Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Steve Martin's avatar

I am still steaming about Lahaina, and how easily some dismissed it as typical arson. 3 summers working for the Forest Service as a firefighter here, and though still JMHO, the probability of so many improbable unnatural anomalies does not logically lead to a typical arson or natural probability. The 15 minute city is proceeding as planned. Michigan 'burn barrel' my ass. At best, it appears that bayesian logic and other modes of pattern recognition appear to be only a post-hoc, pre-selective part of the tool kit for those absorbed in self promotion or self interest. But what do I know? I am just another conspiracy theorist.

Expand full comment
Roger Mitchell's avatar

At night, when it's dark, I can see the flames from my residence. As the crow flies, I live about 7 or 8 miles away and in an open area, so I am in no danger from this. Unless the wind shifts direction and blows the smoke my way, I am not impacted personally at all. I do know people who live near the fire, friends who are probably a mile or two away. They have every reason to be concerned, especially if the wind changes and drives the flames down the slope, putting them and their homes in jeopardy.

If this fire had started a month or six weeks ago, it would have exploded violently out of control due to an extended period of very hot (100+ degrees) and dry weather. At that time, the forests in this area were tinder dry and. if ignited, could have easily created a monster which might have dwarfed the Lolo Peak fire from 2017. However, it's late August, the weather has cooled down considerably, and we've had some rain, intermittent at times, but also drenching downpours. The conditions for a massive wildfire have changed dramatically over the last few weeks which is good for those who live in the area.

That being said, the question arises as to how this fire should be handled. In an intense debate with some friends on a local group thread, I stated that it should be allowed to burn out and only monitored until it seemed like it might threaten homes and buildings of property owners, at which point protective measures should be implemented. There was some strong opposition to this, with one view being expressed that every effort should be taken to stamp it out as it could, if allowed to burn, create a hazard and risk for homeowners.

Well, it might, but there are is no certainty that it will. Considering everything, odds are that it won't, even if it burned unimpeded. At least, that is my opinion, for what it's worth.

As a society, we have to come to grips with the reality within our national forests. Due to restrictions and prohibitions on logging, clear-cutting, and thinning, plus the Smokey Bear mentality that every fire MUST be extinguished immediately, the forests are now clogged with undergrowth and litter which guarantees that, once a fire starts, it will burn hotter and more destructively than it would have if proper management had been implemented. Clear thinking and logical reasoning should be the drivers of forest policy rather than emotional ignorance and refusal to make the hard choices which are necessary to ensure the long-term health and well-being of these treasures, the national forests which we call "ours".

Expand full comment
5 more comments...

No posts