Should we do a better job at explaining why we monitor fires, or suppress them immediately?

General Discussion
#63

Actually, California has shut down so many mills that the few remaining can’t keep up. I’d bet a glazed donut that all the lumber companies would reopen closed mills yesterday if they were allowed too. They earn money per board whether it comes from their land or not. When the FS takes their cut it certainly bites into their profit margin. But what if the FS didn’t have to make money off the sales, and the forest got thinned for free? After all, timber that just gets burned doesn’t profit anyone? The same goes for timber that never gets cut.

Just a question.

2 Likes
#64

I’m not a betting man, but I’ll buy you a glazed donut!

3 Likes
#65

Topic: let burn, or suppress
Response 1: let burn
Response 2: suppress
Response to response 2: we have to burn it to make it like it was
Response to response 1: it puts people’s lives in danger and destroys our forests, which many people love and adore
Counter argument to response to response 2: how do you suggest we do it then……

I haven’t seen anywhere on this discussion where anyone says absolutely no to prescribed fire as a tool.
It seems one or two people disagree on doing it during fire season(always forever extreme danger in CA NOW) or in an uncontrolled manner, the tamarack fire meeting both those unfavorable criteria and now threatening to destroy Historic Markleeville.

Seems to be zero parsecs off topic, but that’s just me.
The views and opinions expressed above are mine, and complete garbage to some.

2 Likes
#66

Mill site in Jackson, CA is now a shopping center. There is still is Ampine fiberform mill though. I have always thought that they should renovate the biogenerator in the county , truck the slash there and make energy too.

1 Like
#67

Bio energy has been run out by state regulations. The one near me closed a few years. Packed the whole operation up on trucks and sent it out of state.

3 Likes
#68

I am glad this discussion came up.

I want to express my utmost respect to both sides here.

I would just like to add:

  1. SPI knows exactly how many dollars they lost in land burned in the fires above. I don’t know if they made any changes to their slash disposal procedure or other fire preventive measures, but they are rather tight lipped because they are always under the gun from one side or another.

  2. We all know that if any new timber harvests were started in some of these FS areas that are so locked up these days in California, and somehow wound their way through the courts and protests, van loads of people would show up chaining themselves to trees and machinery, and an ugly scene would ensue. Some people will not listen to reason.

5 Likes
#69

It’s completely ridicules to allow a fire to burn uncontrolled during fire season in a state that is as populated as California. I am a huge pro-burning pro-VMP/VTP person, just when the time is correct to utilize the correct tool. The time to utilize fire for fuels consumption is during the shoulders and off season NOT in July!

There is no place in CA that a fire can be allowed to burn uncontrolled during fire season and it it be a threat to private property and infrastructure. This isn’t Montana or Idaho, it’s California the most populated state in the country.

Once someone is finally held accountable for their actions and the decisions that lead to this catastrophe, maybe just maybe there will be a change. You better believe that this fire will end up in litigation.

6 Likes
#70

This is inaccurate, there are roughly 35 mills in Northern California. 6 are owned by SPI, not even close to owning “almost all of the mills in NorCal”. The only large timber producer that doesn’t want to see more logs coming off of public land is SPI, due to the fact that SPI owns there timberland and most other mills do not own the land from which the logs the process come from.

2 Likes
#71

You’re correct. I was sloppy with that. But I’m guessing there are less than a dozen large mills. Someone who know the market better than me can probably fill us in.

#72

This is a post of mine from the IMT conversation but it’s applicable here.

This is the best explanation on the difference of FS and CF, one manages fire on land they own and the other manages fires on almost exclusively on private lands owned by taxpaying citizens of the state of California. CAL FIRE can not simply tell a private land owner that we are going to let their property burn for the “greater good”, it simply doesn’t work that way.

There will never be a time when CF get dispatched to a fire and says it’s to dangerous to engage, we will just let it burn. Its clear in the CF mission statement what the priorities are, protect life, property and the resources. CF has a duty to the taxpaying citizens to protect them and their property, FS does not have that same duty and as such the priorities are different.

3 Likes
#73

One last piece on risk and wildland firefighting. No matter how much risk mitigation you do, wildland firefighting is and will always be inherently dangerous. There is no way around this, either boots on the ground or in the air this is a dangerous profession and people will continue to die and get seriously injured fighting wildland fires.

I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that I am in no way advocating people take undue risk, as it’s already a dangerous job. What I am saying though is if someone can not come to terms with the fact that this is an inherently dangerous job and that you could be killed or seriously injured. Then you should probably do some deep reflecting and ask yourself if this is the profession you should be in. We call this the devil in our mind. Second guessing yourself puts everyone around you at risk.

Remember the best way to achieve safety for everyone on the fire line is to put the fire out plain and simple.

9 Likes
#74

“You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that’s clear, I will choose Freewill…”

9 Likes
#75

until it jumps your fence onto the neighbors, then the tune changes .

#76

I would have to disagree with you 100 percent on this one! CF and the FS are absolutely the same, when it comes to Protecting life, property, and the land! However we protect different portions of the land. What you describe here is like comparing the FDNY with a fire department in rural Kansas… they still operate on the same principles but with widely different senerios. Each department has different tools to deal with different senerios. So trying to compare and say who is better, or who makes the right decisions does not work. Managed wildfire has its place. Does is not work sometimes? Absolutely! But does it work a vast majority of the time? Absolutely! I remember as a boot firefighter, an old timer told me… never say never and never say always! It was wise words. Remember, no matter who you work for, we are always trying to do the greatest good.

1 Like
#77

Well stated IAfire and worth sharing for those who don’t comprehend the tasks and hazards in firefighting.

Had this framed sign in my station back in the days to help set the standards.
image

4 Likes
#78

Please reread my post, I never compared either agency or said one was better then the other. I gave factual information on the differences between the agencies.

No I’m sorry you are incorrect, comparing CF and the FS is no where close to comparing the FDNY to a rural fire department. The FDNY and the rural department operate under the same principles i.e. both are taxpayer funded with a specific mission to protect life and property but CF and FS do not operate under the same principles or have the same mission.

I laid it out clearly, CF fights fire on mostly private land and FS fights fire in mostly on public lands. The FS has the ability to manage a fire and allow it to burn on land that the FS controls and has responsibility for. For CF this is simply not an option because we can not pick and chose whose property we let burn and whose property we are going to save, it just doesn’t work that way. CF has a legal obligation to protect private property, the FS does not.

Their might be some people within the FS that feel the same as you do when it come to protecting life and property, but as an organization as a whole that is not the focus or the priority of the FS. It’s very evident when you read the mission statement.

CAL FIRE MISSION STATEMENT
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Pro- tection serves and safeguards the people and pro- tects the property and resources of California.

FOREST SERVICE MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.

As you can see from the mission statement the CF and FS mission and priorities are vastly different from one another.

3 Likes
#79

I appreciate you clearing up your earlier statement. You articulated what you were trying to say earlier very well. I do believe reguardless of what agency, we all have the same mission at the end of the day. You compaired the CF and FS mission statement, but doctorine always wins in the end. When it comes down to it all firefighters want the same outcome. Protect life and property, but most of all everyone comes home in the end.

3 Likes
#80

Sadly due to training requirements (QA/QC) the FS stops at the infrastructure. Yes, both agencies will provide medical treatment for a patient. However, CF gets dispatched and carries the BLS gear for patients other than employees. Additionally, CF is regulated by the local LEMSA and has someone in place for QA/QC and “should” have EPCR capability. The FS has neither EPCR or QA/QC in place.

Additionally, both agencies will do structure defense and save homes. However a fire gets established in an attic and an interior attack is required. CF employees are trained and tested (QA/QC) and under a RPP program and will make an interior push and extinguish the fire. The FS will not.

In NO WAY am I degrading the FS. It’s just not in their training, job description or purview

3 Likes
#81

I wonder if there have been any scientific studies with reprod and how it influences fire behavior. I have been in areas where the Reforestation Treatment has been so thick you almost need a headlamp to navigate the stand in the afternoon. It is one thing to seed bumper crops of corn but planting high yield trees per acre, for subsequent harvesting, got to be a factor.

1 Like
#82

I/We should avoid the arm chair QB thing, it’s difficult to do so when some of us have experienced in one way or another something like this.
Maybe there needs to be set criteria for monitoring a fire, something a bit more than it’s in the wilderness and there for we are going to monitor.
I have no idea what decision matrix was used by managers to make their decision, FF safety sure, I get that one, however that should always be a consideration, we insert folks all the time into some very rough areas, we just do.
It was stated that the fire had a low probability of moving beyond it’s natural containment, if that’s the case then have a plan to keep it there, a few bucket drops here and there during the heat of the day.
We are in PL-5 and maybe we should take a hard look at our monitor incidents when we get to Pl-4, there are very few areas in the country that I would feel comfortable letting a fire be managed for resource benefits, climate change, prolonged drought, lack of resources, etc
Back in the day if a fire moved a mile or 2 in a burning period that was impressive, now fire move 5+ miles routinely, times have changed and we need to charge our management practices as well….

And I for one do not suggest that folks need to be fired, it’s a decision that was made with the tools that they have in the tool box, maybe we just need to retool a bit….

END……

8 Likes