Well, it's my business to know, since we are paying their $ salary.

I don't know what they make - none of my business really.  What I do know is that the local USFS doesn't get involved on the ground (can't deplete the local labor) and the people fighting the fire are professionals from around the country.  These people are in TX one month and MN the next.  I met 4 guys from NJ who cleaned up the WTC.  Fire if fire to them - no matter where it is.  However, while all of them know fire, they don't know the BWCA.  They did not like the fact that they had to paddle in, portage and carry all their gear.  They were pissed they couldn't get a float plane ride from Insula to Hudson.  Hey, no motorized activity on those lakes!   This is was a pristine wilderness.  

db wrote on Oct 24^th, 2011 at 5:54am:

Someone told me that some of those fire fighters were making an outrageous sum of $6000 per day!!!  Is that true?  (Now I see why they let it burn)!

starwatcher

Yes, I'm familiar with teeter-totters and when your on the up side and your friend decides to get off you slam to the ground.  That was the same as the analogous disastrous effects of Pagami fire. They should of let it down in a controlled manner.

starwatcher

A lot of USFS folks would agree starwatcher.  One huge gripe in the ranks with the seniority up there is that the mandatory retirement age is not enforced.  Most feel that if it was, the forest would be managed differently.  Read into that as you see fit.

No problem Wally,

I expressed my one small view of the universe and  I welcome every and all opinions.

My thoughts are that someone at the Forest Service is in charge of deciding whether to put out a fire or let it burn.  They waited too long and let it burn under dry conditions and the result is over 90,000 acres, 145 square miles, and 22 million dollars that resulted in devastation.

I love the old growth forest.  (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links) If a red pine or white pine is getting up to 100 years old then I take notice.  The Forest Service should conduct controlled burns.  But not in extreme dry conditions.  Put out those fires during those conditions.  But conduct controlled burns in less extreme conditions.

It's ironic that there was no fire ban during the extreme conditions of the Ham Lake fire, but last week we had a fire ban on the start of our trip and therefore we escaped to Canada.  I'm just stating the someone needs to make the correct decision and if it took days to decide to put out the Pagami fire that we need new management who know the conditions to make the right decision, because in my opinion someone waited too long to decide.  Therefore, get someone new in charge.

starwatcher

I have played jarts!  A teeter-totter spends most of it's time around the pivot, coming or going.  But occasionaly an extreme must be reached.

Old growth good
New growth good
no growth is just a passing phase....50 years or so.  Drop in the proverbial bucket.

Starwatcher, sorry to mimmick, i was just being a donkey.

PJ offered a really an interesting comment:
"Fire is where the money is." I heard 14 million on this one recently. Let's see, <+-~250,000 visitors times $16 a head = 4 million? Huh.

The lightening strike vs camper ignition is a difference that makes little sense to me too.

Ummm, starwatcher - I read both your links and my takeaway was I think, different. Short term vs long term views were mentioned in both.

Quote:

Has anyone seen a teeter-totter in real life anywhere lately? Aren't those like Jarts?

I've helped with a few controlled burns on different friend's properties over the years. Can we fool mother nature every time and/or for how long?

PhantomJug wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2011 at 3:41am:


Yeah, replace those guys.

starwatcher

and now it's time for the critters that depend on a young forest.  Old growth?...at what cost?

It's all a teeter-totter