Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is just me kinda venting over a situation currently going on in my state, and the COMPLETE lack of any kind of awareness or attention by basically anyone with a national voice.

I understand Harvey is a big catastrophe.

That there are higher population states also fighting fires, but Montana right now has and has had the biggest fires in the nation right now; and no seems to care enough to even mention it.

Or send relief.

Our own state representatives are ignoring us.

The help we have received is non-existent.

And federal help looks to be more of wishful thinking.

Most frustrating of all is the Eastern part of the state is being ignored by the rest of the state when half the area burned is in Eastern Montana.

I do not want this to be some political argument thread, or a climate change thread ect. I just simply needed a place to vent a bit and raise a little awareness for what is going on.

I am intentionally not commenting on what my state representatives said other than to say they have done more talking than actually doing.

A local news report (not my area) http://www.krtv.com/story/36306110/montanas-2017-fire-season-tops-1-million-acres-burned

Not a huge fan of Red Cross and there is nothing listed for Eastern Montana as we have had to do most of the relief locally (gas station jar donations, water and food drop offs, hay bales for livestock, ect) http://www.khq.com/story/36291381/how-you-can-help-with-fire-relief-efforts-in-montana

I would know nothing of the plight of Montana without having a friend living there giving us facebook updates. It is pretty crazy how little coverage it gets. He was forced to evacuate a week or so ago, but just recently got the authorization to return. There were rumors of looters pillaging abandoned houses, luckily his house was untouched or the looters were just rumors.

I guess forest fire just aren't sexy for networks to cover, or its forest fire burnout(ahem) from covering all the California fires.

What sucks for my friend is that he got a job out there at Big Sky Motorsports in Missoula after leaving Baltimore in disgust with how the Freddie Gray riots were handled. He moves to Montana and the state decides to burn itself down. My man can't catch a break!

It's not on a coast-aka flyover country- and therefore doesn't matter.

If it weren't for you, I'd have no idea this was even going on. Kinda strange that there hasn't been any reports, especially considering up here in canada the moment we hear about a forest fire it becomes headline news (due to the devastation of the Alberta Fire last year).

It should be receiving more coverage, but some level of disproportionate coverage is also understandable.

They're saying there's something like 16 million people in the path of Irma. There are 6 million people in the greater Houston area. Meanwhile there's only a million people in the entire state of Montana.

Again, doesn't mean there should be a near-news blackout on it.

AFAIK the only national coverage this has gotten has been the Washington Post.

 nels1031 wrote:
I would know nothing of the plight of Montana without having a friend living there giving us facebook updates. It is pretty crazy how little coverage it gets. He was forced to evacuate a week or so ago, but just recently got the authorization to return. There were rumors of looters pillaging abandoned houses, luckily his house was untouched or the looters were just rumors.

I guess forest fire just aren't sexy for networks to cover, or its forest fire burnout(ahem) from covering all the California fires.

What sucks for my friend is that he got a job out there at Big Sky Motorsports in Missoula after leaving Baltimore in disgust with how the Freddie Gray riots were handled. He moves to Montana and the state decides to burn itself down. My man can't catch a break!

That is a tough one. Give my best to your friend. As for the looting thing...I just don't know. I would like to think we Montanans were better than that, but realistically I know there are bad apples. Other than the local coverage to say, 'Hey, there are fires, these places need to be evacuated, and these people died fighting the fires." There has not been much coverage. I had to dig to find anything that listed places to donate, or a current local report on the fire. And that report doesn't even mention the Eastern part of the state. We had a fire here in the east that was allowed by the governor to burn around 300k acres. The people in the area say it was 350k, while the official reports say 270k. I'm inclined to think it's more, based on how that fire was mishandled.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gorgon wrote:
It should be receiving more coverage, but some level of disproportionate coverage is also understandable.

They're saying there's something like 16 million people in the path of Irma. There are 6 million people in the greater Houston area. Meanwhile there's only a million people in the entire state of Montana.

Again, doesn't mean there should be a near-news blackout on it.

You hit the nail on the head. My issue isn't that there is less coverage, but no coverage. At least by anyone reputable with a national voice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
AFAIK the only national coverage this has gotten has been the Washington Post.

I'm surprised the Washington Post even bothered and did a halfway decent job reporting it. Surprised I didn't see any political stance in the report. The WP doesn't have a great track record imo, but it is better than nothing I guess.

Dunno man... Montana isn't the only one under uncontrolled forest fires.

It's pretty much dominating the local news out west, particularly CO and CA. (at least, that's what my fam says).

Well, and let's not just limit this to Montana. Take a look at this image, this is the fire situation in the western US right now:

[img]
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2017/09/06/20170906_fire1.jpg
[/img]

I grew up in Montana and live in Seattle now. Fire season is a pretty regular thing, and smoky skies are part of summer. But this year has been way worse than any in my memory. Numerous air quality alerts, outright requests that all people stay inside, ash coating cars in the street overnight. It is really bad.

 Frazzled wrote:
It's not on a coast-aka flyover country- and therefore doesn't matter.

This, to be blunt, is the big reason.

A state with a very small population spread very thinly over a very large area, no big population centers or economic/transport hubs, that's of no major political significance due to its small size and reliable single party support, while fires and flooding and hurricanes are loom large over metro areas with many times the population of the entire state of Montana, like Houston, Portland, LA, and potentially Florida and other east coast states with Irma coming in. These places have far larger populations, and greater, political, economic, and transport visibility, hence why they geet attention and Montana does not.

Not to take away from the significance of the fires in Montana, they've burned over a million acres and are a major issue and deserve more attention, but those are the simple realities of it.

 curran12 wrote:
Well, and let's not just limit this to Montana. Take a look at this image, this is the fire situation in the western US right now:

[img]
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2017/09/06/20170906_fire1.jpg
[/img]

I grew up in Montana and live in Seattle now. Fire season is a pretty regular thing, and smoky skies are part of summer. But this year has been way worse than any in my memory. Numerous air quality alerts, outright requests that all people stay inside, ash coating cars in the street overnight. It is really bad.

And Here's a map for BC...

http://governmentofbc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a1e7b1ecb1514974a9ca00bdbfffa3b1

And now it burns, burns burns,
This land's on fire
This Lands on Fire
[/Johnny Cash Impersonation]

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It's not on a coast-aka flyover country- and therefore doesn't matter.

This, to be blunt, is the big reason.

A state with a very small population spread very thinly over a very large area, no big population centers or economic/transport hubs, that's of no major political significance due to its small size and reliable single party support, while fires and flooding and hurricanes are loom large over metro areas with many times the population of the entire state of Montana, like Houston, Portland, LA, and potentially Florida and other east coast states with Irma coming in. These places have far larger populations, and greater, political, economic, and transport visibility, hence why they geet attention and Montana does not.

Not to take away from the significance of the fires in Montana, they've burned over a million acres and are a major issue and deserve more attention, but those are the simple realities of it.

The problem is that it is basically NO coverage and NO support (on the federal level, with the feds denying the support). I love how my state isn't overcrowded and is still big on farming and ranching, but hate how people seem to equate that to being worthless and undignified. You would be amazed at the number of people who will turn their nose up at a farmer or rancher and often proceed to tell said person how they are doing things wrong. Sorry, that was a bit off topic I know, but I wonder if that mentality figures into the blackout of coverage.

And again, I would like to reiterate that I don't have a problem with less coverage due to our state's political/economic/population status. I have a problem with there being NO coverage outside of one online newspaper article that probably doesn't get much traffic anyway.

I heard about the Montana fires around the same time as the LA fires, but I get all my news online. And I live near LA.


Could it simply be an issue with the particular news channels available to you?

 NorseSig wrote:
And again, I would like to reiterate that I don't have a problem with less coverage due to our state's political/economic/population status. I have a problem with there being NO coverage outside of one online newspaper article that probably doesn't get much traffic anyway.

Well, the Washington Post is one of the larger newspapers in the country, and you can add the second largest newspaper in the country now, because the NY Times covered it yesterday.

My understanding is that the Washington Post and NYT are what you might call "fake news", so I'm not sure if I even believe if there are really wildfires at all, amirite?

 NorseSig wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It's not on a coast-aka flyover country- and therefore doesn't matter.

This, to be blunt, is the big reason.

A state with a very small population spread very thinly over a very large area, no big population centers or economic/transport hubs, that's of no major political significance due to its small size and reliable single party support, while fires and flooding and hurricanes are loom large over metro areas with many times the population of the entire state of Montana, like Houston, Portland, LA, and potentially Florida and other east coast states with Irma coming in. These places have far larger populations, and greater, political, economic, and transport visibility, hence why they geet attention and Montana does not.

Not to take away from the significance of the fires in Montana, they've burned over a million acres and are a major issue and deserve more attention, but those are the simple realities of it.

The problem is that it is basically NO coverage and NO support (on the federal level, with the feds denying the support). I love how my state isn't overcrowded and is still big on farming and ranching, but hate how people seem to equate that to being worthless and undignified. You would be amazed at the number of people who will turn their nose up at a farmer or rancher and often proceed to tell said person how they are doing things wrong. Sorry, that was a bit off topic I know, but I wonder if that mentality figures into the blackout of coverage.

I guess it's possible, but probably only in a very minor way. There's a lot going on in some big places with lots of media coverage, and Montana to most people might as well be Mars, as opposed to any systemic bias against the lifestyles and occupations of the people there.

I mean, looking at the fires here in Oregon, the only one people really care about is the one near Portland, not the dozens raging elsewhere. It's not because those arent destructive events, but they just dont impact many people.

We probably wouldnt see much more than a peep about Irma and the destruction it has caused if it wasnt looking to barrel through the eastern US, despite the damage and deaths it has wreaked already on places.

This sucks!

It make sme think of the Big Burn at the turn of the century.

Whats a Montana?

But really

seems half the country is on fire, the other half is drowning.

My brother in law lives in Montana. I haven't heard a word about the fires. Will have to ask!

I think that the inhabitants of a lot of western states (here in southern Cali included) forget that the local ecosystems have adapted to being burned down every few years (or decades, for northern forested areas). Certain conifers, for example, become notably more flammable with age, an adaptation for the 'parents' to burn down and create room for the next generation of trees. It's something that these ecosystems have done for a very long time, and trying to prevent it from happening will only make it worse when it does. While we generally acknowledge that (to varying degrees) what really needs to be in place is a system of controlled burns to ensure the ecosystem goes up in flames on our terms, since having it do so is unavoidable. Otherwise it can lead to situations like this where a dry year and a sudden hot streak create a situation that maybe the natural wildness can handle, but is rather destructive for us. Global warming will/has messed with things too, which is all the more reason to impose some measure of control.

At any rate, good luck to you and hopefully a turn for the better in weather will show up soon.

 NorseSig wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It's not on a coast-aka flyover country- and therefore doesn't matter.

This, to be blunt, is the big reason.

A state with a very small population spread very thinly over a very large area, no big population centers or economic/transport hubs, that's of no major political significance due to its small size and reliable single party support, while fires and flooding and hurricanes are loom large over metro areas with many times the population of the entire state of Montana, like Houston, Portland, LA, and potentially Florida and other east coast states with Irma coming in. These places have far larger populations, and greater, political, economic, and transport visibility, hence why they geet attention and Montana does not.

Not to take away from the significance of the fires in Montana, they've burned over a million acres and are a major issue and deserve more attention, but those are the simple realities of it.

The problem is that it is basically NO coverage and NO support (on the federal level, with the feds denying the support). I love how my state isn't overcrowded and is still big on farming and ranching, but hate how people seem to equate that to being worthless and undignified. You would be amazed at the number of people who will turn their nose up at a farmer or rancher and often proceed to tell said person how they are doing things wrong. Sorry, that was a bit off topic I know, but I wonder if that mentality figures into the blackout of coverage.

And again, I would like to reiterate that I don't have a problem with less coverage due to our state's political/economic/population status. I have a problem with there being NO coverage outside of one online newspaper article that probably doesn't get much traffic anyway.

NorseSig, as someone who lives in a large city, your feelings about how people in large cities perceive farmers and ranchers are justified. A sizeable portion of city dwellers, from my 32 years living in large cities, do have an illogical disdain for people who provide our food, or perform manual labor in general. It's the same crowd that thinks having natural kids is eco-terrorism, or that the meat industy is genocide (well.. technically it is but, we gotta eat).

Anyway, before I get too venomous and, likely receive an infraction, the simplest and, definitely the biggest reason why there has been little coverage is that it is a very large space, with a comparatively very small amount of people. Population densities there don't exceed the dozens.

Is the news correct thats its snowing there now?

It's an unpopular fact, but the same reason why the fires in Montana don't make much news is the same reason why Montana has 3 electoral votes. It's barely has 1,000,000 people living in it. 10 cities have a higher population than the State of Montana. If you count Metropolitan areas it would be an even higher number.

The fires are a bad deal, but ultimately they didn't affect that many people for it to become a national vs a local problem.

 RancidHate wrote:

NorseSig, as someone who lives in a large city, your feelings about how people in large cities perceive farmers and ranchers are justified. A sizeable portion of city dwellers, from my 32 years living in large cities, do have an illogical disdain for people who provide our food, or perform manual labor in general.

I think that blade cuts both ways. City dweller here, and having just visited my wife's family in Kansas I was quite aware of the bias against "city folk" and "the coasts" so it isn't just urban dwellers who have prejudice.

And do I need to sing the Farmers Only jingle? Cause "city folks just don't get it!"

 RancidHate wrote:
It's the same crowd that thinks having natural kids is eco-terrorism

Unexpected vaccination attack. Interesting!

I didn't think anyone was going to go for that low-quality bait, but maybe we've some interest after all.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 RancidHate wrote:

NorseSig, as someone who lives in a large city, your feelings about how people in large cities perceive farmers and ranchers are justified. A sizeable portion of city dwellers, from my 32 years living in large cities, do have an illogical disdain for people who provide our food, or perform manual labor in general.

I think that blade cuts both ways. City dweller here, and having just visited my wife's family in Kansas I was quite aware of the bias against "city folk" and "the coasts" so it isn't just urban dwellers who have prejudice.

 RancidHate wrote:
It's the same crowd that thinks having natural kids is eco-terrorism

Unexpected vaccination attack. Interesting!

I never stated that the knife didn't cut both ways.

You kind of did.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
You kind of did.

No, I didn't.

Just because I say "John hates Mary" does not mean I said "Mary hates John".

Extending that example, saying "Urban disdain for Rural people is a thing" does not equate to "Rural disdain for Urban people is not a thing".

I've lived in both the city and the country. Not in the US obviously, but I doubt it's much different.

Anyhow, in my experience a lot of people in the country spend a lot of time attacking people who live in the cities. There's a real culture of resentment there, and almost no awareness of the irony in common sentiments like 'people in the city think x about us and that's not fair'.

In contrast, I've never seen anything close to resentment or hostility in people in the city. I think that is pretty much a fantasy of country people. This isn't because people in the cities are saints or anything, but because people in the cities don't really think of people in the country all that much at all. And when they do it's generally positive, but extremely patronising, they see them either as 'salt of the earth', or as collapsing towns defined by unemployment and drug addiction.

There's a lot generalising there, of course, I only mean to describe what I've noticed in a very general, population as a whole kind of thing.

 sebster wrote:
I've lived in both the city and the country. Not in the US obviously, but I doubt it's much different.

Anyhow, in my experience a lot of people in the country spend a lot of time attacking people who live in the cities. There's a real culture of resentment there, and almost no awareness of the irony in common sentiments like 'people in the city think x about us and that's not fair'.

In contrast, I've never seen anything close to resentment or hostility in people in the city. I think that is pretty much a fantasy of country people. This isn't because people in the cities are saints or anything, but because people in the cities don't really think of people in the country all that much at all. And when they do it's generally positive, but extremely patronising, they see them either as 'salt of the earth', or as collapsing towns defined by unemployment and drug addiction.

There's a lot generalising there, of course, I only mean to describe what I've noticed in a very general, population as a whole kind of thing.

This echos my experience. Driving through Arizona we saw a number of "Not Cal" bumper stickers. Someone slashed our tires at a grocery store parking lot, and an acquaintance suggested it was because of the California plates. When I inquired, I found out that many Arizonans, at least in the Prescott area, believe they are in some sort of culture war with Californians. The feeling is not mutual...since who bothers to think about Arizona?

 sebster wrote:
I've lived in both the city and the country. Not in the US obviously, but I doubt it's much different.

Anyhow, in my experience a lot of people in the country spend a lot of time attacking people who live in the cities. There's a real culture of resentment there, and almost no awareness of the irony in common sentiments like 'people in the city think x about us and that's not fair'.

In contrast, I've never seen anything close to resentment or hostility in people in the city. I think that is pretty much a fantasy of country people. This isn't because people in the cities are saints or anything, but because people in the cities don't really think of people in the country all that much at all. And when they do it's generally positive, but extremely patronising, they see them either as 'salt of the earth', or as collapsing towns defined by unemployment and drug addiction.

There's a lot generalising there, of course, I only mean to describe what I've noticed in a very general, population as a whole kind of thing.

It's generally not people who live in cities who don't like "country folk". It's people who formerly lived in the cities and then move into the country who start to develop some unsavory views of their new neighbors. They'll take offense to a rooster crowing a half mile down the road while simultaneously having a dog which causes far more noise than any chicken ever could.

People move out to the country, and then start getting offended at things that make the country the country.