self.
Of course, the western wildfire all shooters fault is rubbish, but I have a sea story anyway.
Several lifetimes ago I was assigned to the US navy sub base at Holy Loch, Scotland. Once a year we would travel to a British equivalent of a reserve base sort of near Glasgow to qualify with our M14s and .45s (I told you this was several lifetimes ago, even the ship’s Jarheads had M14s until ’78 or so.) The gunners mates would also bring along a couple of M60s for fun. We’d have to strip the tracers from the M60 belts before we were allowed to fire the M60s. The reason was, this range was up in the heather covered hills and a few of years before a Royal Marine unit had set the peat on fire with tracers. The peat burned, smoldered really, for several years until it rained hard enough to saturate down deep enough to put the fire out. The peat is tens upon tens of feet deep in some areas.
That story bears re peating. But at least nobody was kilt.
Living in Utah as I do, within sight of several wildfires that thankfully are being inhibited by rainy conditions today, I have to throw the bullshit flag.
Even though I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, it isn’t a ‘get out of jail free card’ for shooters. If you are shooting in areas subject to wildfire, if you start a wildfire I think you should be charged not only for the costs of fighting that fire, but also held responsible for any destruction of property.
You are still responsible for the consequences of your actions. A bill for a couple of millon dollars would go a long way to encourage responsible gun use.
What Brent said. I live in Ohio. What these people did was not excusable.
Here is a video of the “dragon’s breath” shotgun round. The interesting part starts at 4:30:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP4FjODPDFA
Environmentalist here. I don’t know what environmentalists are like out west, so I can’t comment, but here in Florida it’s not the environmentalists who oppose controlled burning. We’re all in favor of it, we’d like to see it done regularly. However it’s very hard for land managers to get a burn permit, mainly because the smoke poses a danger to automobile traffic. There’s a huge marsh in the northern part of the state that we’ve been asking the State to burn, but they’ve been reluctant to do it – and early this year a wildfire there caused several deaths in a pileup on I-75. So controlled burning is a complicated issue, at least in Florida, but I don’t know a single environmentalist who’s against it. (Again, it might be different out west.)
Controlled burns often start hellacious fires that burn out of control. That doesn’t mean they can be ruled out as a management tool. but there are other safer solutions, such as thinning and species management that will restore the forest to a natural conclusion.
Any regime that demands all citizens exhibit perfect common sense and flawless awareness of their surroundings is itself lacking in common sense. Of course there will always be a fool who does something stupid. For the anti-human crowd in the Forest Service to deliberately create conditions that guarantee every fire is catastrophic makes them the only genuine criminals here. And this has been going on for decades already. Therefore, the only rational conclusion is that they WANT all fires to be catastrophic and will continue to do so until all human beings are driven out.
Neither perfect common sense nor flawless awareness are required here. Given all the publicity, particularly out west here, shooting in areas subject to wildfire is nothing less than wilful negligence.
Perhaps if YOUR property was destroyed, you see things in a different light.
I agree with Brent. I am neutral on the second amendment but a bunch of drunks shooting guns is a disaster waiting to happen….for a lot of reasons.
Every year in many states out West, hunters venture out into dry forests and grasslands by the millions and shoot their weapons without starting fires. Hunting ammo almost never starts fires. Incendiary ammo or black powder are the
usual sources if it is firearm related. I would bet that campfires and cigarettes start many more fires than all firearms combined. Industrial equipment is another majority.
Here in Colorado, the Forest Supervisor of the Arapahoe/Roosevelt NFs & Pawnee NG has banned all shooting, except while legally hunting, due to fire danger. We’ve been getting rain for the last week, but they have no intention of lifting the ban. The sheriff of Park County has banned all shooting on public & PRIVATE land.
You spewed: “Your claim that AGW’s proponents have advocated lying confuses them with deniers,…”
Well allow me to retort:
“In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore
Wow…who knew Al Gore was a ‘denier?
You were saying?
Sorry…above post was meant for truckeenr’s July 6, 2012 – 2:49 pm post. Not sure why the reply link put my post outside of the pertinent post…