I Know where this topic may end up going but EH, So should we monitoring some fires or suppressing all fires with the present fuel and weather conditions and should we make that decision based on the location and risk to the surrounding area.
Working for team red, I actually believe in what the feds are doing, where appropriate. So ultimately my answer is yes. We need to remember that there are many times where fire is beneficial to the landscape. Some of the biggest conflagrations we deal with are the over accumulation of forests over the past forty years for whatever reason we choose to blame today. These fires were allowed to burn unchecked prior to the current situations we find ourselves in now. And why were they allowed to burn? Because the threat to public didn’t exist. The accumulation of fuels didn’t exist. So how do we fix this? According to Gavin, and many other politicians, this is the $500 million dollar question. But throwing $500 million at fuels reduction in one year to solve a problem decades in the making will not fix our choking forests today, or next year, or even in the next decade. And that’s only the California side of the problem. This is a national level issue. I don’t know what the best answer is. What I do know is we cannot continue to sit around and do nothing anymore. We have to start somewhere. Our forests are essentially the equivalent of the hoarder house and we all know it’s grotesque and bad. We know something catastrophic is going to happen if we don’t do anything to clean up. So we should clean up where we can. Where the ecological value is high, the public safety risk is low, and resource availability and conditions allow. And for the sake of argument, even during full suppression we have had fires get away from us and go on to destroy neighborhoods through well intentioned firing plans meant to stop the spread of the fire. I empathize with everyone who says we should put out the fires now and stop monitoring them. But all we are doing is throwing gasoline on the proverbial fire.
18 Likes
That last line on the Tamarack Facebook post should never have been written. Something more like, “we’ll change our management strategy if the fire increases it’s threat potential, otherwise the risk to firefighters is too great” would be more appropriate (not to mention educating the public). They’re going to get hung on a statement like they wrote. It’s sad, because like CDFFAE stated, we need to reduce the fuel loading somehow.
8 Likes
There is a difference between a vnp burn and just letting a fire burn. Live and homes are at stake for Christ sake. This is ridiculous. I believe fire in certain areas is the way to reduce fuels as well, have done it on our own lands. Done under the right conditions at the right time… On purpose with lines in place, proper staff and the right conditions. Not just “oh there is rocks around it, it will go out” . I’m sorry, we the public property owners ain’t hearing this b.s. anymore. Pure and simple that was a bad irresponsible decision.
5 Likes
Are there any other fires in this status at the moment? Are there any that have chewed through their fuels and petered out as designed, this season?
2 Likes
In addition to the ecological rationale for monitoring versus suppression you need to equate the National and GACC PL levels into the equation. When presented to NICC and NMAC via a 209, a fire such at this wouldn’t have been given a second glance. Regardless of your rationale or emotional response to this incident and others like it , these incidents do not demonstrate a high need for resources. I’m not looking to argue or set a tone , however some of the rationale in this discussion among others demonstrates a lack of understanding on how resource sharing , use , and ordering all work. Knowing this country intimately well , I can buy the decisions , as well as the M.A.P.’s that were obviously drawn up and implemented. To automatically chastise decisions from the comfort of the keyboard regardless of which way they are leaning is irresponsible at best.
9 Likes
This fire didn’t need “resources” it could have been extinguished with a shovel the first day. No emotions involved, just tired of those “in charge” thinking “us lameman” are stupid and don’t understand.
5 Likes
And since you have no idea who we all are that is a bold statement to assume we all just sit comfortably behind a keyboard
3 Likes
Two elements here.
-
Are the resources available to manage what amount to unscheduled prescribed burns?
-
Are the contingent resources available in case one of these additional burns escapes containment?
During the higher PLs the answer is obvious: sort of, and absolutely not.
During high levels of EMS system demand, one way to get more use out of the ambulances is to have them roll Code 3 all the time even on the lower priority calls. I view 100% suppression during high fire season in the same light - without the needed resources, we have to stamp out whatever we can as fast as we can. Or staff more resources for game changing prescribed burn year round.
6 Likes
Don’t take the wording personally. I am implying none of us are on scene or there. Look at the IA and smoke check listing from July 3-4 for the Sierra front. Basic prioritizing from a forest DO and or district DO perspective. If you have 20 things that need something but only 10 to give out , you inevitably lose at some point. That’s all I am emphasizing. Is the need greater than the resources at hand? Perhaps that is what happened.
5 Likes
I think I’m seeing some comments here where it was forgotten this particular fire’s location was in a dangerous spot for fire fighters to directly engage with the fire. So a couple shovels of dirt and a bladder bag likely wasn’t an option on day 1. Risk Management.
Other options? Maybe, but let’s not set the foundation of an argument/criticism without including that initial key assessment by the incident commander.
7 Likes
Let’s keep this on subject this thread isn’t about 1 fire. There is a time and a place to manage and monitor fires, the national park service has been doing this for years, yes there have been some some notable screw ups like Yellowstone in 88 and the Reading fire. Now this is just my opinion based on a fire history map and what the castle did.
The Alder fire was being managed and monitored, it started mid October and burned through November in 2018. Its my opinion that if they would have taken fire down around sequoia crest and tied into the pier fire the Castle could have been stopped where it burned between the two burn scars because it was stopped at those two burns.
4 Likes
During high levels of EMS system demand, one way to get more use out of the ambulances is to have them roll Code 3 all the time even on the lower priority calls.
My experience with the management of the EMS system (LG and State), calls are triaged at high demand, and those that are determined to be low priority are handled when resources are available. If a incident come in which requires a higher demand, resources are diverted.
Without being on scene, one can not comment on whether “this” incident was appropriately managed. We’ll have to trust the IC. With that being said, fire season here in the great state of CA is/has transitioning to year round everywhere. So what “time” of the year is the appropriate time to let them burn versus risking the health of underpaid forestry technicians?
Bottom line is these incident will happen, we’re paying for years of “let’s put everything out”. We need to educate the public that this will occur, the reasons why and what we’re doing to lessen (but not eliminate) the risk. Sucks to be one who is impacted (and although I have not been, yet, this fire is close to where it could impact me/family). But it is the price I pay for having property in the wildland. I accept that.
It’s no different than VMPs. Some will escape and burn down your house. Educate the public why we do these things, what the risks are. But don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
Lastly, I’ll restate what I said earlier. Putting a comment like “no threat to the public, etc…” out there is a monumentally stupid mistake. It provide fodder for dissenters and reveals a bit of patronizing on the writers part. They need to get some more training in media relations.
10 Likes
So, I will make the same comment I made last night in this thread that got flagged in the Tamarack questions because someone got offended.
We have been discussing this for 2 years in several forums and professional meetings and we (not pointing fingers at any agency) continue to let fires burn in monitor status in close proximity to population and infrastructure and act surprised when it gets to the point that it requires major action and loss of property and / or life. This is not the year. I understand not all fires can be staffed, but we must be smart about it. I am quite tired of hearing it is too dangerous to fight it so we ignore it. Time and place folks. And to put out a press release with the comments about Tamarack is just irresponsible, I wonder what they are telling the folks who lost property right now?
Now it will really suck up resources and poses a threat to life and property, the very lives and property of our bosses, the tax paying public.
We have to face the fact that the population is expanding, homes will continue to encroach into the WUI. Saying it isn’t our problem because you built a house there is a one way ticket to agency destruction. Remember the public is our boss and it is up to us to figure out ways to accomplish our charge and responsibility.
5 Likes
And to the comment that resource benefit is important, I will say the same thing, time and place folks. Let’s fix our problems with prescriptions and not get targeted black acres during historic fire threat and PL5 while our brothers and sisters are somewhere else putting their lives on the line.
5 Likes
This is every year from now on. Once everyone gets their head around this maybe better understanding of the issues will occur.
Straw man unfortunately. Don’t believe anyone has advocated that. The overall public is quite aware of what is and what is not BS. Don’t piss on their shoes and tell them it’s raining. Tell them (and firefighters) the truth and what reality is and they’ll accept it (in regards to fire), they may not like it (as I won’t when my property burns down) but they’ll understand it better.
Should we be monitoring fires or suppressing them immediately?
Title should be more,
Should we do a better job at explaining why we monitor fires, or suppress them immediately.
Too many press releases praising our glory without explaining why we decided to be glorious. Too may press releases downplaying the risk when we decide to be unglorious (?) .
Appreciate the open discussion but I’ve blathered on more than I like to…
7 Likes
Thanks for that. That is the idea I was going for but couldn’t convey it for some reason.
4 Likes
These fires happen because we spent too many years putting them out? Lol. How about 30 years of poor forest management and lack of logging. Too many tree hugging environmentalists infiltrated the decision making ranks. The “save all the trees” mentality ended up killing all the trees. Not to mention the ridiculous red tape just to get a timber sale going. Private timber companies figured it all out. Maybe because it was their dollars being lost not someone else’s.
4 Likes
It is an understatement to say that there are many competing interests. The public also elected the representatives who passed the Wilderness Act which regulates what can and cannot be done in protected areas. Yes, we can go down the rabbit trail of exemptions, etc. That’s not the point.
Every agency has a mission. Objectives, strategies, and tactics trickle down from there. So looping back to the quote, which charge and responsibility? It’s tragic that some voters lost their homes. But a lot of voters didn’t. They still have a say in this as well.
And no, I’m not taking sides. Just tying back in to the anchor point of mission.
4 Likes
I agree, with conditions this summer this is not a time to monitor.
Unfortunately, it reminds me of the Donnell fire 2018. Resources turned away at the beginning, it was deemed a training fire, and we lost a historic lodge and resort the last original in the area, and numerous old cabins. But “Green” buildings were saved. Sorry.
4 Likes