Rim Fire (Mariposa: 2013, credit, camping)

[eccotecc]

How can an identified fire on National Forest Service Land grow to the proportions the Rim Fire has grown to?

It is my understand that fires on forest service land are left to burn and monitored as controlled burns.
Please chime in if you know otherwise.

These quasi controlled burns are known to get out of control and then they become the responsibility of Cal Fire to extinguish at the expense of California taxpayers. Furthermore, rural residents of California are being unjustly assessed an additional tax to offset the expense to fight these fires.

If fires, such as the Rim Fire, are started on forest service land and national park service land, should Californians be responsible for the expense to extinguish them if they could have been dealt with in a timely and economical manner? What recourse, if any, does California have to recoup the expense associated with these mismanaged fires of historical proportions?

I hope those in the know will comment on the questions being asked.

[zugor]

The Rim Fire is not the result of a controlled burn that got out of control. Cause is still under investigation.

InciWeb the Incident Information System: Rim Fire

Wildfires can spread so rapidly that it impossible to contain them in the early stages when the number of personnel is not large. At this point they have over 2,600 people dealing with it.

During the many years that I lived in the Bay Area I spent lots of time camping in the area that is now engulfed. I hope that the winds die down and I wish I could send much of the excess rain that we've had here in SW VA to quench the flames.

[eccotecc]

zugor,

How do you account for the policy of not extinguishing fires of natural causes and letting them burn as a controlled burn?

I personally live in Mariposa County and have first hand knowledge since I have, as many Californians have, been the victim of these mismanaged fires. Please respond to the National Policy of treating these fires as controlled burns. If you have creditable knowledge to justify these policies please share.

[Bulldogdad]

How?

100+ years of fire supression and the perfect conditions. Thats how.

[eccotecc]

bulldogdad,

Has it been a hundred years of fire supression or has it been a lack of forest management?

Do you think if lumber companies were allowed to thin forests of trees and clean out the duff that there would be the fuel for these fires to get out of control? Do you remember the time when loggers were allowed into the forests to harvest these natural resources and cut fire breaks that would limit the devestation of these out of control fires?

Fuel reduction limited Carstens blaze damage | www.mariposagazette.com | Mariposa Gazette

Please review the above link and then please comment.

[nightlysparrow]

Originally Posted by eccotecc

Please review the above link and then please comment.

Your link requires a subscription!

[eccotecc]

The Federal Government is using fires to manage forests. Fires, such as the devestating Rim Fire. The government is placing the resposibility to extinguish these fires on the shoulders of the states where these fire occur. Please refer to the following link.

Wilderness.net - U.S. Federal Wildland Fire Policy

[DMenscha]

Back in the mid 70's I was the fire engine driver at Buck Meadows for the USFS. This area was our "first due" territory. We joked that if a fire ever started where the Rim fire did, we jump in our engine and drive in the other direction. That is the steepest, nastiest terrain I've ever been in!

As soon as this fire was reported, I told folks that there was no way it could be held under 100K acres. There are no natural control lines or terrain features that could have been used to keep it small.

These quasi controlled burns are known to get out of control and then they become the responsibility of Cal Fire to extinguish at the expense of California taxpayers. Furthermore, rural residents of California are being unjustly assessed an additional tax to offset the expense to fight these fires.

This fire never was "managed" to be a "controlled" burn, nor will it be. The rest of your premise is wrong. All wildland fires are the responsibility of the agency where the fire started. The USFS called local CalFire units in the first day and the expense for those units will be paid out of USFS funds. The fire tax you cite is NOT a fire suppression fee, it's supposed to be for fire prevention. It total BS IMHO, but that is for another thread.

On a local website today, some knucklehead was bemoaning the use of air tankers as ineffective because this fire got to 125K acres. It probably would be 250K acres without them. Until you've actually been on the ground working on these thing, I think one should keep the uninformed comments to themselves.

[Mr5150]

Originally Posted by eccotecc

bulldogdad,

Has it been a hundred years of fire supression or has it been a lack of forest management?

100 years of fire suppression.

Originally Posted by eccotecc

The Federal Government is using fires to manage forests. Fires, such as the devestating Rim Fire. The government is placing the resposibility to extinguish these fires on the shoulders of the states where these fire occur. Please refer to the following link.

Wilderness.net - U.S. Federal Wildland Fire Policy

From your link: The challenge of managing wildland fire in the United States is increasing in complexity and magnitude. Catastrophic wildfire now threatens millions of wildland acres, particularly where vegetation patterns have been altered by past land-use practices and a century of fire suppression. Serious and potentially permanent ecological deterioration is possible where fuel loads exceed historical conditions. Enormous public and private values are at high risk, and our nation's capability to respond to this threat is becoming overextended. The goals and actions presented in this report encourage a more proactive approach to wildland fire to reduce this threat.

[eccotecc]

Mr5150,

If you read further you will see where the policy is to make local jurisdictions responsible for fires that threaten communities. The question being asked is, "What preventative measures are being done to reduce fuels that feed these huge fires?". The suggestion is to allow private companies to thin the forests and clear the duff. Not only would this provide an economic benefit but also reduce the potential for extensive fires. Fewer trees would also reduce competition for water during draught years,as has been experienced in recent years, and also help to eliminate the infestation of pine bark beetles. Much of the fuel in the canopy of trees comes from dead trees left standing that were killed by these beetles. If trees had enough moisture they would be able to produce the sap that would then eliminate the beetles. This is all part of responsible forest management.