maplelakeduckslayer wrote:LMFAO a forest fire? Which simpleton that this state employs thought a forest fire was the most plausible answer given our wet entire year? Or is is really that shocking that it's possible to have that many birds in the state, that a forest fire is more believable even with many areas being 100% above avg precipitation?
Nershi wrote:I thought the forest fire was a pretty dumb assumption as well. Maybe a building fire or oil fire but you couldn't start a forest fire now if you tried.
You don't know how refreshing it is to hear someone else say that. It's remarkable how good common sense can sound when you haven't heard it for a while....
....like today, when I was warned by three separate people asking me if I thought it was a good idea to burn leaves on such a windy day.
I told them unless they have some napalm there's no friggin' way anyone is lighting the woods on fire. One of those MN things I hate---people thinking our wet-ass-shit-boreal forest is always a tinder box.
You have no idea how many times I've actually tried to burn some ground, dumping gas all over to start it, only to have it not go anywhere before going out.
Only once have I actually got the shit to go, and it only burned maybe four or five acres before the DNR had helicopters dumping shit on it and fire trucks chain sawing a giant fire line....as if we live in Montana or something.