Forum Index > Trail Talk > New fires west of Ross Lake and up Downey Creek
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
cartman
Member
Member


Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 2800 | TRs | Pics
Location: Fremont
cartman
Member
PostMon Aug 20, 2018 12:53 pm 
Four new lightning-caused fires near Mt Prophet, Arctic Creek etc. Details here. A brand new fire somewhere up "a ways up" Downey Creek. Few details available from the Darrington Ranger Station, other than it is only a half acre at this time and the fire is being assessed but not fought at the moment.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
entropybrewing
Member
Member


Joined: 20 Jun 2016
Posts: 4 | TRs | Pics
entropybrewing
Member
PostMon Aug 20, 2018 1:44 pm 
We saw what was presumably the Little Chilliwack fire when we were coming down the far end of copper ridge on 8/17. Just around where it starts to descend back to the Chilliwack river. This picture was in the late afternoon. An hour or so later smoke was streaming into the Chilliwack valley. A party passed us going up the ridge then turned around because the smoke had grown so much. Another party at Indian Creek said ash was falling on them. We heard helicopters in the area of the fire soon thereafter and also in the morning of 8/18.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostMon Aug 20, 2018 4:59 pm 
cartman wrote:
Four new lightning-caused fires near Mt Prophet, Arctic Creek etc. Details here. A brand new fire somewhere up "a ways up" Downey Creek. Few details available from the Darrington Ranger Station, other than it is only a half acre at this time and the fire is being assessed but not fought at the moment.
The stupidity is amazing. The only time to be able to fight these fires is when they are small and before they become infernos. After that it is largely hopeless. The Forest Service idea that we should let fires burn and create a mosaic of lands is a really dumb idea in this different era of record dry humidities and record high heat. It is fine to have that goal at times in the seasons when fires can't go out of control. They're "playing with fire" and could easily see a 200-300,000 acre fire. Let alone the environment, the health costs alone make this new decision a really stupid one. Economically it is also nuts as there is no way tourists are going to come and spend money.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 11272 | TRs | Pics
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostMon Aug 20, 2018 5:08 pm 
Why is it stupid? Don't you believe in natural forests? You want wilderness, untrammeled and all that, so let it burn. That's what unmanaged forests do. Besides, there may not be anybody to put on the fires. Or any equipment. You know, no new taxes, no timber sales, no revenue...the usual. We go through this every year. Time for Ski to chime in with log it or let it burn. Meanwhile, we are told to stay indoors instead of being able to do summery things, I've got a head cold going, but there is nothing to do. Nothing, other than head out of the country. By the way, it's the Canadian fires that are huge. Whine to them, too. The Snowy Mountain fire had nobody on it for days and is now burning towards the boundary by the Loomis area. The DNR has been busy building line to try to stop the southward progress. Fire is natural and most people on here profess to wanting natural forests. Well, you are getting them.

What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostMon Aug 20, 2018 6:15 pm 
treeswarper wrote:
Why is it stupid? Don't you believe in natural forests? You want wilderness, untrammeled and all that, so let it burn. That's what unmanaged forests do. Besides, there may not be anybody to put on the fires. Or any equipment. You know, no new taxes, no timber sales, no revenue...the usual.
You mean tax cuts. I hope you are benefiting nicely. It is stupid not to fight the fires when they are small because they get big. And you get smoke if you've noticed. They could get real big. There is a difference in BC where 150 fires started in one day. That would-be unmanageable but the handful of fires we have for the most part could easily be made not to be a major problem with quick response. We used to do that. It is too hot and dry to just "monitor" fires. We know where that monitoring will lead. But keep your politics and enjoy the smoke.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
D. Inscho
Not bored yet...



Joined: 28 Feb 2010
Posts: 973 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellingham,WA
D. Inscho
Not bored yet...
PostTue Aug 21, 2018 5:49 am 
Quote:
A brand new fire somewhere up "a ways up" Downey Creek. Few details available from the Darrington Ranger Station, other than it is only a half acre at this time and the fire is being assessed but not fought at the moment.
I was on Lost Creek Ridge Friday through Sunday. While the BC smoke was whisked away as forecast, the Downey fire filled the skies 3a Saturday onward. Quite thick and miserable.

http://david-inscho.smugmug.com/ The key to a successful trip is to do the planning during work hours. -- John Muir “My most memorable hikes can be classified as 'Shortcuts that Backfired'.” --Ed Abbey
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Mikey
Member
Member


Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Posts: 737 | TRs | Pics
Location: SW Washington
Mikey
Member
PostTue Aug 21, 2018 6:23 am 
gb wrote: "It is stupid not to fight the fires when they are small because they get big." The government decision to ignore fires when they are small is puzzling. Possibly it has to do with $. Some years ago I saw a TV program about the impact of forest fire fighting on the economy of rural areas in Western US and in some locations forest and wildfire fighting supplied a major portion of the local economy. One guy interviewed said in the summer he worked as a firefighter and in the winter he worked at a ski resort. A 2012 study funded by the Federal Govt Joint Fire Science Program conducted by researchers at the University of Oregon analyzed the effects that large wildfires have on the local economy. Using Bureau of Labor statistics, the U of Oregon researchers evaluated on a county level the labor market trends of western US counties from 2004 to 2008 to identify differences between counties that experienced wildfires where the Forest Service spent more than $1 million and counties that did not experience large wildfires. They also analyzed where and how fire suppression funds were spent. The researchers found that generally, local employment and wages in a county increase during large wildfires, and economic disruptions from large wildfires are outweighed by the economic impact of the suppression effort in the short term. There is a report about the July 2008 Cold Springs (Mt Adams Ranger District) Wildfire Suppression which presents lots of detail about this fire. Years ago I talked to a USFS employee who told me that when a thunder/lightning storm passed through an area in the Wenatchee region, he sometimes drove up to a high elevation to see where the lightning strikes went and from his visible observations, lightning would often strike a same location (not the same tree, but in general the same small area). With satellite recording of lightning strike events, I suspect there is lots of data as to where lightning strikes most often strike.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 11272 | TRs | Pics
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostTue Aug 21, 2018 6:27 am 
gb wrote:
We used to do that.
Times have changed. Crews refuse to go where they used to, which probably isn't a bad thing. And "We" didn't used to do that. Just like now, there have been years when there were more lightning strikes than teams of people. Those had to be ignored, and had to wait. The FS does not have the work force that it used to. There are also fewer contractors and loggers in the woods. The latter actually used to sign up to be available when needed or would take care of any fires that they came across. There's a heck of a lot more training than there used to be. The FS just can't outfit a person off the street (like they used to) and send them out on a fire. And yes, I'm actually horking up my lungs this morning and hugging the kleenex box, the smoke probably has something to do with that. So, what with the climate change deal, we've probably got to deal with this, and the forest will eventually adapt and change to what it needs to be. Not what it used to be.

What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostTue Aug 21, 2018 7:01 am 
Mikey wrote:
gb wrote: "It is stupid not to fight the fires when they are small because they get big." The government decision to ignore fires when they are small is puzzling. Possibly it has to do with $. Some years ago I saw a TV program about the impact of forest fire fighting on the economy of rural areas in Western US and in some locations forest and wildfire fighting supplied a major portion of the local economy. One guy interviewed said in the summer he worked as a firefighter and in the winter he worked at a ski resort. A 2012 study funded by the Federal Govt Joint Fire Science Program conducted by researchers at the University of Oregon analyzed the effects that large wildfires have on the local economy. Using Bureau of Labor statistics, the U of Oregon researchers evaluated on a county level the labor market trends of western US counties from 2004 to 2008 to identify differences between counties that experienced wildfires where the Forest Service spent more than $1 million and counties that did not experience large wildfires. They also analyzed where and how fire suppression funds were spent. The researchers found that generally, local employment and wages in a county increase during large wildfires, and economic disruptions from large wildfires are outweighed by the economic impact of the suppression effort in the short term. There is a report about the July 2008 Cold Springs (Mt Adams Ranger District) Wildfire Suppression which presents lots of detail about this fire. Years ago I talked to a USFS employee who told me that when a thunder/lightning storm passed through an area in the Wenatchee region, he sometimes drove up to a high elevation to see where the lightning strikes went and from his visible observations, lightning would often strike a same location (not the same tree, but in general the same small area). With satellite recording of lightning strike events, I suspect there is lots of data as to where lightning strikes most often strike.
I actually just googled "tourism and wildfires" and there were many articles and a few papers. One Montana study concerning 2017 cited a loss of $240 million of tourism dollars. This article describes the loss of tourism dollars at Yosemite owing to the Ferguson fire. Ferguson fire lost tourism The other issue is health costs and there are any number of studies on this: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.1215.pdf I would assume, and I think it is a fair assumption, that the vast majority of wildfire fighting costs take place after a wildfire has gotten large and perhaps threatening. For just one example the Entiat wildfire of 2016. It began high above Lake Chelan on the top of the West slope. There was not much effort to fight that fire initially but it didn't really grow for 4-5 days and remained small. But we all know how that one ended up. It pretty much destroyed the Entiat and ultimately there was a major effort put out to keep that fire from spreading to the Chiwawa and in protecting Railroad Creek and Holden Village. I would imagine those costs were very great. They would have been a lot less in those first four - five days. And that is not to put any value on the resource - the Entiat - lost to fire. I don't believe all fires can be put out quickly as it depends on access (there are helicopters), topography, and weather. But most probably could be. I don't feel our society has achieved a rational balance in evaluating the cost of letting it burn and just monitoring fires. Action has to be fairly quick to be effective. Granted there was a direct tie between Forest Service budgets and logging but then logging was to a large degree subsidized by the Forest Service with really low return to government coffers. And it is probably right to assume that many logs were shipped overseas without creating additional jobs in the timber industry. With the decrease in logging and hatred by some of the "Roadless Rule" despite the obviously vastly depleted significance of old growth forests, the Forest Service has become a political pawn with drastic budget cuts that don't reflect the value of what they do for this country's resources in economic and in an environmental sense. As to a new era. It definitely is. The Forest Service conducted studies concerning forest health and concluded that allowing natural fires to run there course was good for the long term health of the forest. That now seems a folly in the face of the obvious evidence of Global Warming and Climate Change. The forests are now much drier and burn hotter, and fires are much more likely to spread rapidly. The hotter burns can destroy all organic matter in the soil and make regeneration more or less a pipe dream for all practical purposes. I think we have it all wrong and we certainly could budget far more in fighting wildfires than we currently do. We could have much quicker responses. And we as a society would see great benefits of these courses of action. I don't think, Treeswarper, that most environmentally concerned people, would be against thinning of trees near roads and towns. And most acknowledge that logging has value to society, but should take place not in remote areas where costly road building and maintenance is an issue even beyond resource value, but in already logged areas as second growth. Then care must be taken to zone where logging should take place, not on easily eroded very steep hillsides and not near streams. The whole thing has to be rethought because of the reality of present day Global Warming and shifting climates from Climate Change.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 11272 | TRs | Pics
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostTue Aug 21, 2018 8:22 am 
gb wrote:
Granted there was a direct tie between Forest Service budgets and logging but then logging was to a large degree subsidized by the Forest Service with really low return to government coffers. And it is probably right to assume that many logs were shipped overseas without creating additional jobs in the timber industry. With the decrease in logging and hatred by some of the "Roadless Rule" despite the obviously vastly depleted significance of old growth forests, the Forest Service has become a political pawn with drastic budget cuts that don't reflect the value of what they do for this country's resources in economic and in an environmental sense.
This is wrong. It is illegal to export logs off FS land, except for in Alaska and two minor species found but rarely cut in the lower 48. The FS has timber purchasers fill out forms for where the logs are going. Some potential buyers--Weyco are not allowed to bid on sales. You will see tags on each load and usually yellow paint and a brand on the logs and this helps keep track of where they go. If FS logs are found in an export yard, there is major do do for the purchaser of the sale. That has happened in the past, but I'm thinking that with the smaller logs, it just isn't worth it to try. Forests on the west side--the Willamette, the Gifford Pinchot, the Hood actually returned money to the treasury. The problem is when the east side forests are lumped in. The east side forests had the deficit sales. Road building was done with reusing them for future harvests in mind, and was an investment made. That is no longer the case. In the 1980s, on the Gifford Pinchot, when there were 5 ranger districts, the Randle District alone could send out 3 20 person crews to a fire. That would be 60 people. Now they are combined with the Packwood District and cannot scrape together one crew. Mikey is correct when he talks about an influx of cash to the communities near fires. Local businesses get used for such things as catering, making lunches, supplying and cleaning porta potties, etc. Here in Omak there are privately owned engines that contract out. And yes, for the FS employees, fires are a way to make extra money, although after the fatalities at Storm King, 30 mile, etc. hours are limited--supposedly. Firefighters make overtime for over 8 hours (time and a half) and then get hazard pay for all hours on the line, which adds another 25%. It's hard and nasty work. Black stuff comes out of your nose when you blow it, dust and ash cover you. Fire camp in the morning is noisy with people horking up stuff. I do hear that they now have laundry service--no more scrubbing socks and undies using a wash board.

What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6900 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostTue Aug 21, 2018 10:27 am 
gb wrote:
The stupidity is amazing. The only time to be able to fight these fires is when they are small and before they become infernos.
It's likely the fire crew and other crew at Darrington are elsewhere fighting fires. I know the Darrington District Ranger, Peter Forbes, is in eastern Washington managing a unit there. The USFS send staff, even office staff, to fire duty, even if it's to be in charge of tracking radios, or working in a Fisheries unit while those, perhaps more fire-trained staff are out on fires. So it's not that they're lazy; sometimes they're simply not there when a fire breaks out. And typically, there aren't fires on that District, so naturally, when a fire breaks out in an area prone to fire, those working in Districts that don't typically have fires, are sent to help out.

"..living on the east side of the Sierra world be ideal - except for harsher winters and the chance of apocalyptic fires burning the whole area." Bosterson, NWHiker's marketing expert
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
FiresideChats
Member
Member


Joined: 20 Jan 2014
Posts: 361 | TRs | Pics
Location: San Juan Islands
FiresideChats
Member
PostTue Aug 21, 2018 11:16 am 
Interesting points by all. I think we all see the glaciers dramatically receding in our corner of the world, so it is getting warmer. It seems natural that this would lead fires to burn longer and hotter and for fire to expand it's presence into wetter zones. I remember hiking up the Kindy Creek jungle a few years ago and feeling all of those centuries of rotting deadfall beneath me and thinking it just never burns here. It just falls and accumulates and decomposes. That's why I keep falling through into these pits. But there was a recent and sizable fire over on the south fork of the Cascade River that wrecked that trail system. The Olympic rainforest burned last year. This seems to me to indicate that warming will lead to more areas of ancient timber going up in smoke, leaving fewer of the giants (by no means do ALL of the tree die even in those fires). I am concerned that we cannot prevent this from happening. The more we fight these fires, the more the fuels build up in areas that always have been or now are fire prone. Tree densities increase, trees become less healthy, pine beetles go nuts, fire consumes all. It seems to me that every fire we put out that is caused by lightning only kicks the ball down the road. As if by mathematical certainty, the next fire will be bigger, hotter because there is that much more fuel to burn and the climate is warming wether we will or no. I am increasingly convinced that off-season/low-intensity burns, tree thinning in areas of long-term fire suppression (particularly E. Washington, from what I've read) and any other active management technique are needed to protect our towns and farms, but the wildlands in the Cascade Core are destined to adjust to the new climate. We can fence in our wilderness areas with legislation, but I fear we cannot fence out the inferno.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostTue Aug 21, 2018 12:49 pm 
I am sure you know more than I regarding the timber industry. But one thing I am unable to find is historic total Forest Service income from stumpage fees, and then historic total Forest Service budgets. It is clear to me that if you take the economy as a whole and not just of individual rural towns, that the value of tourism would overwhelm many many times over the value of monies spent in fighting fires towards the economy of primarily rural communities. This is of an entirely different scale.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostTue Aug 21, 2018 12:56 pm 
Kim Brown wrote:
gb wrote:
The stupidity is amazing. The only time to be able to fight these fires is when they are small and before they become infernos.
It's likely the fire crew and other crew at Darrington are elsewhere fighting fires. I know the Darrington District Ranger, Peter Forbes, is in eastern Washington managing a unit there. The USFS send staff, even office staff, to fire duty, even if it's to be in charge of tracking radios, or working in a Fisheries unit while those, perhaps more fire-trained staff are out on fires. So it's not that they're lazy; sometimes they're simply not there when a fire breaks out. And typically, there aren't fires on that District, so naturally, when a fire breaks out in an area prone to fire, those working in Districts that don't typically have fires, are sent to help out.
I am not blaming the Forest Service districts, employees or firefighters at all. What I am saying, is that when you examine the whole picture of this country's priorities (and mandates) regarding fighting forest fires, the whole thing is entirely out of whack and makes no sense. That is what is stupid and requires a whole rethink in this day and age. We cannot as a society let fires burn when the forest is tinder dry and we have to allocate and have on hand much greater resources that can be employed in a timely manner.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostTue Aug 21, 2018 1:02 pm 
FiresideChats wrote:
I am concerned that we cannot prevent this from happening. The more we fight these fires, the more the fuels build up in areas that always have been or now are fire prone. Tree densities increase, trees become less healthy, pine beetles go nuts, fire consumes all. It seems to me that every fire we put out that is caused by lightning only kicks the ball down the road. As if by mathematical certainty, the next fire will be bigger, hotter because there is that much more fuel to burn and the climate is warming wether we will or no.
There is no reason to think that old growth forests are seeing a buildup of fuels. Second growth and previously logged or burned forests should be a different story. We managed to be able to win the battle for the most part against wildfire for most of the last half of the 20th century. Statistics bear this out. Now it would simply take more effort and resources. Consider that the cost in this arena of Global Warming. But we are not talking a major need of financial commitment here - not compared to the budget - and the cost returns are still likely to be positive by a wide margin.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Trail Talk > New fires west of Ross Lake and up Downey Creek
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum