Actions praised in 2011 BWCA wildfire

  • Article by: TONY KENNEDY , Star Tribune
  • Updated: June 19, 2012 - 7:38 AM

U.S. Forest Service defends use of gasoline to expand fire, says decision-makers made choices that offer lessons for the future.

  • 8
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 8 of 8
justaxnspendJun. 18, 12 7:53 PM

Yea....and no mention of the napalm dropped on the fire by the forest service??!!

3
10
campingdudeJun. 19, 12 6:51 AM

Agree 100% Justaxnspend. They should be charged with arson.

3
9
DaHowieJun. 19, 12 7:58 AM

The first sentences in both the 4th and 5th paragraphs indicate that gasoline was used for a prescribed burn to contain the fire.

8
2
willmarresJun. 19, 12 8:07 AM

Napalm? It's basically jellified gasoline, but it still sounds like coffee shop rumors. If not, it would be good to post your source--and it needs to be more authoritative than "my cousin's wife heard it down at the Chatterbox."

5
2
stonerollerJun. 19, 12 9:11 AM

In a recent news release the USFS stated that after the completion of a lengthy study and much soul searching it was determined that that the top priority of the Agency was to "preserve and protect the resources of the BWCA and and additional Federal lands in northern MN". The report continued "anytime conditions are so dry that dirt will burn small, spot fires will be put out immediately regardless of the location". The recent Pagami Creek fire is an excellent example of how not to contain a potential wildfire.....then I woke up

1
3
spitzeJun. 19, 12 9:22 AM

If you read the reasoning that was in there they actually said the initial burn was "spotty" meaning that it was not completely burning out materials in the path. That means that if they did not apply gasoline to that spot then if the winds shifted it could re-ignite that area. Which depending on the boundaries of the already burned area means that it could've sent the fire racing in the opposite direction. By burning out that area they created a completely burned out fire break. That gave a clear boundary on one side of the affected area where the fire was now contained. A lot of firefighting, and especially wildfire firefighting is controlling the spread of fire. Sometimes that means you have to let one area burn in order to prevent further damage elsewhere.

6
2
willmarresJun. 19, 1210:51 AM

I don't live in the area so this is easy to say, but looking at it now, the Pagami Creek Fire is just a flash in the pan. It's over. It's done. The town of Isabella is fine. It was close, but nobody died. I only see positives from the burn as it will provide a fire break for future fires.

4
2
stonerollerJun. 19, 12 7:36 PM

Dirt is composed primarily of organic material when dry enough it will burn. In the Pagami Creek fire it did burn and it will take decades to replace. Thousands of tons of stored carbon were released into the air, water quality will also be affected for years from run-off and lack of shade, thousands of creatures big and small perished. Millions of dollars were spent....and the list of "positives" goes on and on

0
0
  • 1 - 8 of 8

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT