View on Saturday at 1:40 p.m. from Topanga Canyon Blvd. looking toward the La Canada Flintridge fire, known as the Station Fire.
Even from a distance, the smoke roiled in explosive billows, like an angry and malign ghost—signaling that the fire was very much out of control.
Here it is seen from the Altadena Weather Cam, 10 hours later.
It looks like this is a ways east from you, but what’s happening ?
Scary stuff…we’ve been lucky with “natural” disasters since ’89 and ’91. But the weather has been so weird that my mother-in-law was predicting earthquakes yesterday. (She’s sort of like Hunter Thompson – the only time she seems to make sense is when things get weird.) Hopefully this LA fire will get under control, but it looks terrible.
Keep the fire away from the mall!
From an LAT article: Literally adding fuel to the fire is 20- to 30-foot-high brush that has not burned in 60 years, said Mike Dietrich, incident commander from the Forest Service.
Comments from a related LAT article:
To that I add, how many firefighters will lose their lives in their duties to satisfy the left-wing environmentalists who oppose proper forest management? Will the lefties feel any guilt or just consider it part of the price for their cause?
What Is Prescribed Fire?
Current Altadena WeatherCam
Here’s the problem, Woody. Your blame routine happens to be diametrically opposed to the facts.
Here is the relevant ‘graph from a 2000 LA Times article on the issue of controlled or prescribed burns, which the Clinton White house was pushing at the time.
http://bit.ly/ZCEzj
Ever since the Yellowstone fire of 1988 burned for four months, the Forest Service, et al, revised their policy about prescribed burning.
In truth, usually the reason that sometimes individual people—on the right or the left— oppose controlled burning is that they get spooked about whether it will get out of control. And occasionally that has happened, as in New Mexico. But the main environmental groups haven’t opposed controlled burns in 20 years.
As a matter of fact, some years back, I made a point of attending a huge hearing on the subject in Montana–in one of the more conservative counties in the state—to speak in favor of controlled burning.
Since I live in Topanga, such things are big topics of conversation. In areas such as these, the most environmentally oriented people are tasked with convincing their jittery (and usually more conservative, anti-government) neighbors that the burns are necessary.
So you’ll have to place the blame for the deaths of firefighters elsewhere.
One interesting side note, conservative Orange County, California, is woefully underfunded when it comes to its fire suppression equipment, particularly in the area of air support. It is one conservative political group in the OC, which has specifically blocked the funding.
In the Santiago fire of 2007 in the OC, the lack of immediate response resources—of the kind that LA County has—is thought to have a made a crucial difference in that fire getting out of control.
I could go on. (And on.)
In short: With all respect, Woody, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Good luck and godspeed, Celeste.
Thanks Randy. But I’m not anywhere close. Although all during fire season we are jittery.
Although it smells like there’s a campfire in my back yard, much of LA smells that way.
There are a lot of people and houses in harms way.
Celeste, your source and its support are quite suspect and lacking.
Every fire is different, but read this regarding the Yellowstone fires: Fire in Paradise: The Yellowstone Fires and the Politics of Environment-alism, by Micah Morrison
If controlled burns in your area had been conducted rather than opposed, then you wouldn’t have these annual fire disasters. Would you?
The enviromentalists may claim to support (some) controlled burns, but they find reasons to oppose almost all of them, either collectively or individually. They always oppose the use of private companies to do the job, as the can’t stand the concept of “profits” that may benefit them. They oppose logging, as if wood for homes and schools are an attack on “Mother Earth.” They say that they want nature rather than man in charge of the burns.
If you do adequate research, you will find that actual history doesn’t support your contention of an environmental movement friendly to controlled burns.
Once again from my comment above: Literally adding fuel to the fire is 20- to 30-foot-high brush that has not burned in 60 years, said Mike Dietrich, incident commander from the Forest Service.
Is the Forest Service to blame or the restrictions placed on them by cowardly politicians pandering to the environmental radical left? Which is it?
I could go on. (And on.)
In short: With all respect I DO know what I’m talking about.
Since the comments are off on the post above this one (Fire Weather: Two LA County Firefighters Killed), let me add a comment about it here.
Woody above: …how many firefighters will lose their lives in their duties to satisfy the left-wing environmentalists who oppose proper forest management?
Let the president of the Sierra Club go explain the deaths of the firemen to their families. (Again, the actions, law suits, campaign contributions, and member votes of “enviromental groups” over the decades don’t match their current disclaimers of innocence.)
Woody, clearly you didn’t read the article you linked to as it refutes your premise rather than supporting it.
I started to write out a long post about the history of fire policy in America, but have since deleted it. Look it up yourself.
Suffice it to say that, from the 1930’s onward, forest ecologists and hard core environmentalists have been pushing to allow forests and wildlands to burn whenever possible, as this is the best thing for the health of the forests.
It is commercial interests, plus often just plain old popular opinion, that has been against it.
Ditto controlled burns. The most hard core end of the environmental movement has been the most out front in fighting for burning.
Do some marginal research before you use deaths of our fire fighters—for whom we are only beginning to grieve— to advance a partisan agenda.
Really Woody—partisanship and your present fact-free agenda aside—this is really beneath you. Or at least, it should be.
I’m not going to say any more on this.
Nothing is beneath him…
Loved this thread.
Celeste, you see what you want in the article.
The whole issue about controlled burning was sidetracked by liberals feigning environemental concerns. They create enormous legal and procedural obstacles to the job of managing forests.
Until “environmentalists” started with their protests and law suits, the problem wasn’t as great. I’ve followed this for years. The (ahem) “enviromentalists” may allow infrequent burns started by nature but not the prescribed burns started by man, thus, allowing for uncontrolled growth of underbrush or fuel.
Whom do you think has been holding up forest managment…accountants wearing three piece suits? This guy doesn’t think so. Environmentalist Governmental Mismanagement of Forest Fires
Also,
The Need for Expanded Wildland Fuel Management in California
A Position of the Northern California Society of American Foresters
Another.
Born to Be Wild?
The “wilderness” is burning, and environmentalists are to blame.
Fact-free agenda? I don’t think so.
Get rid of the environmental obstacles and the fire disasters drop.
And, yes, if the build up of fuel was created by delays for so-called environmental concerns, then those folks have blood on their hands. It’s better to be up front about it rather than pretend that it doesn’t matter.
Note: The resident Sack-‘o-Shit inserted the words “(Thanks to groups like the Sierra Club” into the Issue Statement “quoted” above.
Dishonest, puerile little bastad.
Go To Hell !!!!
Celeste, you should know by now that there’s no point in debating the lying sack of shit that goes by “Woody”.
The parenthesis and italics indicated that that particular phrase was inserted by me, which even an idiot could tell, but not reg.
When one inserts text not in the original one is supposed to use box brackets (e.g.[]) not parentheses.
One would think any idiot would know that.
You’re a dishonest little prick, Woody. 99% of the people who read this blog have nothing but contempt for your constant carping, hijacking and lying.
Randy: One would think any idiot would know that.
Which you proved.
reg, your contributions to this and MC’s sites amount to personal attacks rather than anything of substance. One-hundred percent of the people who read this blog see through you.
BTW, you never start a sentence with a number unless it is written out. Even Randy knows that.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ