Gov. calls the legal situation 'complicated'
Why not ban all fireworks? No one has the right to light fireworks.
So I guess herbert isn’t drawing any salary from taxpayers, if his job is
to do nothing. Same for the utah legislature. If they don’t want
to act when we’re in an emergency—and the fires have burned huge
areas, including homes and poisoned the air for the rest of us—when do
they act? They are lawmakers, for heavens sake!and the argument
that we must be wise doesn't apply to traffic laws. most of us are wise
drivers and follow good judgment, yet we have to outlaw speeding, etc. for those
who are not wise. why not outlaw unwise target shooting, fireworks, and
parking hot cars on dry weeds?herbert is just afraid to lead.
he's a follower.
WAIT! I got it!We should just ban lightening!! That's a great
idea. Now fires will NEVER happen again. lol No fireworks, no lightening, no
fun, no rubbing feat on carpets either (friction = heat = fire risk). It all
makes perfect sense now!
So... if I built a swimming pool in the middle of an acre of concrete, would I
get arrested for lighting a firework over the pool? Blanket decisions like this
are bad for law as they exclude the possibility of lawful actions. What's
worse is when the vast majority of fires are not caused by fireworks anyway.
Maybe they should ban people jumping as they don't want it to induce an
Earthquake... you know, cause we're prone to have those too.
I heard a satistic about the fires in Utah this year. So far we have had about
400 man caused fires, and only 20 were caused by guns. That is 5% of all the
fires. Doesn't that mean that there is a bigger problem out there then
guns?Why go after the smallest problem, shouldn't we be going
after what is causing the greatest number of fires?
Utah 1. So ban exploding targets. I'm a huge hunting/gun guy,
and I have never figured out why exploding targets are legal.
Pretty easy. Shooting at exploding targets is what caused one or two fires and
is already banned. Article I, Section 6. [Right to bear arms.] The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and
defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other
lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the
Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.
If we are leave the responsibility of local governments to decide on whether or
not to restrict fireworks and to what extent, then shouldn't each local
government assume sole responsibility of the consequences of their decisions.
Why should one city or county offer to help with a fire caused by fireworks in
another jurisdiction if that government decided to allow fireworks and another
didn't. Why should some taxpayers have to pay for another jurisdictions
deciding to offer more freedom and liberty to their residents while while
taxpayers and their governments in another jurisdiction are more responsible and
restrict fireworks? Where is the fairness in that? This is similar to
what's going on in Europe and having Germany bail out other less
responsible European governments.
Everybody on this comment board has one thing in common, they all read or listen
to the news.But, and this is the real point, there are so many out
there that do not listen, read, or watch the news. That the Governor says to
use common sense, that the fire experts say don't do this or that, is never
heard by a whole lot of people. And then there are those that hear these
warnings, but they are of the opinion that it will never happen to them. As for
banning fireworks, you can ban all you want. Fireworks will still be set off,
curfews will be ignored, bottle rockets (illegal all the time) will be set off,
as will fire crackers (also illegal in Utah all the time). With the
lack of enforcement over the years, the turning of a blind eye of law
enforcement, the crying of wolf so many times, people just don't listen or
they don't believe those in authority. As Forest Gump's mommy taught
him, "Stupid is as stupid does". And there are always some that think
they are exempt.
I still do not believe target shooting with regular ammunition could cause a
fire. Some have "admitted" that they started fires target shooting. I
don't believe it. I think they started the fire doing something they
shouldn't have been doing and blamed it on target shooting. Maybe there
should be a ban on throwing rocks too. You can generate just as much sparks and
heat doing that. I really don't care if they ban target shooting now I
just don't like ideas being passed as fact.
The Pole Creek is said to have been started by fire works so that is at least
Let see. Im from Oregon, where we have nice wet ground.You guys live
in Utah where it's nice and dry.Oregon is nice and liberal.Utah
is nice and conservative, like me.Utah gets wild fires, and guns are to
blame.Utah, a state where hunting and guns bring in probably a 500 million
dollars a year in revenue.Explain this. How does a bullet start a fire?
Think before you answer this.
I love the picture with the aricle. Target practice against a rock wall. FIRE.
FIRE.Oh, the Governor means a different type of fire. What a silly
Most of the posts I have read are overreating. It has been against the law to
set off fireworks all year except a few special times. I hear them going off
long before they should.Hunting is illegal except during the season with
the right licence. We hear of poaching all year long. My point is we do not
need more laws and wait for the politicians to do something.Educate our
selves, be cautious, inform others, pay attention when others are doing
something that is not sensible,note it down,turn in the licence plate numbers or
peoples names that were in the area fires start so the Governer and other
officials can have it investigated and make charges when appropriate. You
cannot legislate stupidity but can charge for the results and hope the lesson is
learned at that time.
In fact, since I doubt much snowplow budget was used this year due to the mild
winter, why not expend some of that money and get the communities, cities, and
State to put some resources into cutting down and removing the fuels from the
'tinder dry' areas?Obviously, this isn't possible in
wilderness areas, so that's why strict bans should be enforced there. But
in other areas where it makes sense, let's fight it from the other
direction by reducing the concentration of dry fuels.
CHS 85,Just curious, but if you have a tinder dry field next to your
house, why not deal with that problem on an individual or small community level
and get it to a state where the grasses, etc, are less of a fire hazard. Get
someone to cut the grasses down with a large field mower, or something to that
effect.Yes, there are risky spots in the valley, but if the
communities would get together with volunteer groups and such, you would be able
to substantially reduce the risk in a few hours of work.I work with
pyrotechnics a lot and know that trees don't catch fire as easily as you
might think. It is the grasses, brush, and other dry vegetation that cause the
bulk of the problem, Which makes solving the problem that much more straight
forward.Why wait for an "act of Congress"? Let's solve
the actual problems in the valley instead of hoping people with less common
sense will follow some law or restriction.
To CHS 85,Whoever owns the undeveloped land in your neighborhood
should be required to keep the grass/brush cut. In our city out east, if you
did not keep your undeveloped land in the city limits cleared, the city would
inspect and have the land cleared at the owner's expense. There was a 15
day or so notification and warning period, then the lot/land was cleared by the
city. There was a maximum height for brush set by city ordinance.
I understand that conditions are extreme. And there are risks, particularly
near the foothills. In the valley, it would be more effective, however, to
enforce the ordinances regarding keeping open lots/fields cleared and mowed,
than to ban fireworks. As others have noted, not a single fire has been ignited
by fireworks. Ad if brush and folliage near homes were cleared, the risks if
there is an ignition from any source would be greatly diminished. The fireworks sold in Utah only fly 150 feet and, have quick cool-down design
features to reduce risk. If shot off in a city setting where lawns are watered,
brush is cleared, etc., the risks are very low.
I was thinking on how all this dry weather and fireworks bans will effect those
poor people who wait all year so they can make money running those firework
stands. As we were driving home, I saw several of these stands and they had no
customers at that time. This drought is hurting a lot of people. I feel sorry
for the people who run those fireworks stands because they count on making money
this time of the year.
So you think banning target shooting is going to solve anything. My guess is
next they will think they are going to ban hunting, someone might miss their
deer and start a fire. Lets get real people, just be smart about how you do
Banning fireworks and target shooting for a season may decrease the chances of a
fire but it really would not solve the problem. Bottom line is...people have to
be careful and if they are not, then consequences must be applied. Instead
of banning anything, just make the people causing these problems responsible for
their actions. Obviously, they will not be able to pay back the damage by
monetary means but they can do years of community service or even jail time if
necessary (especially now that we are on alert). The majority of fires
have been cause by single individuals not by an entire state. Let's not
For those wondering if fireworks have caused any fires I offer the following
quote from a KSL TV news story of June 28: "Fireworks were being blamed for
starting the Pole Creek Fire on Wednesday near Neola, Duchesne County. The fire
had burned 1,342 acres as of Thursday with zero percent containment". An
there is another valid reason to ban fireworks right now; air quality. This is a
headline from a srory in today's Deseret News:"Multiple counties
throughout the most populated areas in Utah are under an action alert."Ban fireworks now!
THe headline should read: Utahn's think maybe they have a Governor...
lost in DC is right, NONE of the current fires have been started by fireworks.
Do you realize, then, that every one of them still would have happened with a
statewide ban? Then, everybody would be clamoring for something else. Please
look at the causes people
May have? What are you waiting for a public opinion poll? JUST DO IT!
I find it ridiculous that this would be remotely controversial in an extremely
dry year when virtually every region of the state has been affected by
wildfires. Only in Utah will people clamor on about how temporary
fireworks and target-shooting bans, instituted at the local level, somehow
unfairly restrict individual rights. No one has a constitutional right to start
wildfires and place others in jeopardy. Some of this Tea Party stuff has become
let's see, how many of the current fires were started by fireworks? I have
not heard ANY of them were - some by target shooters and one by a guy parking
his car in tall dry grass where the hot muffler started the fire.no
need to over-react
@carman"Down in the vally where there is little to no risk
should not be restricted."I live in the "vally" where
there is considerable risk. The undeveloped field behind my house is an
absolute tinderbox. My home is in actual danger if the trees catch fire and the
ember blow onto my house and my neighbors' houses. Fireworks should be
restricted in our area, but every night I see people lighting fireworks and all
it would take is one errant firework to cause a catastrophe. Maybe
in the "vally" where you live, there is no danger, but for much of the
valley, there is real risk.
He is up for re-election. He is waiting for the poll results to come in before
deciding what to do. He reminds me of a quote from the book
"Band of Brothers." "Lieutenant Dike wasn't a bad leader
because he made bad decisions. He was a bad leader because he made NO
I guess the governor believes in local control only when it comes to the Federal
Government.This is an issue that can be handled by individual cities
and fire marshals. Most cities have already put into place total restrictions
near the mountains. Down in the vally where there is little to no risk should
not be restricted. It will only hurt businesses, tax receipts and individual
freedom.Yes there is a serious problem. But local, not state
control is the best policy.
I think it shows a lot of responsibility on the part of the governor to weigh
his options instead of just overreacting. Why pass another law if we already
have laws on the books that give him (or some other official) the authority. By
criminalizing those who use fireworks or go target shooting, we add additional
burdens to local law enforcement to whom the responsibility of enforcing new
restrictions will fall. They need to be prepared to handle that added
responsibility. All that being said, I wouldn't oppose a ban on
fireworks/target shooting this year at all. But, if a reasonable solution can be
found that allows those who wish to participate in those activities responsibly
to continue to do so, let's consider it. My suspicion though is that those
who are responsible are like myself and would rather forgo their own privileges
this year if it means preventing those who are irresponsible from causing more
With the way the state is currently Dry and Hot..Ban the darned things
this year. We cannot count on "Common sense" there appears to be
none. I watched my own neighbors lighting them off last night... Right next to a
tinder dry field and homes surrounding it.You can change laws... But you
cannot change STUPID.Come on Governor Herbert... ban them this year.
We have seen enough devastation and loss for one season. With a whole lot of
Mother Nature to deal with still.
Um , people it really is a simple issue, it doesn't mean passing a new law
, it doesn't mean we have to have gun control, all that is needed is Smart
common sense thought process.All the governor has to do is make a
public announcement or State of Address to the citizens of the state of Utah,
like he has, that all public shooting on state and federal lands are prohibited
and the use of fireworks within the state for the remaining of the fireworks
season are prohibited, and that their use will be evaluated on a Safety for all
aspect rather than a act of severe compliance. just like forest services use the
fire indicator board, they use a state indicator, if it is too dangerous to use
guns or fireworks on public or private lands you just don't do it, and if
you are caught you will be fined or jailed accordingly, and the saying goes the
other way it is safe for all, then the prohibited use is lifted. All determined
by those who know best.Plain and simple, It doesn't have to be
Then we'd better ban all cigarette smoking in the State as well and no
vehicles can pull trailers because their chains cause sparks. Go gov't go!
He's telling people to not be stupid, by doing something stupid: allowing
fireworks--when Utah is already on fire. How is allowing fireworks this year
anything BUT stupid? Sounds to me like he is doing what he already claims is
what Congress does: nothing. If he wants to be re-elected, the safe thing would
be to keep this state from unnecessarily burning. Say no to fireworks this year
if you love America and want to keep her beautiful.
Don't ban them...let's hasten the baptism by fire.
I am a democrat and the governor has my absolute support on how he is handling
this issue. My only fear is we have passed the "thoughtful, measured"
threshold and now must act. The economic downturn has taken our tax base to new
lows...where is the state going to come up with the funds to continue fighting
these stupidity caused fires?Best/worst quote: He said some
senators have already expressed concern that local law enforcement authorities
could abuse the power to restrict gun use. "As soon as you do it, somebody
may carry it to extreme," Waddoups said.Waddoups wake up. You
are using disgusting rhetoric, in this case inciting the fear of gun control, to
further your own political agenda. Quite trying to keep your seat...try leading
for once. Yes, you may make a few people angry but you may just win a few new
votes by being one of the "thoughtful" ones the governor needs right
This is stupid. The entire state is a tinder box. Ban them, what are we
How dare the Governor try to inhibit the ability of dumb people to start fires
that cost hundreds of millions every year to fight, not to mention destroys
homes and lives.Sounds like an Obamaesque socialist move to me.
Well said, Governor. It's refreshing to have a thoughtful, measured
response from a political leader for a change. We get tired of the overreacting,
the "Oh look! I can DO something about this and look important!"
attitude from politicians. Thank you!
So go ahead and ban them. Waiting for a contribution from the fireworks industry
before you act?
"But you can't pass a law that outlaws stupid," the Governor said
in his own defense.