Who gives these fires names?
#1
The "Garner complex" as far as I know consists of the "taylor' fire and the "Klondike" fire

NOTHING in these names indicate where they are or what they are close to. When they are all near Selma and Merlin.

Why not give them names that instantly tell people where they are? Or at least the vicinity?

This is just one example. The "Miles fire" is Lost creek trail and prospect area
Reply
#2
(08-07-2018, 01:18 PM)tvguy Wrote: The "Garner complex" as far as I know consists of the "taylor' fire and the "Klondike" fire

NOTHING in these names indicate where they are or what they are close to. When they are all near Selma and Merlin.

Why not give them names that instantly tell people where they are? Or at least the vicinity?

This is just one example. The "Miles fire" is Lost creek trail and prospect area

Gotta be one of the paper pushing safety sally's that do the naming. Garner is probably the name of their cat.
Reply
#3
(08-07-2018, 02:48 PM)GPnative Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 01:18 PM)tvguy Wrote: The "Garner complex" as far as I know consists of the "taylor' fire and the "Klondike" fire

NOTHING in these names indicate where they are or what they are close to. When they are all near Selma and Merlin.

Why not give them names that instantly tell people where they are? Or at least the vicinity?

This is just one example. The "Miles fire" is Lost creek trail and prospect area

Gotta be one of the paper pushing safety sally's that do the naming. Garner is probably the name of their cat.
Laughing Laughing Laughing  and Miles is their gold fish.
Reply
#4
I thought they used to say that they would name them for nearby features...like creeks or rivers, or gullies...but I don't know.
Reply
#5
(08-07-2018, 04:11 PM)Juniper Wrote: I thought they used to say that they would name them for nearby features...like creeks or rivers, or gullies...but I don't know.

 Some are some aren't Confused






Eagle Creek fire (2017)


Long Draw fire (2012)
Acres: 558,198
Cause: Lightning


Biscuit fire (2002)
Acres: 500,000
Cause: Lightning
The Biscuit fire, formerly the Florence fire and the Sour Biscuit fire was sparked by lightning. The flames burned in the Siskiyou National Forest in Oregon and over the state line into the Klamath mountains in California.



Buzzard Complex (2014)
Acres: 395,747
Cause: Lightning
The complex was made of several fires that burned on rangeland southeast of Burns.   Its name came from the nearby Buzzard Butte.

Bandon fire (1936)
Acres: 287,000
Cause: Logging
The Bandon fire started as a forest fire. Then the winds shifted, and the blaze destroyed the city of Bandon and its surroundings, killing 13 people.

Holloway fire (2012)
Acres: 245,000
Cause: Lightning
The Holloway fire scorched more than 245,000 acres in Oregon and more than 215,000 in Nevada.

Tillamook Burn (1933)
Acres: 239,695
Cause: Logging
The fire burned parts of Tillamook, Washington and Yamhill counties. One firefighter was killed.

2nd Tillamook Burn (1939)
Acres: 217,000
Cause: Logging
The second Tillamook fire burned 189,000 acres of the 1933 Tillamook Burn, plus 28,000 acres of new green timber.

Chetco Bar fire (2017)
Acres: 191,090
Cause: Lightning
The Chetco Bar fire was reported on July 12, 2017. It is burning in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness, between Brookings, Oregon on the west and Cave Junction on the east.

3rd Tillamook Burn (1945)
Acres: 180,130
Cause: Exact cause is unknown but the fire was caused by humans and not lightening.
After the third Tillamook Burn happened, loggers were convinced the area was cursed to burn every six years. The 1945 fire covered the same area of the previous fires in 1933 and 1939.

Lakeview Complex (2001)
Acres: 179,400
Cause: Lightning
A cluster of 5 fires that burned near Lakeview.

Columbia fire (1902)
Acres: 170,000 (in Oregon)
Cause: Land clearing
The Columbia fire is also known as the Yacolt Burn, the collective name for multiple fires that ignited in September 1902 in both Washington and Oregon. The total size of all fires was 604,000 acres. The fire destroyed the Bridal Veil sawmill and the town of Palmer.

Miller Homestead (2012)
Acres: 160,853
Cause: Lightning
The fire started southwest of Frenchglen, Oregon. Within four hours, the fire was several thousand acres. The lightning strike that ignited the fire came from the same storm that started the Long Draw wildfire, the largest fire since 1900.

Egley Complex (2007)
Acres: 140,360
Cause: Lightning
Multiple lightning-caused fires, named the Egley complex, burned west of the communities of Burns and Hines in Harney County.

Toolbox Complex (2002)
Acres: 120,085
Cause: Lightning
Started in Lake County and scorched the Fremont National Forest.

Simnasho (1996)
Acres: 118,000
Cause: Engine exhaust
The fire on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation destroyed 11 homes.

South End Complex (2006)
Acres: 117,553
Cause: Lightning
The season's biggest wildfire burned in the Steens Mountain, threatening the residents of Fields and Frenchglen.

Canyon Creek Complex (2015)
Acres: 110, 262
Cause: Lightning
No lives were lost, but the Canyon Creek fire destroyed more private property than any Oregon wildfire in the past 80 years. It tore through 43 homes plus nearly 100 barns, workshops and other structures. An investigation by The Oregonian/OregonLive showed forest officials mismanaged the fire on multiple levels.

High Cascades Complex (2011)
Acres: 108,154
Cause: Lightning
7 large individual fires were later combined and called the High Cascades Complex. Most of the fire burned in the Warm Springs Reservation


Jackson fire (2000)
Acres: 108,000
Cause: Human caused
Wildfire in Malheur county that threatened the Snake River Correctional Institution.

Cornet-Windy Ridge fire (2015)
Acres: 103,887 Acres
Cause: Lightning
The fire was located west of Durkee and south of Baker City
Reply
#6
Same thing with Hurricanes, Where the hell is Hector Hawaii?
Reply
#7
(08-07-2018, 05:02 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 04:11 PM)Juniper Wrote: I thought they used to say that they would name them for nearby features...like creeks or rivers, or gullies...but I don't know.

 Some are some aren't Confused

Your list covers fires over more then a century. Practices change over that time scale. I think the current practice uses local geographic feature names to name fires. However that may not be 100% true and fires tend to move so the linkage might not be obvious. Also some of those geographic feature names can be pretty obscure sometimes.
Reply
#8
(08-07-2018, 05:57 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 05:02 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 04:11 PM)Juniper Wrote: I thought they used to say that they would name them for nearby features...like creeks or rivers, or gullies...but I don't know.

 Some are some aren't Confused

Your list covers fires over more then a century. Practices change over that time scale. I think the current practice uses local geographic feature names to name fires. However that may not be 100% true and fires tend to move so the linkage might not be obvious. Also some of those geographic feature names can be pretty obscure sometimes.
Absolutely. Yes I know some of the names are of some local road or mountain or whatever. The point is hardly anyone knows where they are or has ever heard of them LOL

Practices change over that time scale
Right it looks to me like they used to actually name fires based on there location.
Somewhere along the line they decided to get cute. Big Grin


Also some of those geographic feature names can be pretty obscure sometimes.


Yes like Garner   "taylor'   "Klondike" , Miles , none of those words tells me anything
Reply
#9
I agree. I have always wished that the fires names would be more informative.
Reply
#10
(08-07-2018, 06:33 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 05:57 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 05:02 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 04:11 PM)Juniper Wrote: I thought they used to say that they would name them for nearby features...like creeks or rivers, or gullies...but I don't know.

 Some are some aren't Confused

Your list covers fires over more then a century. Practices change over that time scale. I think the current practice uses local geographic feature names to name fires. However that may not be 100% true and fires tend to move so the linkage might not be obvious. Also some of those geographic feature names can be pretty obscure sometimes.
Absolutely. Yes I know some of the names are of some local road or mountain or whatever. The point is hardly anyone knows where they are or has ever heard of them LOL

Practices change over that time scale
Right it looks to me like they used to actually name fires based on there location.
Somewhere along the line they decided to get cute. Big Grin


Also some of those geographic feature names can be pretty obscure sometimes.


Yes like Garner   "taylor'   "Klondike" , Miles , none of those words tells me anything

My guess is that fires are named in a distinctive way that serves the fire fighting organizations, not so much me or you.   Laughing
Reply
#11
(08-07-2018, 06:47 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 06:33 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 05:57 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 05:02 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 04:11 PM)Juniper Wrote: I thought they used to say that they would name them for nearby features...like creeks or rivers, or gullies...but I don't know.

 Some are some aren't Confused

Your list covers fires over more then a century. Practices change over that time scale. I think the current practice uses local geographic feature names to name fires. However that may not be 100% true and fires tend to move so the linkage might not be obvious. Also some of those geographic feature names can be pretty obscure sometimes.
Absolutely. Yes I know some of the names are of some local road or mountain or whatever. The point is hardly anyone knows where they are or has ever heard of them LOL

Practices change over that time scale
Right it looks to me like they used to actually name fires based on there location.
Somewhere along the line they decided to get cute. Big Grin


Also some of those geographic feature names can be pretty obscure sometimes.


Yes like Garner   "taylor'   "Klondike" , Miles , none of those words tells me anything

My guess is that fires are named in a distinctive way that serves the fire fighting organizations, not so much me or you.   Laughing
Yeah you got it. They don't have to Watch newscasts or see update . They know exactly all they need to know.

Also the fire NAMERS whomever they are don't care or think about the fact that there are several fires.
Reply
#12
(08-07-2018, 08:12 PM)using a tvguy Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 06:47 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 06:33 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 05:57 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 05:02 PM)tvguy Wrote:  Some are some aren't Confused

Your list covers fires over more then a century. Practices change over that time scale. I think the current practice uses local geographic feature names to name fires. However that may not be 100% true and fires tend to move so the linkage might not be obvious. Also some of those geographic feature names can be pretty obscure sometimes.
Absolutely. Yes I know some of the names are of some local road or mountain or whatever. The point is hardly anyone knows where they are or has ever heard of them LOL

Practices change over that time scale
Right it looks to me like they used to actually name fires based on there location.
Somewhere along the line they decided to get cute. Big Grin


Also some of those geographic feature names can be pretty obscure sometimes.


Yes like Garner   "taylor'   "Klondike" , Miles , none of those words tells me anything

My guess is that fires are named in a distinctive way that serves the fire fighting organizations, not so much me or you.   Laughing
Yeah you got it. They don't have to Watch newscasts or see update . They know exactly all they need to know.

Also the fire NAMERS whomever they are don't care or think about the fact that there are several fires.

Actually I think that's precisely what they are thinking about. If there are two or three fires along the Umpqua River drainage you can't name all of them the Umpqua Fire. For them it makes good sense. A distinctive name, especially using an obscure feature name, identifies it in both time and space. If they want to refer to it say in five years they just refer to the "whatever" fire, not the "fire in 201X up along highway xx at fire road zz". It's identified. Done.

It really wouldn't be an issue for us if the news people would associate a fire name with a geographical area in their reporting. The Hendrix Fire SW of Ashland, the Klondike Fire NW of Selma, like that. But they get used to the different fires like the fire fighters do and assume we're all up to speed too. OK until you get to six or eight or a dozen fires, I loose track.
Reply
#13
(08-07-2018, 06:33 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 05:57 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 05:02 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 04:11 PM)Juniper Wrote: I thought they used to say that they would name them for nearby features...like creeks or rivers, or gullies...but I don't know.

 Some are some aren't Confused

Your list covers fires over more then a century. Practices change over that time scale. I think the current practice uses local geographic feature names to name fires. However that may not be 100% true and fires tend to move so the linkage might not be obvious. Also some of those geographic feature names can be pretty obscure sometimes.
Absolutely. Yes I know some of the names are of some local road or mountain or whatever. The point is hardly anyone knows where they are or has ever heard of them LOL

Practices change over that time scale
Right it looks to me like they used to actually name fires based on there location.
Somewhere along the line they decided to get cute. Big Grin


Also some of those geographic feature names can be pretty obscure sometimes.


Yes like Garner   "taylor'   "Klondike" , Miles , none of those words tells me anything

Taylor as in Taylor Creek Fire or is there another Taylor? Anyway, Taylor Creek fire is the name of that whole drainage, Taylor creek running along the bottom, and the adjacent road is Taylor Creek Road. So that one makes sense.
Reply
#14
(08-07-2018, 10:15 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 08:12 PM)using a tvguy Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 06:47 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 06:33 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 05:57 PM)Cuzz Wrote: Your list covers fires over more then a century. Practices change over that time scale. I think the current practice uses local geographic feature names to name fires. However that may not be 100% true and fires tend to move so the linkage might not be obvious. Also some of those geographic feature names can be pretty obscure sometimes.
Absolutely. Yes I know some of the names are of some local road or mountain or whatever. The point is hardly anyone knows where they are or has ever heard of them LOL

Practices change over that time scale
Right it looks to me like they used to actually name fires based on there location.
Somewhere along the line they decided to get cute. Big Grin


Also some of those geographic feature names can be pretty obscure sometimes.


Yes like Garner   "taylor'   "Klondike" , Miles , none of those words tells me anything

My guess is that fires are named in a distinctive way that serves the fire fighting organizations, not so much me or you.   Laughing
Yeah you got it. They don't have to Watch newscasts or see update . They know exactly all they need to know.

Also the fire NAMERS whomever they are don't care or think about the fact that there are several fires.

Actually I think that's precisely what they are thinking about. If there are two or three fires along the Umpqua River drainage you can't name all of them the Umpqua Fire. For them it makes good sense. A distinctive name, especially using an obscure feature name, identifies it in both time and space. If they want to refer to it say in five years they just refer to the "whatever" fire, not the "fire in 201X up along highway xx at fire road zz". It's identified. Done.

It really wouldn't be an issue for us if the news people would associate a fire name with a geographical area in their reporting. The Hendrix Fire SW of Ashland, the Klondike Fire NW of Selma, like that. But they get used to the different fires like the fire fighters do and assume we're all up to speed too. OK until you get to six or eight or a dozen fires, I loose track.

It really wouldn't be an issue for us if the news people would associate a fire name with a geographical area in their reporting

Yep I agree.. and I agree with there different names if there are three different fires. But I don't see why when it's just one fire to not name it based on a common name like the closest city.
Reply
#15
(08-08-2018, 12:44 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 10:15 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 08:12 PM)using a tvguy Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 06:47 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 06:33 PM)tvguy Wrote: Absolutely. Yes I know some of the names are of some local road or mountain or whatever. The point is hardly anyone knows where they are or has ever heard of them LOL

Practices change over that time scale
Right it looks to me like they used to actually name fires based on there location.
Somewhere along the line they decided to get cute. Big Grin


Also some of those geographic feature names can be pretty obscure sometimes.


Yes like Garner   "taylor'   "Klondike" , Miles , none of those words tells me anything

My guess is that fires are named in a distinctive way that serves the fire fighting organizations, not so much me or you.   Laughing
Yeah you got it. They don't have to Watch newscasts or see update . They know exactly all they need to know.

Also the fire NAMERS whomever they are don't care or think about the fact that there are several fires.

Actually I think that's precisely what they are thinking about. If there are two or three fires along the Umpqua River drainage you can't name all of them the Umpqua Fire. For them it makes good sense. A distinctive name, especially using an obscure feature name, identifies it in both time and space. If they want to refer to it say in five years they just refer to the "whatever" fire, not the "fire in 201X up along highway xx at fire road zz". It's identified. Done.

It really wouldn't be an issue for us if the news people would associate a fire name with a geographical area in their reporting. The Hendrix Fire SW of Ashland, the Klondike Fire NW of Selma, like that. But they get used to the different fires like the fire fighters do and assume we're all up to speed too. OK until you get to six or eight or a dozen fires, I loose track.

It really wouldn't be an issue for us if the news people would associate a fire name with a geographical area in their reporting

Yep I agree.. and I agree with there different names if there are three different fires. But I don't see why when it's just one fire to not name it based on a common name like the closest city.

Well, maybe something else. If they named them after a city folks would think the city was burning down!  Laughing

Though come to think of it that might become more common.
Reply
#16
(08-08-2018, 12:44 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 10:15 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 08:12 PM)using a tvguy Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 06:47 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 06:33 PM)tvguy Wrote: Absolutely. Yes I know some of the names are of some local road or mountain or whatever. The point is hardly anyone knows where they are or has ever heard of them LOL

Practices change over that time scale
Right it looks to me like they used to actually name fires based on there location.
Somewhere along the line they decided to get cute. Big Grin


Also some of those geographic feature names can be pretty obscure sometimes.


Yes like Garner   "taylor'   "Klondike" , Miles , none of those words tells me anything

My guess is that fires are named in a distinctive way that serves the fire fighting organizations, not so much me or you.   Laughing
Yeah you got it. They don't have to Watch newscasts or see update . They know exactly all they need to know.

Also the fire NAMERS whomever they are don't care or think about the fact that there are several fires.

Actually I think that's precisely what they are thinking about. If there are two or three fires along the Umpqua River drainage you can't name all of them the Umpqua Fire. For them it makes good sense. A distinctive name, especially using an obscure feature name, identifies it in both time and space. If they want to refer to it say in five years they just refer to the "whatever" fire, not the "fire in 201X up along highway xx at fire road zz". It's identified. Done.

It really wouldn't be an issue for us if the news people would associate a fire name with a geographical area in their reporting. The Hendrix Fire SW of Ashland, the Klondike Fire NW of Selma, like that. But they get used to the different fires like the fire fighters do and assume we're all up to speed too. OK until you get to six or eight or a dozen fires, I loose track.

It really wouldn't be an issue for us if the news people would associate a fire name with a geographical area in their reporting

Yep I agree.. and I agree with there different names if there are three different fires. But I don't see why when it's just one fire to not name it based on a common name like the closest city.

Maybe calling the Hendrix Fire the "Ashland Fire" would be confusing because A) people might think that the fire is in Ashland and be worried that their relatives or whatever are in danger or B) Ashland might have a fire every year and then they'd have to diifferentiate between them, or C) There might be 3 different fires around Ashland that are totally separate from each other. The same would hold true for using the closest "major" landmark. For me, I don't much care what they name it but I do want to know where the activity is, for example; "The Hendrix which which started 10 miles SW of Ashland and has spread to such and such area.... blah, blah, blah.
Reply
#17
(08-08-2018, 12:56 PM)mGCG Wrote:
(08-08-2018, 12:44 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 10:15 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 08:12 PM)using a tvguy Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 06:47 PM)Cuzz Wrote: My guess is that fires are named in a distinctive way that serves the fire fighting organizations, not so much me or you.   Laughing
Yeah you got it. They don't have to Watch newscasts or see update . They know exactly all they need to know.

Also the fire NAMERS whomever they are don't care or think about the fact that there are several fires.

Actually I think that's precisely what they are thinking about. If there are two or three fires along the Umpqua River drainage you can't name all of them the Umpqua Fire. For them it makes good sense. A distinctive name, especially using an obscure feature name, identifies it in both time and space. If they want to refer to it say in five years they just refer to the "whatever" fire, not the "fire in 201X up along highway xx at fire road zz". It's identified. Done.

It really wouldn't be an issue for us if the news people would associate a fire name with a geographical area in their reporting. The Hendrix Fire SW of Ashland, the Klondike Fire NW of Selma, like that. But they get used to the different fires like the fire fighters do and assume we're all up to speed too. OK until you get to six or eight or a dozen fires, I loose track.

It really wouldn't be an issue for us if the news people would associate a fire name with a geographical area in their reporting

Yep I agree.. and I agree with there different names if there are three different fires. But I don't see why when it's just one fire to not name it based on a common name like the closest city.

Maybe calling the Hendrix Fire the "Ashland Fire" would be confuing because A) people might think that the fire is in Ashland and be worried that their relatives or whatever are in danger and B) Ashland might have a fire every year and then they'd have to diifferentiate between them, or C) There might be 3 different fires around Ashland that are totally separate from each other. The same would hold true for using the closest "major" landmark. For me, I don't much care what they name it but I do want to know where the activity is, for example; "The Hendrix which which started 10 miles SW of Ashland and has spread to such and such area.... blah, blah, blah.
Maybe calling the Hendrix Fire the "Ashland Fire" would be confuing because A) people might think that the fire is in Ashland and be worried that their relatives or whatever are in danger

All they have to do is call and ask where the fire is and they are probably going to do that anyway

B) Ashland might have a fire every year and then they'd have to diifferentiate between them,

There were three Tilamook Burns they just called them Tilamook Burn.. 2nd Tilamook Burn and 3rd Tilamook Burn Razz
Reply
#18
(08-08-2018, 12:50 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(08-08-2018, 12:44 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 10:15 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 08:12 PM)using a tvguy Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 06:47 PM)Cuzz Wrote: My guess is that fires are named in a distinctive way that serves the fire fighting organizations, not so much me or you.   Laughing
Yeah you got it. They don't have to Watch newscasts or see update . They know exactly all they need to know.

Also the fire NAMERS whomever they are don't care or think about the fact that there are several fires.

Actually I think that's precisely what they are thinking about. If there are two or three fires along the Umpqua River drainage you can't name all of them the Umpqua Fire. For them it makes good sense. A distinctive name, especially using an obscure feature name, identifies it in both time and space. If they want to refer to it say in five years they just refer to the "whatever" fire, not the "fire in 201X up along highway xx at fire road zz". It's identified. Done.

It really wouldn't be an issue for us if the news people would associate a fire name with a geographical area in their reporting. The Hendrix Fire SW of Ashland, the Klondike Fire NW of Selma, like that. But they get used to the different fires like the fire fighters do and assume we're all up to speed too. OK until you get to six or eight or a dozen fires, I loose track.

It really wouldn't be an issue for us if the news people would associate a fire name with a geographical area in their reporting

Yep I agree.. and I agree with there different names if there are three different fires. But I don't see why when it's just one fire to not name it based on a common name like the closest city.

Well, maybe something else. If they named them after a city folks would think the city was burning down!  Laughing

Though come to think of it that might become more common.
LOL when a city actually did burn down the called it the Carr fire Blink
Reply
#19
(08-08-2018, 01:14 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-08-2018, 12:50 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(08-08-2018, 12:44 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 10:15 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 08:12 PM)using a tvguy Wrote: Yeah you got it. They don't have to Watch newscasts or see update . They know exactly all they need to know.

Also the fire NAMERS whomever they are don't care or think about the fact that there are several fires.

Actually I think that's precisely what they are thinking about. If there are two or three fires along the Umpqua River drainage you can't name all of them the Umpqua Fire. For them it makes good sense. A distinctive name, especially using an obscure feature name, identifies it in both time and space. If they want to refer to it say in five years they just refer to the "whatever" fire, not the "fire in 201X up along highway xx at fire road zz". It's identified. Done.

It really wouldn't be an issue for us if the news people would associate a fire name with a geographical area in their reporting. The Hendrix Fire SW of Ashland, the Klondike Fire NW of Selma, like that. But they get used to the different fires like the fire fighters do and assume we're all up to speed too. OK until you get to six or eight or a dozen fires, I loose track.

It really wouldn't be an issue for us if the news people would associate a fire name with a geographical area in their reporting

Yep I agree.. and I agree with there different names if there are three different fires. But I don't see why when it's just one fire to not name it based on a common name like the closest city.

Well, maybe something else. If they named them after a city folks would think the city was burning down!  Laughing

Though come to think of it that might become more common.
LOL when a city actually did burn down the called it the Carr fire Blink

And since "car" fires are a real thing, I thought calling it the Carr fire was a dumb choice. When it's being covered on the news, it just sounds silly.
Reply
#20
(08-08-2018, 02:05 PM)GPnative Wrote:
(08-08-2018, 01:14 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-08-2018, 12:50 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(08-08-2018, 12:44 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-07-2018, 10:15 PM)Cuzz Wrote: Actually I think that's precisely what they are thinking about. If there are two or three fires along the Umpqua River drainage you can't name all of them the Umpqua Fire. For them it makes good sense. A distinctive name, especially using an obscure feature name, identifies it in both time and space. If they want to refer to it say in five years they just refer to the "whatever" fire, not the "fire in 201X up along highway xx at fire road zz". It's identified. Done.

It really wouldn't be an issue for us if the news people would associate a fire name with a geographical area in their reporting. The Hendrix Fire SW of Ashland, the Klondike Fire NW of Selma, like that. But they get used to the different fires like the fire fighters do and assume we're all up to speed too. OK until you get to six or eight or a dozen fires, I loose track.

It really wouldn't be an issue for us if the news people would associate a fire name with a geographical area in their reporting

Yep I agree.. and I agree with there different names if there are three different fires. But I don't see why when it's just one fire to not name it based on a common name like the closest city.

Well, maybe something else. If they named them after a city folks would think the city was burning down!  Laughing

Though come to think of it that might become more common.
LOL when a city actually did burn down the called it the Carr fire Blink

And since "car" fires are a real thing, I thought calling it the Carr fire was a dumb choice. When it's being covered on the news, it just sounds silly.

Somewhere someone said...."Jeeze that's a lot of smoke for a car fire"
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)