Doesn't really matter why a fire starts, but if having a brush pile burn
close to a Live Oak generates enough heat that the Live Oak dies, it's not
worth it. Brushfires are rarely roving, but all it takes when it gets really
dry is a cigarette butt or even car with loose exhaust dragging creating
sparks. Actually, when it gets that dry, the county institutes a burn ban so
it's really unlikely that "some moron tries to burn his brush on a breezy,
dry day in mid-summer" as not only will the fire department be there but so
will a Sherriffs Deputy issueing the citation.

B.Server wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 02:13:18 -0500, "Robbin" wrote:


"dt" wrote in message
...
Burning's a waste; if you can't compost it, build a brushpile. Birds
and
small critters will love it.

Nice to say if you live in the city. Living in the country and also being
a
member of the volunteer fire department, I can tell you that those
brushpiles become a fire hazard around this time of year. I leave a few
and
burn the rest -- no choice!


I would hazzard a guess that very few of them spontaneously combust.
Just guessing, but I'd bet a whole lot more of them cause problems
when some moron tries to burn his brush on a breezy, dry day in
mid-summer than from roving brushfires. Left alone, they are less of
a problem.

On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 04:20:34 -0500, "Robbin" wrote:

Doesn't really matter why a fire starts, but if having a brush pile burn
close to a Live Oak generates enough heat that the Live Oak dies, it's not
worth it. Brushfires are rarely roving, but all it takes when it gets really
dry is a cigarette butt or even car with loose exhaust dragging creating
sparks. Actually, when it gets that dry, the county institutes a burn ban so
it's really unlikely that "some moron tries to burn his brush on a breezy,
dry day in mid-summer" as not only will the fire department be there but so
will a Sherriffs Deputy issueing the citation.

It only matters why a fire starts if you are interested in trying to
reduce the number of them. Otherwise, one can treat them all as
"acts of God" and simply respond.

I am having a hard time deciding whether you want to burn or not. If
the pile is next to that oak, it does not matter when you burn it, the
oak is toast. So if you assume that all piles should be burned (which
I take to be your thesis) then off goes the oak.

You may have more first hand experience with "citizen burning" in this
locale, but when I lived in Westlake some 25 years ago, it was a rare
week between June and October when there was not a VFD run for a
"brushfire" our of control. (Of course, it is equally probably on
those 20% RH days in January) In most cases the local paper would
faithfully report that Joe moron had started the fire and either
failed to put it out, walked off and left it, or failed to notice that
there was a 20kt wind blowing. In short, hard to see as "an
accident".

Perhaps you don't think of tossing a butt into a brush pile as the act
of a moron (it being all too common hereabouts), but I do. Actually,
felony (as it is in much of the mountain west) comes to mind.

My point is that if one exercises a small fraction of the effort
needed to safely burn brush instead composting it, there is less
danger and more useful products result.

YMMV


B.Server wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 02:13:18 -0500, "Robbin" wrote:


"dt" wrote in message
...
Burning's a waste; if you can't compost it, build a brushpile. Birds
and
small critters will love it.

Nice to say if you live in the city. Living in the country and also being
a
member of the volunteer fire department, I can tell you that those
brushpiles become a fire hazard around this time of year. I leave a few
and
burn the rest -- no choice!


I would hazzard a guess that very few of them spontaneously combust.
Just guessing, but I'd bet a whole lot more of them cause problems
when some moron tries to burn his brush on a breezy, dry day in
mid-summer than from roving brushfires. Left alone, they are less of
a problem.

B.Server wrote in message
...
I am having a hard time deciding whether you want to burn or not. If
the pile is next to that oak, it does not matter when you burn it, the
oak is toast. So if you assume that all piles should be burned (which
I take to be your thesis) then off goes the oak.

You may have more first hand experience with "citizen burning" in this
locale, but when I lived in Westlake some 25 years ago, it was a rare
week between June and October when there was not a VFD run for a
"brushfire" our of control. (Of course, it is equally probably on
those 20% RH days in January) In most cases the local paper would
faithfully report that Joe moron had started the fire and either
failed to put it out, walked off and left it, or failed to notice that
there was a 20kt wind blowing. In short, hard to see as "an
accident".

Perhaps you don't think of tossing a butt into a brush pile as the act
of a moron (it being all too common hereabouts), but I do.

I am neither for nor against burning. I was responding to a post whaich
stated that "Burning's a waste; if you can't compost it, build a brushpile".
My point is that there are times/places where this is appropriate and others
where it is not the best course of action.

I will disagree with your statement "If the pile is next to that oak, it
does not matter when you burn it, the oak is toast." I can burn that pile
right after a rain and be quite close to the tree and at most only scorch
the leaves on a limb or two. If that same pile catches fire in a really dry
time of year, I could ignite the whole tree. Thus the reason for the
preventative burn -- use the fire when it is safe and not a threat to
anything around it.

You said "In most cases the local paper would faithfully report that Joe
moron had started the fire and either failed to put it out, walked off and
left it, or failed to notice that there was a 20kt wind blowing. In short,
hard to see as "an accident". According to burn regulations in Texas (Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission --
http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/admin/topdoc/rg/049.pdf ) on page 11 -- "Don't
start burning unless weather conditions are appropriate for smoke to
dissipate (winds of at least 6 miles per hour; no temperature inversions)
and for you to be able to control the fire (winds no faster than 23 miles
per hour)" so he would have been following the law in burning with 20 knot
winds as that would be 23 mph. Actually, Westlake is way too populated now
for burning, but there are many areas in Travis and surrounding counties
where it is an accecpted and normal part of life.

It does not matter whether you see the fire as an accident or not, if it
gets out of control in the wrong time of year it could be your house that
also burns (and it doesn't matter whether it was a moron or an accident or
who started it, because now it is on your land and it is your property which
is at risk). Many places which allow burning are rural and when the
(volunteer) fire department arrives they will probably be carrying in trucks
all of the water which they will have access to use to extinguish the fire.
Hence my belief, that while it is good to leave some brush piles for the
critters, a person also has to acess the risks regarding large brush piles
around close to trees, houses, etc. The less fuel laying or piled up on your
property, the less you are likely to loose.

"Robbin" wrote:

Hence my belief, that while it is good to leave some brush piles for the
critters, a person also has to acess the risks regarding large brush piles
around close to trees, houses, etc. The less fuel laying or piled up on
your
property, the less you are likely to loose.

Well, I suggested building a brushpile, but Robbin's convinced me.

Anybody know a cheap source for two acres' concrete?

DT