Tahoe is Sierra Eastside (not Westside) so he'll be OK. Not nice for the people who do live there, though.

The conifer forests there are adapted to periodic fires, so at least there shouldn't be any serious ecological damage.

Resin

Alright then. Thank you Resin.

Dax

Thanks for your concern Dax, but I live about 50 miles away from the fire. Foresters have been warning Tahoe area residents for years that they needed to thin the dense pine and fir stands they built in. Maybe now the residents will be more open to the idea of managing their homesites differently.

I guess it can be all partly luck in the end.

Still glad you're alive and have a place to call home!

See ya around,

Dax

News reports are indicating this fire has likely been set by man.

I agree with Resin, most forests West of the continental divide are adaped to periodic fires. It's actually a good thing for the forests, a bad thing for the people.:/

I saw it that way too.

The human error part is too bad if so be the case.

Dax

There are forest fires just about everywhere. We've already had large fires in the Jersey Pine Barrens this year, with damaged homes.

Again, the Jersey Pine Barrens are supposed to burn every now and then - if they don't, the pines die out.

Not everywhere does; the PNW rainforests don't ever burn naturally, nor do some savanna forests where large mammals keep the amount of burnable material low (it is thought that a lot of Europe was like this, before human intervention).

Resin

One of those CA fires near killed a fire-fighting airliner crew :

Aviation Week & Space Technology, 07/02/2007, page 20
An experiment in using a large transport for aerial bombardment of wildfires has been called off in California, at least temporarily, after a converted DC-10 clipped treetops while battling a mountain blaze and had to make an emergency landing.

The aircraft, owned by 10 Tanker Air Carrier and shown here during a flight last September, was caught in a sudden downdraft typical of the dangers faced by crews spreading fire retardant in mountainous terrain.
The crew was able to pull up but not before the aircraft brushed the tops of trees.
The aircraft and crew return safely to their home base at the Southern California Logistics Airport--the former George AFB--in Victorville.
The incident occurred at 5:20 p.m. on June 25 in the Bison Peak area south of Tehachapi.

The state Forestry Dept. (Cal Fire) and National Transportation Safety Board are investigating the extent of wing damage to the 31-year-old DC-10.

{{gwi:742115}}
Credit: GETTY

Introduction of the DC-10 into state service came on May 10 with the political backing of Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, who called for its "immediate availability and utilization" as California feared the start of a long fire season after a dry winter.
Those fears were realized with two major blazes last week--the White Fire that the DC-10 was fighting in Southern California and the worst blaze to hit the Lake Tahoe basin in a century, a more than 3,100-acre blaze that destroyed 229 residences and 75 commercial structures by mid-week.

The DC-10 was first tried last year on a fire in the San Bernardino Mountains southeast of Los Angeles (AW&ST July 31, 2006, p. 64).
While its 12,000-gal. payload of fire retardant is welcome, the DC-10 is less agile than smaller piston-powered or turboprop aerial firefighters, and its turbofan engines do not spool up as quickly.

Crashes of its aging tankers have reduced aircraft available to the U.S. Forest Service (AW&ST May 17, 2004, p. 31). USFS was concerned about the age of the DC-10 and declined to certify it for use. The FAA and Cal Fire did.

Cal Fire signed a three-year, $5-million contract for its regular use beginning with the 2007 fire season. The agency's own fleet, which already is fully engaged, includes 23 Grumman S-2Ts and 11 Bell UH-1H Super Huey helicopters.

I noticed in news films the dense growths of small trees around houses (and house remains). Unnatural stand conditions due to years of fire suppression are a widespread problem in the intermountain region. Destructive crown fires are occurring where there would have been mostly ground fires only before Smokey. So the recent fires will (presumably) be good for the forest but not good for the trees.

I hate to post such an opposing opinion but I believe it's a valid point. The US Forestry Service spends far too much money and too many firefighters die each season trying to protect property that can be rebuilt. If a homeowner decides to build in a forest then they should be responsible for protecting their homes. Create a fire protection zone, buy fire insurance or take your chances. I don't like seeing homes burn down but it's far worse when people die trying to save a home. The SoCal fires of 2003 were devastating and numerous lives were lost. A total of 22 structures were burnt down and more importantly, 4 people died. The cost of fighting the fires would easily have covered replacing the structures lost and there's no replacing the lives that were lost.
There should be a balance between fighting a fire and saving structures. Most of the forest service people that I've talked with believe it's more beneficial to let them burn.

This might apply to thinly scattered summer cabins, but in substantial communities there is quite a bit more affected when a fire ravages everything. Lives, as well as property. And big permanent dwellings with associated elements, including storage sheds and parked vehicles leave must leave behind quite a nasty mess.

Perhaps even more to the point, why do they allow buildings at all in such places??

Resin

Since the entire region has dry summers you'd have to put all the cities and towns on barges or artificial islands in the ocean or on large lakes to avoid building in fire-prone areas.

Reductio ad absurdam, yes, but I was meaning the building of individual houses scattered widely through the forests. If they were all grouped together in towns, it would be far easier to maintain a firebreak for each town.

But then, horror of horrors, people would have to put up with neighbours. And that's far worse ;-)

Resin

LOL! for the good of my soul!

Dax

The houses burning in Tahoe are close together.

So the answer is...
Control burns?

That's a problem for isolated dwellings. I know. Just exploring.

The streets along which the burned homes were located form a network through a forest on private land adjacent to national forest land. The houses were built because there is a market for them and they are not excluded by zoning laws. Within that inhabited area, the local planning agency forbids the cutting of trees for purposes OTHER than fuel reduction, in order to preserve the rustic nature of the place. Many residents keep as many trees as they are willing to risk, in order to preserve their desired atmosphere.
There were enough clumps of small trees and brush to allow fire to get up into tree crowns, and the fire moved as a crown fire as well as a ground fire, based on the TV videos. Many of the houses probably burned from the top down, after having embers fall on them. There will be pressure on the Forest Service to manage their forests so as to minimize risk to neighbors, while the neighbors continue to live in the woods (those not already burned out).

RE: The US Forestry Service spends far too much money and too many firefighters die each season trying to protect property that can be rebuilt. If a homeowner decides to build in a forest then they should be responsible for protecting their homes. Create a fire protection zone, buy fire insurance or take your chances.

Ah, a voice of reason. I think that is a great point. And a corollary I've been frustrated with is the subsidized rescue / reconstruction of New Orleans. A city that everyone knew was bound to flood (as it's on the coast and below sea level in hurricane alley)

Why should the average joe taxpayer foot the bill for someone else's risky choice and rebuild a city that should be a wetland and inevitably will be again? I mean we're all in agreement that sea levels are going to be rising over the next few decades right?

The point being, you can't complain about a problem (fires, floods, whatever) when you know damn well its going to happen when you go there. It's like renting an apartment above a bar and then complaining about the noise late at night.

I don't mean to trivialize the loss of property and life in either scenario. But maybe let's stop throwing money and the lives of 20 year old kids at the problem and think about it. And maybe do the same with respect to our foreign policy.....

sorry i digress

"The houses were built because ... they are not excluded by zoning laws"

That's exactly my point  they ought to be tightening up the zoning laws to stop this sort of building in high fire risk habitats.

Resin

You guys are probably going to flame me (no pun intended lol), but firefighters are there for a reason, to fight fires. Nobody is putting a gun to head of that certain portion of the populace, forcing them to enlist as smoke jumpers and figher fighters. They do it out of free will and know the dangers. For some reason in the USA, firefighters seem to get this glory-type status, probably as a result movies and media attention. I'm up to here with it. People die all the time while on the job in the private sector while making considerably less money. Where's the outcry there?