Gila Fire

[Argonaut20]

Just a note that the Miller Fire in the Gila Forest spread to the area of the Gila Cliff Dwellings. The Visitor Center and Contact Station were saved but the fire was in the area. The Cliff Dwellings are closed temporarily. The fire was human caused. As the saying goes, "Be careful out there!"

 

[Overland Hadley]

The fire was human caused. As the saying goes, "Be careful out there!"


Stupid humans.

 

[Ted]

Stupid humans.


That is redundant.

 

[highz]

Glad to hear no harm came to the cliff dwellings. It also loks like the evacuation order for Gila Hot Springs was lifted. That's a lot of beautiful forest that has burned. I know that fire can be healthy for the forest, but it still hurts to see it.

I was also saddened to hear about the Horseshoe Two fire burning in the Chiricahuas. The Cave Creek area is closed - a premier birding spot, where you can spot the Elegant Trogon, and a nice area to camp and hike. The latest fire perimeter map shows the fire on the other side of the ridge from Cave Creek. Hope it doesn't cross the ridge...

Here are some links:

Miller:
http://www.inciweb.org/incident/2207/

Horseshoe Two
http://www.inciweb.org/incident/2225/

 

[Barko1]

Bad news is there probably won't be any rain for at least 6 more weeks I was in the Dusty, NM area yesterday, up near Mt. Worthington and I could see smoke from the Gila from there.

 

[Overland Hadley]

That's a lot of beautiful forest that has burned. I know that fire can be healthy for the forest, but it still hurts to see it.



x2

 

[craig333]

Healthy is relative. Slow burning medium temp fires are good for the forest. Unfortunately a forest the hasn't burned in forty years doesn't burn like that. The indians used to burn them regularly but we put a stop to that. I'm guilty, I worked for CDF for seven seasons. If a fire popped up we put it right out and we were damn good at it.

 

[highz]

Healthy is relative. Slow burning medium temp fires are good for the forest. Unfortunately a forest the hasn't burned in forty years doesn't burn like that. The indians used to burn them regularly but we put a stop to that. I'm guilty, I worked for CDF for seven seasons. If a fire popped up we put it right out and we were damn good at it.


Yes, that's true, for sure. It also doesn't help when a forest was extensively logged - clear cut - and now has a new generation of dog-hair forest that is prone to crown fires. That's how it is here in the Lincoln. The crews here do their best to manage this, but it's a big problem. I went down to where the Mayhill fire started, and I think some areas will recover pretty well. Other areas will look scarred for quite a while.

 

[craig333]

Recover they do though. When I started with CDF in 1978 there were two fires that had burned 20,000 and 90,000 acres respectively in the area I worked. Now you have to look very hard to see any evidence of those fires.

Controlled burns are good but very hard to pull off. We had many cancelled because conditions weren't right, crews weren't available, wind was too high or the wrong direction, humidity was too high or to low etc. One of my early fires was controlled burn by the USFS that got away and burned private property near fall river mills. For years it wasn't safe for usfs employees to shop in town. Not to mention the complaints the smoke generates when burns are done.

We've let so many people move in close proximity to the forest its near impossible to return the forest to anything resembling natural conditions anymore.

 

[highz]

Recover they do though. When I started with CDF in 1978 there were two fires that had burned 20,000 and 90,000 acres respectively in the area I worked. Now you have to look very hard to see any evidence of those fires.

Controlled burns are good but very hard to pull off. We had many cancelled because conditions weren't right, crews weren't available, wind was too high or the wrong direction, humidity was too high or to low etc. One of my early fires was controlled burn by the USFS that got away and burned private property near fall river mills. For years it wasn't safe for usfs employees to shop in town. Not to mention the complaints the smoke generates when burns are done.

We've let so many people move in close proximity to the forest its near impossible to return the forest to anything resembling natural conditions anymore.


Do you recall the Cerro Grande fire in New Mexico in 2000? That started as a control burn. It burned more than 200 houses in Los Alamos. That put the FS district on the hot seat. Even so, control burns happen all the time here and most (not all) go off without a hitch.

During the last decade or so, little pieces of the NF were sold off as part of the Secure Rural Schools Act. Most of those little pieces are in the forest interior, and the NF boundaries are a messy patchwork. The forest-urban interface is very convoluted. Is it like that in the California forests as well? Fortunately, congress failed to authorize the last sale of NF land. However, since I choose to live in that interface myself, I can't point fingers too much.

If the forests had not been altered so much by the last century's logging and fire suppression practices, the interface would be easier to protect. That's a fact. The risk of catastrophic fire is something we now have to accept here. But, it's the same for the folks in Texas, who are being threatened by huge fast moving grassland fires. It's the same for the towns along the flooding Mississippi. It's not just the forests. It's that there are so many people living everywhere that any disaster affects more people.

 

[craig333]

Its the same in California. Its one reason we're lucky to have such good mutual aid agreements amongst agencies. Not sure about the whole state but up north theres an Interagency Fire Dispatch center where CDF, USFS and BLM all work. Boundaries usually only come into play for billing, dispatch is to the closest unit no matter what agency. Does lead to some issues though. We did one fire on BIA land it was "quick, get the dozers in here and get a line around it before BIA finds out".

I have a hard time faulting anyone for wanting to live in the wildland interface. Heck, I'd be living in the forest myself if could.

I'll tell one story that illustrates the different thinking amongst agencies. CDF is an aggressive, put it out fast type of agency. The park service is the opposite "lets let nature take its course" kind of agency. We get a call for the helicopter to do mutual aid on the Lava Beds National Monument. We land, we're unloading all our tools, getting ready to go to work, the park people show up. Hey, what the heck are you doing? We haven't done the studies yet to if this fire should be extinguished. So we packed up and went home. Not making any judgements, both types of thinking are appropriate at different times and places.