--
To reply by mail, nuke the 'bago.
Larry Harrell wrote in message
om...
"Caerbannog" wrote in message
...
--
To reply by mail, nuke the 'bago.

snip
.....

Past USFS policy has had a lot to do with the fire conditions.
Over-cutting and then a lack of fuels treatments leads to certain
disaster. I also hear that the USFS didn't take steps to put out the
fire in its early stages (because it was in the wilderness).


That would be incorrect -- the USFS folks didn't attack that fire more
aggressively because they had no reserve manpower to throw at
it in the early stages. In fact, a crucial, locally-based, fire-fighting
crew
was off fighting a fire in Colorado at the time.

From the Biscuit Fire chronology at
http://www.biscuitfire.com/pdf/chronology.htm :

"Boothe and Del Monte decided not to staff these two fires at this time
due to limited access, lack of safety zones, and current wind and fire
behavior.
These conditions compromised three of the Ten Standard Fire Orders"
1) Fight fire aggressively but provide for safety first.
2) Initiate all action based on current and expected fire behavior.
3) Determine safety zones and escape routes."

Safety and manpower issues, not wilderness management policy,
shaped the initial response to these fires.

................