Any news on the big fire?

Most accurate and up to date info:   (You need to Login or Register

Latest legible map:   (You need to Login or Register

Looks like it headed east on Main St. (numbered lakes to Insula and beyond).

I found this earlier today   (You need to Login or Register

We were on Kawasachong and Square Lake for four days last week (Monday through Thursday) and exited on Kawishiwi on Friday night and Saturday.  We watched the smoke plume on Friday night at sunset and didn't realize that by Monday the lakes we had been camping on would be burned over.

It's been a much bigger fire than anticipated, I think.  It is very dry up there.  We were amazed that there wasn't a fire ban.

---

In the end, the fire is a good thing.  It truely is the life of the forest.  Hurts to wtch as we can only imagine in our lifespan.

That's a fantastic picture.  Just beautiful.

Found this on twitter. This guy has some pretty amazing pics of the fire    (You need to Login or Register

Dewfus...great find!
The two videos at the end of pg 2 are phenomenal from Insula.

wally wrote on Sep 17^th, 2011 at 11:25pm:

Dewfus...great find! The two videos at the end of pg 2 are phenomenal from Insula.

Wow!

On the Pagami Creek fire:

Quote:

“I think it’s an important part of this fire story that people know it didn’t all burn, that it’s not all black but a lot of green interspersed,” Van Every said. “But we won’t know until next year how people will react.”

  (You need to Login or Register

Quote from the USFS Smokey the Bear
"9 out of 10 wildfires nationwide are caused by people."

My opinion is that the principal cause of the disastrous effects of the Pagami Creek Fire include mismanagement by careless people; namely the USFS forest service managers. I have used the canoe county and BWCA for outdoor activities for over a half a century. Now vast areas have been destroyed by the careless action of the government agency that is suppose to be caring for it.

It will take decades for the forest to recover!

It's time to throw out the old management and replace it with someone with some common sense.

Fire is an essential and inevitable part of this ecosystem. To believe that it can be controlled or suppressed is hubris at best. To some degree big fires are the result of long term suppression and accumulating fuel loads in an ecosystem that is determined to burn.

Exactly right Solus.

Just spent the weekend with my brother who is a crew chief for the USFS in Ely.  He's been on every fire since 1999.  FWIW, that numbered lake corridor has been treated with kid gloves for years and this fire was going to be no different until it took on a mind of it's own.  This thing went from 9 acres to 90,000 acres in a matter of days with virtually no way of having the man power available to keep it at a minimum.  Local crews have very little say in the fighting of fires anyway as those decisions are handed down from higher gov't agencies -decisions that can take days to reach the ears of those on the ground.  Fire is big business for Ely - all of those local outfitters were handed gov't "S" contracts for food supply to the fire crews.  Millions of dollars for the area and local outfitters were made in food alone - not to mention all the canoes and gear they had to rent as well.  If you were wondering what those Cub Foods semi trucks were doing in Pamida parking lot all October - now you know.

Wilderness?? Who are we trying to kid?  The BW is simply MN's free backyard for boy scouts and out-of-towners.  Fire is where the money's at.

Since the end result of such fires are the same, what difference does it make to the USFS/Gov agencies whether the origin is a lightning strike or a campfire?  The "hands off" camp has been describing the benefits the fire will bring to the land.  OK with that.  2007 wasn't so long ago.  The person responsible for the Ham Lake fire killed himself during the pursuing actions of the criminal indictment.  His motive may have been due to the damage liabilities being faced.  Or maybe it was in part the scorn he received from an unrelenting public opinion.  I don't recall the same chorus of benefits being sung back then.  Seems ironic.

-YB

there's no middle ground.  Some group will always be unhappy.
FWIW....the forest wasn't destroyed.  Personal property was.

That fire may help out some wildlife, but what about the wildlife that depends on the old growth forest.  Even now I suspect it would have a disastrous effect on wildlife that needs to scrounge for food with the approaching cold, long winter.

Outdoor Life August 2, 2011

WILDLIFE BENEFITS FROM WILDFIRES—BUT AT WHAT COST?

  (You need to Login or Register

The Forest Service neglect in putting out the forest fire will be evident for decades.  Didn't they learn anything from Yellowstone?   They should conduct burns to manage the forest when conditions present less chance to get out of control (like they were doing last October with a managed prescribed burn at Kekekabic Lake).  My opinion is that they should have put the Pagami fire out when there were such extreme dry conditions.  It might be a good time to get some new management to review the policy.

A legacy of wisdom on burning in the BWCA
Article by: DENNIS ANDERSON , Star Tribune Updated: September 29, 2011 - 11:04 PM
A Forest Service ecologist instrumental in the BWCA's wilderness designation was prescient on prescribed burning

  (You need to Login or Register

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

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

Local crews have very little say in the fighting of fires anyway as those decisions are handed down from higher gov't agencies -decisions that can take days to reach the ears of those on the ground.  .

Yeah, replace those guys.

starwatcher

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:

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

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?

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.

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   (You need to Login or Register 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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.   :(

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