Grafton ... top story

[Free libertarian]

While Barskey was right in that the cop didn't have permission, to many people I could easily imagine it coming off as being antagonistic.

minus too points for the misuse of the word two

but you are right ... many people would find the cops actions as antagonistic
if I would have had any idea that he was endangering my latest buff and wax job done on my vintage 94 subaru .... I would have had to open up a can of cardinal canning on him and given him a thorough toungelashing.

Subarus aren't "vintage" unless they are pre 1988,  have a dead mouse in the fan motor and an audible mechanical tick...but you're getting there.       The last person that leaned on my car spontaneously combusted, and they didn't even get a permit!

[MaineShark]

Subarus aren't "vintage" unless they are pre 1988,  have a dead mouse in the fan motor and an audible mechanical tick...but you're getting there.       The last person that leaned on my car spontaneously combusted, and they didn't even get a permit!

Who do you go to, if you want to get a permit to spontaneously combust?

Joe

[wolf]

Total over kill. the fire was in an open area with no nearby combustible material and posed no risk of igniting surrounding vegetation. It could have been put out out with a few handful's of of dirt.

[Tom Sawyer]

First they came for the wienie roasters...

[Russell Kanning]

the hot dogs weren't bad either

[TackleTheWorld]

I looked at the fire danger ratings.  It goes from 1 to 5.  5 is most dangerous.  Class 2 is the lowest the danger can be when it isn't outright raining.

[Russell Kanning]

well that would be accurate

actually that day and a couple of others were warm and dry ... and it had not rained for a few days .... but our fire seemed very safe to me

[JustUs]

Perfect example of being so right, yet soooo... wrong!

Being jejune and operating out of context allows one to make a "perfect" logical point and to self-righteously take the moral high ground, yet still make the impression of being completely irresponsible in a manner that could destroy the forest and the property of everyone around, and create a huge costly fire-fightinng effort.

The context that is ignored is that great effort, expense and organization have been evolved to prevent damage to property by fire. If the system is imperfect and bureaucratic, as I'm sure it is, why not develop something more capable, proper, efficient and give your neighbors a comforting feeling that you would never take risks with fire that would ever place their property in danger? If the system in place is state-run and statutorily mandated, then why not create something that answers all the concerns about lighting up the woods, rather than just thumb your nose at those involved in protecting property?

The context includes, roughly, that the system of permitting, identifies the location of known fires - fire wardens in the fire towers managed by the state Department of Forests watch all day for plumes of smoke; they spot a plume and report it to the Hanover 911 dispatch center; Hanover looks at the database of permit locations, and if it's not a known fire, call out the fire departments nearby. The volunteers, in this case, have taken on the duty of protection of property in their role as firefighters. They likely have some discretion at the scene, but given that Barskey and Kanning apparently didn't even have a bucket of water nearby for dousing any embers that could be wind-blown into the surrounding area, the actions of firefighters is to be expected.

The more intelligent approach would be to become cognizant of "the system" in place, become superior in your exhibiting precautions regarding spread of fire, and surely, not acting immaturely by expecting no consequences, including the consequence of embroiling libertarians in an internal squabble that dissipates energies that could be directed at real challenges to our freedoms.

[thinkliberty]

JustUS,

If the people of your "system" want to know who is going to have a wienie roast maybe they could pay people for the information they want, instead of sending a guy with a gun with another guy to dump toxic chemicals on the wienie fire.

I think it's immature to run around like chicken little or Barney Fife with guns and chemicals, because someone cooks a hot-dog the old-fashioned way.

Give me your honest opinion. Do you really believe that fire was a threat to anyone? (remember what the fire marshal said, it's level 2. the only safer rating is when it's raining.)

[MaineShark]

Do you really believe that fire was a threat to anyone?

It was done without a permit.

Hence, it was a threat to those who demand obedience before all else...

Joe

[AntonLee]

today the fire danger was HIGH in Tilton and over the river about 300 feet away the fire danger was MODERATE.   I can tell you this scientific fact because of the arbitrary signage posted in each town, you know the one, with Smokey the Bear.

funnier, went back later and the signs still haven't changed. 

even funnier, signs in both towns are changed by the same department the TNFD.

funnier still, one such sign near the Tanger Outlets has been wishing me "Season's Greetings" for the entire Winter/Spring seasons.  Such thoughful guys.

[toowm]

When we had a rainy (not Rainey) season last year, many Smokey signs had "Danger-Low" but still had "Permit Required", showing that it is mostly a control issue.

[Russell Kanning]

I have come up with a solution already.
Every time I have a campfire .... I don't burn down the forest. The system is amazing.
The process of completing a new system is now complete.

[AntonLee]

  lol

[JustUs]

JustUS,

If the people of your "system" want to know who is going to have a wienie roast maybe they could pay people for the information they want, instead of sending a guy with a gun with another guy to dump toxic chemicals on the wienie fire.

You may have missed the point of the post, which was, it is "their" system or "the" system (that exists), not mine or yours. The system is geared to protect property, no matter how imperfect it is, so to flaunt it is to risk the impression of being uncaring about others' property. The post asks of you, do you want to give the impression about being uncaring and disrespectful of others' property, or do you want to give the impression that you'd never do anything in a million years to ever put others' property at risk of being lost to a fire you started?

I think it's immature to run around like chicken little or Barney Fife with guns and chemicals, because someone cooks a hot-dog the old-fashioned way.

This is a weak attempt at mockery of people with presumably good intentions and is essentially unhelpful.

Give me your honest opinion. Do you really believe that fire was a threat to anyone? (remember what the fire marshal said, it's level 2. the only safer rating is when it's raining.)

I'm not in the fire biz and didn't see it, so I have no idea or opinion about the fire. This discussion is about the wiseness of one's actions, given the context (Or at least I'm suggesting that considering the context is a wise choice here).

If you want to argue that "a man owns his land" and that "he has a right to do with it as he sees fit", I'd say you're just being silly - haven't you been paying attention?

This is not a free country... duh! This is about actions and consequences and being a baby about facing the consequences.

PS: Of course, paper permits or restraining orders don't prevent fires or assaults, they are official statements about rules and consequences to expect from "the system" (regardless of whether you or I like it or not).