Just saw this come across my deak…
4 Likes
The problem is not the policy that’s there to be used with appropriate current and expected conditions.
It’s the personnel who may not be qualified to make the call on what action or preventative measures should be taken to prepare to take action in a timely matter should conditions change.
We will not restore health to our forests by putting everything out that’s already proven. But we can’t have people sizing up these lightning strikes and coming up with plans that don’t necessarily have the experience required.
6 Likes
There are so many variables involved. With the weather conditions this season, and the drought. I don’t believe anything should be left alone, however, resources are stretched thin and you have to get the priority fires first, sometimes the little lightning strikes sit on the back burner. If I remember correctly the tamarack that is in question here punked around at an acre for 5 days prior to the blow up. Also even though fire was in California, it was managed by the NV-HTF.
4 Likes
Link to the op-ed piece briefly shown in the video.
Author: Ken Pimlott
He also gave the keynote speech at the Understanding Risk conference in 2020. Video is available on this page: Understanding Risk | UR2020 Keynote Ken Pimlott
4 Likes
I can’t speak for anywhere else but here the forest fire planner makes that call. Not some ICT5(T)
1 Like
Well a couple things to address I suppose however, given the responses I’m not quite sure anyone read my response and truly disected it.
I’m not saying the Tamarack was an opportunity to manage a fire. However at the time California had a fair amount of resources at its disposal and was not under influence of the major fires currently burning. Now given those circumstances if someone was so bold as to decide to manage something under those conditions given the fuel type it may be possible with great risk.
However committed resources are necessary right off the bat monitoring is almost never a good idea in my experience without allocation of resources to quickly build contingencies actively having boots on the ground etc. To make adjustments as conditions change.
Now watching the video from Pimlott I can see how all that sounds proper but please remember at some rate that high up those guys are politicians, anytime you hear the word climate change there’s some automatic pandering taking place. At the same time as admitting we have changed the forest by suppressing every fire we try and say that
Climate change is the problem and we have to protect the WUI!
If we suppress every fire eventually we meet our match regardless of taking action or not. It’s not necessarily a specific agencies fault It’s just a reality of circumstances we all created. As a species we’ve only realized our role as planetary stewards for a brief period of time.
Finally a forest planner doesn’t always have the quals to make those calls or an ICT5, to be FRANK there are too many unqualified people in key positions throughout all agencies. (Unqualified meaning inexperienced) Just know if this ruffles feathers I’m not sorry and if you don’t believe me about the unqualified personnel you may be one of them.
Which is why we need to pull ideas from the experience around us all agencies and make decisions with the collective experience, pretend we are having this conversation on the hood of a supt. rig with a handful of agency overhead and an old topographical map might give you some comfort, if you’re thinking about your i-pad your out of your element.
14 Likes
For fires to burn in the wilderness correct me if I am wrong but it usually takes Forest Superivisor approval? Some one at a higher level within the fire management make a decision for or against The let burn? Was it monitored by camera 24/7? Was it flown regularly by a helicopter? What was the delay when an air attack flew the fire? Lots of questions on this one that will likely be resolved in a court of law if past history of the Acorn fire is any indication.
3 Likes
A little history on the Acorn fire from local media.
I agree with what you are saying, the collar brass doesn’t make someone the go to person. I had a couple of sups that I learned a lot from. And shared what I learned with my crew. I could go on, but will stop for now.
2 Likes
That’s the kind of stuff I’m protesting.
I really don’t care what forest supervisor says put shots on the ground day 1 and it will most likely work itself out whatever the FS decides.
I work for CAL FIRE now and there’s alot I agree with here that I was ignorant to before. But there’s alot this side of the fence takes for granted.
I like to think I’m a base level, well respected employee who only exerts influence when I’m concerned we are doing something that is risky for our forces or the overall goal. I have a strong enough influence with words my operators listen to my input.
Just everyone remember if you’re not the IC it’s super easy to armchair, goes for decisions outside of fire as well. That being said I revert back to my statement about unqualified personnel, I believe this is an epidemic of lower standards we require to fill overhead occupancy that is outpacing experience.
8 Likes
an ICT5(T) isn’t making that call anywhere. and unless your fire planner is Agency Administrator qualified they arent “making the call” either. I"m sure they are consulted, as they should be, but the ultimate decision rests with the AA
1 Like
That’s some really good points Frank.
2 Likes
Again I think you fail to read the writing between the lines.
Sometimes say this is a naturally caused incident and we will monitor.
However, I assign a shot crew and it magically burns itself out in 2 days.
Or it’s a cal fire incident in an area where a crazy guy will light 10 more grass fires this season so my engineer drags fire across the whole field and calls it good for the rest of the year.
The point is we need qualified module leaders who can read between the lines and bend the laws of the land to fit the agency mission and protect the resources while strengthening our ecosystem.
11 Likes
Doesn’t the WFDSS run assist in making this decision? I wonder what the WFDSS run looked like for the Tamarack?
The article is hidden behind a paywall. Here’s another article on the 20th anniversary of the Acorn fire.
Additional articles:
I found a museum link to the Bjornsen Report on the Acorn fire.
This report prepared by R. L. Bjornsen is an analysis of the Acorn Fire that stated on July 29, 1987 on the West Carson River, near Woodfords, California. The fire was controlled on August 4 after burning over 6,550 acres and destroying 26 homes.
The report makes recommendations for Alpine County to enact ordinances which require fire safe measures for homes / structures at the wildland / urban interface. The County should join the Forest Service in a study for fire protection of state and private watersheds. The Incident Command System should be incorporated into the County disaster plan. A fire marshall position should be established to coordinate volunteer departments. Protection of state and private watersheds should continue under the present arrangement of the California Department of Forestry.
The thirty-four year old photos from this blog look kind of the same as this report summary.
Same stuff, different decade.
3 Likes
To tag onto this comment, not being inflammatory just factual, I’ve heard many comments by burn crews (Hotshots, T2IA) that homes are just another fuel model and it is the responsibility of “you engine guys” to manage that.
This is one of attitude that needs to change. If all resources regardless of agency can’t agree on tactics and the end state, we will never be successful.
4 Likes
One of the things that gets overlooked to many times is historic normal daily observed weather conditions. If you have a daily down slope wind pattern in the area of a town and a fire is right at the top of the drainage in a sheltered area all it takes is a move into a less sheltered section then you have potential for problems. If you look at those daily records and forecasts you have a better plan to take action when needed.
1 Like
MOD-NOTE:
Ok everyone, enough is enough. This forum is highly visible by the public, politicians and others. This is not a place to slander, nor pick apart an agencies mission. If you disagree, that’s fine. If you feel you shouldn’t mention it, you probably shouldn’t. Feel free to have an off the line conversation; via private messaging if you feel so incline to resolve an issue.
Thank you,
MOD-FJ
13 Likes
Everyone: That’s enough of this debate here. We have no ability here to verify whether something did or did not happen. If it did happen, then the proper route is to take it through the chain of command on the incident. Was it taken to DIVS or BRANCH? If not why not?
Let’s move on, please
8 Likes
If you suppress all fire there will be no new growth or regrowth, some of these conifers need fire.
1 Like