The Galiuros are burning

Moderator: HAZ - Moderators

Linked Guides none
Linked Areas none
User avatar
RedRoxx44
Posts: 815
Joined: Feb 15 2003 8:07 am
City, State: outside, anywhere

The Galiuros are burning

Post by RedRoxx44 » Jun 19 2014 5:47 pm

Oak fire, around China Peak, at about 800+ acres. I was told a long time ago by a guy who used to manage the air tankers for the western US that the management plan was to let it burn. This was a lightning start. Probably will not suppress it unless it gets into some rancher land in the foothills. Sad, but fire is a part of the ecosystem so will wait to see what this brings, something positive I hope.

User avatar
RedRoxx44
Posts: 815
Joined: Feb 15 2003 8:07 am
City, State: outside, anywhere

Re: The Galiuros are burning

Post by RedRoxx44 » Jun 26 2014 11:12 am

From June 20th KJZZ article "Coronado National Forest officials are managing a lightning-caused wildfire in the Galiuro Mountains near Safford. Spokeswoman Heidi Schewel said the Oak Fire is about 10 percent contained after charring nearly 900 acres. Schewel said the fire is being closely monitored by firefighters.

“They have identified an area that they want it to burn within,” Schewel said. “If it were to make a move outside of that area, say for instance, toward state land or other land that was off the forest, they would take suppression action.”


I find that statement interesting. I would like to know the boundary. Well, I have to get back to work.

User avatar
RedRoxx44
Posts: 815
Joined: Feb 15 2003 8:07 am
City, State: outside, anywhere

Re: The Galiuros are burning

Post by RedRoxx44 » Jun 26 2014 5:36 pm

Those interested a media event is scheduled for Friday on Mt Lemmon, this is posted on inciweb, for this insignificant fire. Probably use it as a teaching tool. Or as I prefer to see it-- the spin is in.

Note now closure area includes Powers Garden and some of the beautiful riparian areas in Rattlesnake canyon, as far as Holdout spring.


Doing some research a couple of interesting links on forest fire management funding practices.
http://www.savewithsrp.org/water/pdfx/f ... nding.pptx

and just an FYI article http://www.kcet.org/news/the_back_forty ... rvice.html

User avatar
PrestonSands
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 12 2004 10:59 pm
City, State: Oro Valley, AZ
Contact:

Re: The Galiuros are burning

Post by PrestonSands » Jun 27 2014 8:07 am

Did I just see one of your fire photos on the Tucson Fox 11 morning show Letty? :)
"I'm going for a coffee, but you never know when a hike might break out." -Jim Gaffigan

User avatar
chumley
Posts: 6992
Joined: Sep 18 2002 8:59 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ

Re: The Galiuros are burning

Post by chumley » Jun 27 2014 9:10 am

That funding powerpoint is very interesting. I didn't realize that the FS has no limits on what they can spend, and can just "send congress the bill" afterward.

It sounds like that policy should change. Perhaps to a system more like other disasters where the governor (or president) must declare an official "state of emergency" in order to authorize spending. Who knows though, that just introduces another layer of bureaucracy to something that probably needs less bureaucracy.

Back east, cities and states no longer budget as much for snow removal, which is obviously a variable cost each year, but a regular and expected cost nonetheless. But if they only budget $10 million when the average year requires $50 million, they occasionally get by when there's a mild winter. But the rest of the time, they use the feds to bail them out by declaring a state of emergency. Which is silly in my opinion. It's a snow storm somewhere that snowstorms happen every year. Not an emergency!

But if the $ will be available from the feds, why would a city use their "own" budget on snow removal?

I suspect there are parallels with firefighting...
Profound observer

User avatar
Jim_H
Posts: 4748
Joined: Sep 08 2006 8:14 pm
City, State: Phoenix, AZ

Re: The Galiuros are burning

Post by Jim_H » Jun 27 2014 9:18 am

Our forests would look a lot different if we had to localize all the costs. For one thing, I think people would be far more willing to pay for increased thinning operations if we factored in all the other costs associated with fires like the Wallow. Think of all the silt that is released there, and the same thing with the Schultz. Then again, most Arizona wilderness areas are a joke, and should not be managed as Wildernesses. They are too small and degraded to be true wilderness, and need management to function properly.

Here is my image of the Oak taken yesterday above Ski the Lemmon.
IMG_0225.JPG
Added:
I wrote the bolded text because when one considers that a Wilderness is, as defined by the 1964 Wilderness Act, "
“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”
, most AZ wildernesses are pretty bad examples of a wilderness. In a very simply way the wilderness, with respect to southwest forests, is a place where the forces of nature trump the forces of man. Or, in other words, man is not the primary agent to influence the wilderness. However, without ever talking about current fire exclusion, even prior to White European's arrivals on the continent, the wilds of Arizona were under the influence of man. "Native" man previously had a large level of influence by various actions including setting fires in forests for a number of purposes. After European Man arrived, the intensity of disturbance increased with grazing and over grazing, logging, and then fire exclusion. The result, is that in many of our so called wilderness areas, the forest is anything but what would have existed in 1800, prior to settlement of Arizona by large numbers of white Europeans, even if native had not burned the wilds.

To simply fence something off and call it a wilderness cheapens and denigrates the Wilderness Act. The Slide fire burned worst in areas of wilderness that were dense, loaded with fuels, and had been impacted by over a century of human influences, most notably fire exclusion. When we take small areas and exclude management, we create areas that will inevitably be impacted in this same way. Kendrick Peak, East Pocket (Red Rocks-Secret Mountain WA, the San Francisco Peaks, and numerous other small wildernesses are not ever going to function like large wildernesses, because they lack the area for all of the influences of nature to maintain the ecosystem at the level we consider to be "natural", or presettlement. The only thing that would increase that, is size. The Gila is an example of an area that is large enough, and despite the FS putting out a completely natural lightning fire in 2010, a human caused fire in 11 and a large lightning fire in 12 accomplished a natural order. It burned.

The greater the size of a given area, the greater the probability that a wilderness area in the SW will be able to sustain itself by having natural phenomenon like fire occur and move over the land, with sufficient frequency to maintain the system near at least some level we might consider to be pre-settlement natural. Tiny wilderness areas have no hope. The 2011 Beale Fire was managed in the Kaibab in July and August It was a lightning started fire and it would have burned Kendrick Mountain Wilderness, but the planning area did not encompass that terrain, and the fire west kept west of a FS road. in 1800 the mountain would have burned. Today, we kept a natural force out of the wilderness, because it suits us. Hardly a wilderness ethic. Once can argue that if the fire made it across the road it was meant to be and natural, but the road is a boundary which is not natural. This is one small example of the joke nature of small wilderness areas. Kendrick burned hot in the Pumpkin and lots of WA is terrible looking. It is too bad the area can not burned again, and with a frequency to attempt to establish conditions that are more pre-settlement, than what hardly anyone considers aesthetically pleasing or natural. Management is require to accomplish this, since we exclude nature.
Last edited by Jim_H on Jul 06 2014 2:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Rocks!!

User avatar
RedRoxx44
Posts: 815
Joined: Feb 15 2003 8:07 am
City, State: outside, anywhere

Re: The Galiuros are burning

Post by RedRoxx44 » Jun 27 2014 11:47 am

@Preston the yeti
Yes

no avatar
dude
Posts: 16
Joined: Apr 26 2008 6:21 pm
City, State: here, there

Re: The Galiuros are burning

Post by dude » Jun 27 2014 12:23 pm

"The fire is being managed for multiple objectives within a defined planning area mostly within the Galiuros wilderness area. The planning area includes Rattlesnake Canyon on the west and southwest sides, High Creek on the southeast side with the Forest boundary on the east and north sides." inciweb as of about 11:00am today
"Projected Incident Activity"
"The fire is expected to continue to grow to the south and west in the Rattlesnake Creek, Corral Canyon and Paddy’s River areas. The fire is expected to stay active until a monsoonal weather pattern settles into the area." inciweb "Current as of 6/26/2014, 5:24:34 PM"

The only rational (though illegitimate) argument for propagating a Sky Island “Wildfire” during the hottest and driest month of the year is if your getting paid for it.
mistakenly linked to wrong mts..
http://hikearizona.com/trip=104985

no avatar
dude
Posts: 16
Joined: Apr 26 2008 6:21 pm
City, State: here, there

Re: The Galiuros are burning

Post by dude » Jun 27 2014 12:35 pm

China peak post linked to wrong mts. But has buildup to now.

This is a bad omen
http://inciweb.nwcg.gov/photos/AZCNF/20 ... 23-CDT.pdf

How can they be stopped?

User avatar
Jim_H
Posts: 4748
Joined: Sep 08 2006 8:14 pm
City, State: Phoenix, AZ

Re: The Galiuros are burning

Post by Jim_H » Jun 27 2014 12:50 pm

dude wrote:"
The only rational (though illegitimate) argument for propagating a Sky Island “Wildfire” during the hottest and driest month of the year is if your getting paid for it.
Unless you need specific conditions to have a fire move through an area and burn a lot of brush that otherwise will not burn or carry fire in periods that are not as conducive. You can burn cured fine fuels like grass almost year round. You can not get a fire to move very well in brushy fuels like mountain mahogany, shrub oaks, cliff rose, with a minimal fine fuel matrix and open areas of bare ground between. Grasslands in the SW have been heavily replaced by shrub lands. In some areas they are gone for good, replaced by mesquite and desert scrub.

Maybe this fire is not the spearhead of a campaign by greedy 1039 FS seasonals, hell bent on raking in the lucrative federal fat, but is instead a calculated decision to manage a forest that is largely unmanaged, heavily exploited, very degraded ecologically, and would benefit greatly from increased fire reintroduction? Everyone cries when a Aspen or a Florida, or a Horseshoe 1 and 2 happen, but those were all inevitable, and will happen again, and again. The only good thing, would be to have them more frequently. Mount Lemmon needs another fire, as do the Santa Ritas. It needs to come sooner, not later, but that will not happen.

For that matter, the Rodeo-Chediski burn area needs to be burned again, but that is a different story.

Since it was stated elsewhere that I make fun of people for being ignorant, I shall say for the record, that at no point did I make fun of any members, while posting in this thread.
Rocks!!

User avatar
RedRoxx44
Posts: 815
Joined: Feb 15 2003 8:07 am
City, State: outside, anywhere

Re: The Galiuros are burning

Post by RedRoxx44 » Jun 29 2014 7:31 pm

You really just don't know what you are talking about. I typically don't care, but ignorance should not be used to influence policy. We have far too much of that in this country.
Plus an earlier reply--- although you are the perfect foil for me-- I actually appreciate the rudeness and arrogance you display at times. Perhaps making fun is too light of it. You have your opinions and appear to stand by them however offensive they are, to me at this time. Please continue to post your beliefs as I think it helps draw attention to this whole forest service/pay scenario. So, I thank you.

User avatar
Jim_H
Posts: 4748
Joined: Sep 08 2006 8:14 pm
City, State: Phoenix, AZ

Re: The Galiuros are burning

Post by Jim_H » Jun 29 2014 8:30 pm

Letty, you are not currently rational enough to have a conversation on this subject or for this area. On that point, I agree with you.
The original above, and the update below:

I stand by that, and it is not an insult. In fact, if someone wanted to play the victim of insults, I could, based on your continued repeated attacks of name calling and liable by stating motivations based purely on money, when directed at forest managers. You were not rational, at all. Your posts calling people jerks, and telling me to see how I feel when my house burns down confirmed this. I posted telling you to calm down and stop being so emotional, with quoted texts from inciweb talking about the fire meeting objectives and burning in a mosaic pattern. You only responded to the emotional part by tell me to, "see how I feel when my house burns down". The range is not your home. You have strong attachments to it, but it is not yours personally. By virtue of public lands, it belongs to all US citizens. You have demonstrated and even stated that you do not have enough knowledge to have formed an educated opinion on forest management and fire management, and so other than simply having an opinion which you can enjoy, you should not be given an inordinately large sway over how this fire is managed, or how policies specific to the range, are enacted.

As far as your friend. He is a troll.
Last edited by Jim_H on Jul 06 2014 2:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Rocks!!

User avatar
RedRoxx44
Posts: 815
Joined: Feb 15 2003 8:07 am
City, State: outside, anywhere

Re: The Galiuros are burning

Post by RedRoxx44 » Jun 30 2014 6:39 am

Bring on the continued insults!! However I am trying to educate myself, the following links are for prescribed fire but contain interesting tidbits.

This is pertaining to the south but mentions specific guidelines for ignition--- wind speed , more importantly humidity, etc.

http://ncprescribedfirecouncil.org/pdfs ... d_fire.pdf

This is sort of a boring one like a classroom guide but contains some of the science the forest service uses

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOC ... 208222.pdf

This one the most interesting part for me was pages 21-24 discussing the light burning theory and seeming to debunk it??

http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fmt/fmt_pdfs/fmn60-4.pdf

User avatar
RedRoxx44
Posts: 815
Joined: Feb 15 2003 8:07 am
City, State: outside, anywhere

Re: The Galiuros are burning

Post by RedRoxx44 » Jun 30 2014 8:01 am

Our government at work--the latest inciweb map of the fire has Bassett Peak north of Hold out Spring. Who knows where the fire really is.

User avatar
mazatzal
Posts: 428
Joined: Jul 28 2004 2:18 pm
City, State: Scottsdale, AZ

Re: The Galiuros are burning

Post by mazatzal » Jun 30 2014 8:49 am

@RedRoxx44
I noticed that too. Confusing Bassett and Kennedy - probably couldn't bear to write the word Kennedy on the overlay :)

User avatar
BobP
Posts: 1608
Joined: Feb 26 2008 3:43 pm
City, State: Scottsdale, AZ

Re: The Galiuros are burning

Post by BobP » Jun 30 2014 9:26 am

Responding to members you disagree with is permitted if courteous.


The definition of courteous is...very polite in a way that shows respect.
http://www.blindmotivation.com
http://www.seeitourway.org
Always pronounce Egeszsegedre properly......
If you like this triplog you must be a friend of BrunoP

User avatar
Sredfield
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sep 08 2002 1:07 pm
City, State: Ahwatukee, AZ

Re: The Galiuros are burning

Post by Sredfield » Jun 30 2014 10:13 am

Jim_H wrote:You really just don't know what you are talking about. . . .
Thank you Joe, for the "Ignore" feature. It saves me from having to have stitches from biting my tongue.
Shawn
The bear went over the mountain to see what he could see.

User avatar
RedRoxx44
Posts: 815
Joined: Feb 15 2003 8:07 am
City, State: outside, anywhere

Re: The Galiuros are burning

Post by RedRoxx44 » Jun 30 2014 12:57 pm

I had a nice visit at the Forest Service office downtown Tucson. Kinda interesting, not good or bad. I need to make some summary notes. I submitted a list of questions I hoped to discuss but will be distributed to those who will respond. Here is the list and I will have more detail later. I'll probably have to file a FOIA for most of it post fire.

1. How many incendiary drops have been utilized to present--
2. Wrapping or protection of cabins---why here and not Mazatzal club cabin, etc.
3.Significant springs, danger of silting in and what will be done to prevent this.
4. Wildlife stress--why propagate this fire in these temps understanding there are standards regarding windspeed and humidity for fire ball drops--
5. Canopy destroyed, delicate area here with old growth large woods, douglas fir stand ( which seemed to be some sort of deal to them at the FS office when I brought it up--not part of this question) --rare here and won't regenerate.
6.Funding--if there is a blank check what is the reason to pull back or let a fire go out naturally especially if no human danger--
7.On June 20th a media quote stated a boundary had been identified to allow the burn--What is this boundary with the statement it would be extinguished if it went outside the boundary.

I started at the desk, then was put on the phone with someone about the map inaccuracies, too much noise and couldn't talk to them much, then one layer of management, then the PIO ( public information officer) then a gal going to the fireline. I think my wide eyed hey I'm just asking some questions served me well. But the major media fix is in, and they are having a PIO at the Walmart in Safford certain hours and days. Oh, and I was asked several times if I was media or forest service--I thought that kinda weird but maybe that's mostly who goes to that office, with Rosemont and all.

User avatar
chumley
Posts: 6992
Joined: Sep 18 2002 8:59 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ

Re: The Galiuros are burning

Post by chumley » Jun 30 2014 1:20 pm

Interesting reading the various posts here ... I have a question for Letty: Do you feel that this fire is being managed in some way that doesn't follow normal FS protocols (e.g. is the "Oak Fire" being treated differently from similar fires elsewhere), or has this fire and your familiarity with the area raised your awareness and concerns as to how the FS manages all fires (including those in areas where you are less familiar)?
Profound observer

User avatar
RedRoxx44
Posts: 815
Joined: Feb 15 2003 8:07 am
City, State: outside, anywhere

Re: The Galiuros are burning

Post by RedRoxx44 » Jun 30 2014 1:37 pm

I will state that I had no real interest in how fires are managed before this except to say what a shame when I heard about one , or looked at pre and post photos and tried to understand the affects. Fire policy had been aggressive suppression and now let it burn, with defined objectives. My interest is Oak but it can apply where ever. I know this--- The Oak had a natural start. It was in an area of fairly widely dispersed small junipers and some brush and grass. There are a lot of rocky clefts in that area, and winds were light. I want to know is if the forest service opened this fire on the books, did they then perpetuate it when it might have had a chance to go out naturally.
When I hiked in on the 20th I could have put out the perimeter I saw. I wish I had. Of course there was smoke on the other side of china peak and I have no knowledge of that part of the fire. The forest service had a fire of record to manage and I want to know if they decided to continue their objective no matter what. Money flows, and things happen. Apply that to any situation. Since I am ignorant and irrational perhaps I should now run for office, seems those characteristics might be just the ticket.

I do think with the media spin the Oak is being showcased as a "how to do it" fire. This will be a good way to assure funding continues for these fires, which under the right circumstances I think are good to prevent the huge blow ups we've seen. It's a small wilderness, there is no human impact downside, and they've been courting the media overtime.

User avatar
chumley
Posts: 6992
Joined: Sep 18 2002 8:59 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ

Re: The Galiuros are burning

Post by chumley » Jun 30 2014 1:49 pm

Thanks. I would say my interest and knowledge of current fire management policy is probably similar to yours. Your passion about this has piqued my interest. I wouldn't have the effort to personally pursue the answers you are fighting for (mostly because I feel that any of my efforts would be fruitless anyway), but I'll be reading this thread as the days and weeks pass. The more I read, the more I learn! :)
Profound observer

Post Reply

Return to “Fire & Area Closures”


cron