Editor, The Record:

Re: Leave bylaw alone, July 23 edition.

I have been pressing for some time to have council ban pit fires in the built-up, urban area of Mission, essentially in that area where open yard refuse burning was banned during the last bylaw update.

I have to differ with the notion set out in the editorial, that the existing bylaw is effective. My experience suggests that it is not.

I suffer from asthma, which is significantly aggravated by wood smoke. My wife is affected as well, although she is not diagnosed with asthma at this point. I live in central Mission, not far from the Leisure Centre, and we find our home almost constantly in the presence of the smell of wood smoke, quite frequently this comes from pit fires in the area I can identify, other times not.

Local asthma rates are epidemic, and all pollution sources are a part of the air quality issue. Summer is a particularly challenging season, because air quality in the summer is often poor to begin with and the smoke from localized backyard fires just makes it so much worse. For example, in the middle of this hot weather, I am at the maximum dosage for puffer use, and I spend most of my time indoors. In the warm evenings, when the air movement is stagnant, we are often driven to closing our windows.

As it has been explained to me, under the current bylaw, once a fire pit is approved (relating to proximity to buildings, etc.) the approval really is simply a license to burn almost unrestrained. Unless there is evidence during an inspection of flagrant abuse, then the current bylaw provides no practical on-going control.

The editorial suggests that the complaint-driven bylaw is effective. Aside from the fact that it is no fun informing on one's neighbours, I have been advised by the fire chief that they need to exercise several layers of discretion in deciding to proceed on complaints. For example, calling out a member to investigate smoke in the area comes at a relatively high call-out cost. Fire department staff also are understandably reluctant to send any investigator out in the evening, due to personal safety concerns. Such complaints can cause animosity among neighbours.

Frankly, I would prefer no open burning in the Fraser Valley, except in designated campgrounds. I think we are well past the time — especially in built-up urban areas — where we can pretend to still be pioneers on the edge of wilderness. Localized burning may not be a broad-point source of pollution, but it is certainly a significant pollution source if one is downwind of one or more frequently-used fire pits, especially when houses are in close proximity.

But if, as the editorial suggests, a total ban is viewed as negatively affecting long-held cultural values, then I do believe we need a more effective enabling bylaw. It strikes me that an effective bylaw would treat pit fires as a privilege requiring a permit — for example, for a family gathering or a birthday party, or other planned social gatherings.

Pit fire by permit — in the same area in which yard refuse burning has been banned — would be a much better compromise solution, because it would tend to control frequency, allow for ongoing public education for those seeking permits, and the fire department would be well aware in advance of the presence of any permitted fires. Any other burning, presumably would be treated as any other illegal act.

It strikes me that this permitting process — perhaps with a fee — would offer an opportunity for reminders to the person seeking the permit about fire safety, neighbourly practices, and also would mean that pit fires would be special events, and not subject to the same incidental, frequent burning we have had to suffer through over the years.

Don Chapman

Mission