Fire Danger High - Stay safe - Page 2  

Airtankers do not put fires out, people on the ground put fires out. Air tankers can only slow fires' spread - you'll notice that what they drop is called retardant, not extinguisher. Using air tankers without ground support is a delaying tactic only. It's not too hot to try to manage the fires from the ground - people are out there on the ground.

The C-130s that you are seeing are military - there are no civilian C-130 air tankers. The military ships are fitted with removable tank systems - MAFFS - and there are a limited number of those. MAFFS are less effective than dedicated gated retardant ships, but they're better than nothing.

This year there are only 7 large air tankers on contract to the US gov't. There were 9 but two crashed. MAFFS, Canadian Convairs on loan, single engine air tankers, and helicopters are trying to take up the slack, but decreased funding from Congress and inertia on the part of the fed agencies has led to the current woeful state of the large air tanker fleet in the US.

The DC10 tanker has been activated on a call-when-needed basis by the feds but the drop height it requires and it's lack of maneuverability make using it problematic (and occasionally useless) in high winds and tight terrain.

It looks like this is going to be a bad fire in UT as well, danger has been extreme for weeks and still have ~12 weeks of summer left.  

This is what is killing me. It has felt like July/August for the past two months ... but ... it was our normally cool and gloomy May/June. (And ski season is supposed to start in a couple of months, right?? They will blow snow next week??) 

Pretty hazy yesterday looking down 10 Mile Range from Boreas Pass -- I'm guessing it is smoke from one of the fires...

 

Here is what I saw as I was driving home this evening...

 

http://news.hjnews.com/news/article_3d53778c-c3d3-11e1-8e7d-001a4bcf887a.html

Shooting a gun is still permitted in CO, even in Stage 2 Fire Restrictions. They are keeping the ranges open to encourage people to not shoot in the wild. We had a fire at a range last week. They suspect someone was shooting (illegal) tracers.

 

They have prohibited smoking outdoors. I don't understand the failure to prohibit shooting guns. They are known as firearms after all.

Is everyone ready for the Holiday?

 

 

These guys were not at a range. Just shooting at the side of a mountain. Nothing wrong with that, other than the fact that it is posted "no shooting". And given that they started a fire, I am sure there are questions... 

 

Edit to add that the area where the fire started is posted no target shooting. 

Edited by tromano - 7/3/12 at 12:07pm

It can be confusing with multiple Summit Counties. This from Summit County, CO:

 

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20120701/NEWS/120639987&parentprofile=search

 

 

Footage of house-to-house firefighting in Colorado Springs:

 

Especially impressive - the Redding Hotshot crew at 5:15.

 

I'm still wrapping my head arounf this one, as I'm looking at a high temp today of about 61.   In the Seattle area we might not see 90 the entire summer.

 

I recall an observation you made in the middle of winter, TC, when most of us were primary concerned about having enough snow for skiing. You mentioned the danger of wildfires in the summer due to low snowfall in the winter.   Sadly, that is turning out to be quite true.

 

No truth to the rumor, just some normal, everyday rain.    Maybe snow on top of Mt Rainier at 14,000 feet.  

My post was not to show the evils of any particualr activity but to simply show that fires are going off everywhere.

 

That said, I was incorrect in my post earlier, apparently target shooting is already banned in the area where this fire occurred. Which goes to show how well banning anything works out in an area as vast as national forests. The true jackasses will just ignore the ban. 

Wildland fires are caused by lots of causes that don't lend themselves to regulation, but liablity still exists for negligent acts that lead to fires.  Smoking, Mowing grass, welding, loose or downed power lines, a loose exhaust on a vehicle, railroad operations, off-road vehicles, prescription fire or burn piles that get out of control,   Sadly, one of the most common causes of wildland fire remains arson.  Dry hot windy weather brings out the firebugs:

 

 

 

You can't regulate wildfire out of existence, and land managers DO impose restrictions on use of firearms, fireworks, campfires, off-road vehicles, smoking and other uses during times of high risk.  I don't see why this is turning into a discussion of gun regulation, when that use is already restricted as needed.  If a person starts a fire from any cause the liability gets to ridiculous numbers really fast.

 

Do you recall the terrible fire near Reno last January was caused by a 58 year old  man, Lyle Teuscher disposing of fireplace ashes?  LINK  What do you do with people like this?  AFAIK that case is still pending.

Check, a couple areas near me at the moment allow hunting, but not target shooting, for instance. 

 

There are also empirically based restrictions already in lots of ways that have nothing to do with fire, e.g. non-toxic shot for hunting waterfowl, but the point is they are empirically based. 

 

As far as the ability of a minor screw-up in judgment to affect a whole lot of people, fire certainly can be worse even than something like DUI. But they can get started by any number of user groups.

 

That is soooooo Reno 911

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20654312/hewlett-fire-near-fort-collins-at-7-673

 

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=64240

 

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=65232

 

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=64246

 

Just to note again that all user groups start fires.  In this case, the guy who started it seems like a responsible guy who simply had an accident. 

 

I also think it's unfortunate that the forest service seemed to be seeking restitution against the guy -- if someone is engaging in an acceptable activity, and then reports things as soon as they can, it would seem a natural case to treat an accident as a normal cost of doing business.  It's possible as always that there are unreported facts, or that because emotions were running high they felt the need to seek restitution regardless of whether the guy acted responsibly (not perfectly, but responsibly) or not. 

 So, one=lots? Is that your point?  

 

 

No one said any different.  You said:

 

 

Emphasis added.  And I asked for a citation or reference.  All you got is one, then you wander off into irrelevancies.     Typical of your arguments.  

Wow, I didn't give an exhaustive list.  Can't say I feel real bad about that.

 

There are lots of other examples of backpacker-caused fires, for those who care to look.  It doesn't make backpackers an undesirable user group, either.  And, I am one of them.

 

Good discussions of different types of stoves in the links, which could be useful if the focus of this thread is on outdoor recreation during a dry period, and not on trying to further a not-so-stealth political agenda.

 

Well, I just think that it's funny that, in my 32 years of fighting fire all over the western US and Alaska, I came across very, very few fires caused by backpackers. So, I called bullshit on you, and rightly so.  You are agenda-driven, and you make up things and take discussions down rabbit trails to further that agenda.  

 

 

I never said they were undesirable nor did anyone else - that's just another one of your rabbit trails.  

I am not in the fray here kids, just an unusual tail regarding backpacker caused fires.  

 

A few summers back there was a fairly major fire on Lake Chelan, WA.  Hiker started it while trying to be more ecologically responsible.  They started the fire by burning their used toilet paper, a crappy way to cause a disaster.  Dumb comes in all groups.