LIGHT A FIRE UNDER THEM

Fuelling the debate: Fuller

In 1175, Saskatoon’s city council decided to review its bylaw on burning animal carcasses in backyards.

In medieval times, there were no restrictions on burning animal carcasses in fire pits.

People could burn them any time of the day or night.

Some people were in favour of burning animal carcasses. Some were against it.

Here’s how the debate went.

AGAINST

The anti-burning side pointed out that the stench of smouldering animal carcasses drifted all over the neighbourhood. They found the smell to be unpleasant. Even if the fire was a few huts down, the acrid smoke could get into their clothing and linger for weeks. It wasn’t fair to spend the entire summer smelling like farmer’s sausage, they thought.

Additionally, they claimed that second-hand carcass smoke was detrimental to the health of people who had what many centuries later would be known as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

The anti-burning side reminded city council that Saskatoon’s summers were very short and it was unfair to have to stay in their hovels with their rustic shutters closed 24/7, particularly since air conditioning wouldn’t be invented for another 727 years.

They even disputed the necessity of burning carcasses and said dead animals could just as easily be buried. They would also have made a point about air pollution, but the term hadn’t been invented.

The anti side bolstered its argument by producing a press release from Saskatoon Fire and Protective Services stating: “Fires should not be lit if conditions are such that smoke is likely to drift.” Saskatoon was located on the bald prairie, they said, and was therefore subject to never-ending winds.

In other words, smoke was “likely to drift” every minute of every day of every month of every year. If the fire department’s directive were followed, there was never an acceptable time to have a backyard fire.

FOR

Meanwhile, the pro-burning side strongly resisted any change to the bylaw. They said people had always burned animal carcasses in their backyards, and that it was a pleasant, harmless summertime diversion.

Also, it was an efficient way to deal with all the animals that died over winter, much better than leaving them to rot in the streets, with the ensuing maggot/ rat/bubonic plague issues.

The pro-side thought city council had better things to do than make a bunch of rules for people who were doing nothing more than having friends over for a few cups of mead on a summer evening and enjoying the colourful flames of cattle and sheep being immolated.

Far from disliking the smoke, they said the smell of burning carcasses was pungent and spicy, especially when it was mixed with swamp willow, and that those who claimed they didn’t like it were simply being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

The pro-burning side said it was a matter of democracy. If most people liked the fires, they should remain. It would be unfair for council to bend over backwards to accommodate a vocal minority with as-yet-undiscovered medical conditions. If these people didn’t like the smoky, fat-sizzling aroma that came with burning beasts of burden, that was their problem.

Additionally, the pro side argued, it wasn’t as if carcass burning went on every day.

Most people who enjoyed burning dead animals did so for a few hours on the weekend.

Surely, it was not too much to ask that the practice continue, particularly since summer was so short and global warming wasn’t even a thing yet.

RESOLUTION

In the end, city council decided it needed more research into issues such as permits, hours of allowable carcass burning and enforcement procedures used by other cities. The city’s leaders expected it would take between one and 842 years to settle the matter.