The Station Fire Thread

Ze Hiker · Post by **Ze Hiker** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:44 pm

SLOW DOWN AND HIT THE ENTER KEY ONCE IN A WHILE

Post by **Hikin_Jim** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:19 pm

Actually, that vague map is nice in a way. Since they created a map that no one can possibly read, it's proscriptions cannot possibly be enforced. When it comes to trails: hike it if you like it! Unless it's otherwise marked on site, everything's open if they're going to produce a map like that.

HJ

Post by **Taco** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:29 pm

Don't cross the fuzzy blue 500 meter thick line or they'll somehow know and send an elite mega enforcement helicopter ($5k an hour to run in taxpayer dollars) to HUNT YOU DOWN!

BRB, going to go stomp on seedlings.

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 3:01 pm

I blew up the map to try to check place names and the only word I could make out is "Pyongyang." Is that even in the ANF?

If the FS really wanted to produce a better map, they could give a small grant to a local school and a third grade class could take it on as a short project.

My view is opposite to Jim's on this one. I think they leave the map vague so that people will violate the order and we can help fix the deficit with the increased fine revenue.

Post by **Hikin_Jim** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 3:54 pm

AlanK wrote: ↑I blew up the map to try to check place names and the only word I could make out is "Pyongyang."

It's all beginning to make sense to me now...

HJ

AW~ · Post by **AW~** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:09 pm

http://griffithparkwayist.blogspot.com/ ... ublic.html

Wednesday, March 23, 2011
7:30 p.m.
Eaton Canyon Nature Center

"....Please join us at 7:30 pm March 23 for a special program on how an iconic mountain range is recovering. Marty Dumpis, Acting Forest Supervisor of Angeles National Forest, and a team of experts will present an update on forest conditions. Marty will open with an overview of how nature is doing and where it might need help from us, or just time to heal.

Other Forest Service speakers will provide updates on trail restoration, recreational opportunities, and the struggle against invasive plants.

Rounding out the evening, Gabi and Cliff McLean will share their photos of the wildflowers in our local mountains and the “fire followers” that appear in burned areas. Gabi, president of the California Native Plant Society, San Gabriel Mountains Chapter, is a nature photographer and docent naturalist. Cliff is a computer programming specialist. Together they produced a 2008 CD interpretive guide “Plants of the San Gabriel Mountains: Foothills and Canyons.” ...."

mattmaxon · Post by **mattmaxon** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:26 am

I'll bring a pitchfork

shreddy · Post by **shreddy** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:44 am

Anyone go last night and what were your thoughts? Somewhat informative, but I could have done with half the wildflower presentation.
Nothing definitive about re-opening of areas of the forest except "soon"...whatever that means. I think I got more out of talking to a few in the audience. Gary Hilliard (RD for the Mt D 50K) said he did a survey of the Gabrieleno trail from Red box to Switzers and said that the area is torched. No trail and it's going to take a lot of work. Apparently Strawberry from red Box is also in very bad shape. One person there who I trust mentioned that the task at hand is huge and that many in charge are not up to the job.

Really would have been neat if more time was alotted for questions from the audience

cougarmagic · Post by **cougarmagic** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:09 pm

I didn't go, but I'm glad you did. Thanks for the post.

I would like to know what the criteria are for reopening the forest. For example, if the issue is safety, does that mean no areas will be open until the trails have been completely restored? And on the issue of invasives and "recovery", what is an acceptable amount of time for that to occur, and on what studies or information are they basing that assessment? We have plenty of examples of chaparral fires near urban areas to know these things.

Without answers to those questions, there will never be a timeline to reopen.

shreddy · Post by **shreddy** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:20 pm

Cougar - Great questions that were not asked or really addressed. Looks like they have been doing quite a bit of work removing invasives. The gal who did that presentation was pretty informative.

Lot's and lots of trail work needs to be done as you can imagine.

Oh ... also .... they're doing assesments on many areas before they rebuild.... IE if a campground burned they will evaluate to see if changes need to be made ...IE maybe the bathroom needs to be moved further away from the stream. that kind of thing.

AW~ · Post by **AW~** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:19 pm

completely forgot about it....I dont understand what the big deal is about the trails...if theres not an immediate health threat, then open!open!open!

PackerGreg · Post by **PackerGreg** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:21 pm

Cross-country travel is legal in the National Forest system.

shreddy · Post by **shreddy** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:53 pm

PackerGreg wrote: ↑Cross-country travel is legal in the National Forest system.

Maybe this is a stupid question, but what do you mean by x-country travel? ---Not on trail??

PackerGreg · Post by **PackerGreg** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 8:04 pm

Yeah, I was just being snotty about the way The Angeles is managed. The trail conditions are just one more excuse to keep us out of the forest.

shreddy · Post by **shreddy** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 8:27 pm

PackerGreg wrote: ↑Yeah, I was just being snotty about the way The Angeles is managed. The trail conditions are just one more excuse to keep us out of the forest.

I enjoy your takes Packer Greg ... you seem to have some of the inside scoop. Some great stories too. Looking forward to more whenever you have it

shreddy · Post by **shreddy** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 8:18 am

Here's a link to a story discussing Wednesday's meeting:

http://lacanadaflintridge.patch.com/art ... u-can-help

MtnMan · Post by **MtnMan** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:04 am

So you let people into an area to hike that no trail no longer exists, and take on that liability, as a government agency... in LA nonetheless. Yeah, right.

That's real good leadership skills PackerGreg, maybe you should apply for Forest Supervisor. The position is open ya know.

Bill · Post by **Bill** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 2:29 pm

I don't know why the government should carry any liability for us in the forest. Nor why they should limit our access for any reason. It is public land and if a person chooses to risk his life that should be his right as a citizen to do so. IMHO 8)

everyday · Post by **everyday** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:00 pm

I agree with that /\ guy

its my land too, i can run where i want....if some people go out beyond their skill-level because of ignorance about nature, weather, and the world they live in...well, then they have to accept the consequences.
I expect to suffer the consequences and take responsibility for my actions if I choose to go too far beyond what i know, and end up in a bad spot (lost/injured/dead), why cant others do the same ? no one should be liable for another persons decisions. imo

MtnMan · Post by **MtnMan** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:56 pm

That's all nice and good and I wish it were that way too, but you both know as well as I do, that's not how it works. It's public land, yes, but is also required by and administered by the federal govt. They mostly create and maintain the trails, campgrounds, infrastructure etc, and are therefore ulitimately responsible for them to a large degree.

I'll never forget the true story of the drunk guy that dove into 2 ft of water in Big Tujunga Creek many years ago, sued the Angeles NF for $$$ because there wasn't a sign telling him not to do that and it was unsafe. Guess what, he won, too.

You can blame these idiots, and even more so our legal system for all the babysitting that is going on today with not just the public lands, but almost everything we do.

everyday · Post by **everyday** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 4:10 pm

Yeah...I know, i know...im just sayin, in a perfect world...

Bill · Post by **Bill** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 8:27 pm

MtnMan wrote: ↑That's all nice and good and I wish it were that way too, but you both know as well as I do, that's not how it works. It's public land, yes, but is also required by and administered by the federal govt. They mostly create and maintain the trails, campgrounds, infrastructure etc, and are therefore ulitimately responsible for them to a large degree.

I'll never forget the true story of the drunk guy that dove into 2 ft of water in Big Tujunga Creek many years ago, sued the Angeles NF for $$$ because there wasn't a sign telling him not to do that and it was unsafe. Guess what, he won, too.

You can blame these idiots, and even more so our legal system for all the babysitting that is going on today with not just the public lands, but almost everything we do.

Yup, but you kind of made my point. They act as though it is their forest and not our forest. I know there needs to be some degree of protection, but I think it amounts to not wanting to allow us into the forest because they don't want to maintain CGs, trails etc. I totally agree our legal system needs overhaul with frivelous law suits and the like. It's getting to the point where you can't stub your toe without someone being held liable for it.

MtnMan · Post by **MtnMan** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:46 am

As far as not wanting to maintain the campgrounds and trails, I'm sorry but that's just plain ignorant. Have you been up there this past year to see how much money and time they are putting into rebuilding/upgrading everything? (and yes, you can get to all of those places).

Lower Charlton Flat is getting a complete overhaul, as is Buckhorn Campground and Switzer's picnic area, to name a few. And these were all planned before the fire and disaster funding was allocated. Chilao is opening next week, and there has also been some significant fire damage repair work done in both Little Pines and Maznanita.

While I get that their is limited resources and sometimes things aren't managed in a way we want, I think it's a slap in the face to those people (including hundreds of volunteers) that are busting their ass to get the trails/campgrounds, etc.. reworked so people like you can go up there and safely enjoy them.

Bill · Post by **Bill** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:01 pm

MtnMan wrote: ↑As far as not wanting to maintain the campgrounds and trails, I'm sorry but that's just plain ignorant. Have you been up there this past year to see how much money and time they are putting into rebuilding/upgrading everything? (and yes, you can get to all of those places).

Lower Charlton Flat is getting a complete overhaul, as is Buckhorn Campground and Switzer's picnic area, to name a few. And these were all planned before the fire and disaster funding was allocated. Chilao is opening next week, and there has also been some significant fire damage repair work done in both Little Pines and Maznanita.

While I get that their is limited resources and sometimes things aren't managed in a way we want, I think it's a slap in the face to those people (including hundreds of volunteers) that are busting their ass to get the trails/campgrounds, etc.. reworked so people like you can go up there and safely enjoy them.

I stand corrected. 8) My apologies to all those volunteers. My basic point remains the same. Open the Forest. If I want to risk going in and getting injuried I do so at my own peril. I will not sue the government for my folly. It is our forest. God knows we pay enough in taxes and Adventure passes etc.

Zach · Post by **Zach** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:27 pm

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... ?track=rss

Post by **HikeUp** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:11 pm

Fuel for fire season 2050.

Post by **Hikin_Jim** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:17 pm

Funding for this year's reforestation effort comes from Chevron, which recently contributed $1.5 million to the South Coast Air Quality Management District to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions resulting from an expansion of its El Segundo refinery.

Now what could possibly be wrong with that?

HJ

mattmaxon · Post by **mattmaxon** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 4:54 am

Hikin_Jim wrote: ↑
Funding for this year's reforestation effort comes from Chevron, which recently contributed $1.5 million to the South Coast Air Quality Management District to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions resulting from an expansion of its El Segundo refinery.
Now what could possibly be wrong with that?

HJ

nothing if you don't mind being a tool for a corporation

Mike P · Post by **Mike P** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 9:12 am

Don't even get me started on the wisdom of replanting!!!!

When humans attempt to intervene in natural processes, the law of unintended consequences almost always comes into effect. What a waste of money. A total "feel-good" project...

OK. I feel better now.

PackerGreg · Post by **PackerGreg** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 5:03 pm

And planting more trees mitigates carbon dioxide emissions how?