Re: The Station Fire Thread
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:43 am
And don't forget to bury it at least 8 inches deep after using it for "sanitary activities".
Hey, we have until 6:00 tonight! Let's get out there!AlanK wrote:OK, clear enough.AW wrote:"Angeles National Forest entire eastern main body of the Angeles National Forest will be closed effective 6:00 p.m. tonight until full containment of the Station Fire"
source:http://inciweb.org/incident/1856/
Oh. So by southern, Matt meant eastern. Clear as a bell!AW wrote:"Angeles National Forest entire eastern main body of the Angeles National Forest will be closed effective 6:00 p.m. tonight until full containment of the Station Fire"
source:http://inciweb.org/incident/1856/
"The fire has moved into the San Gabriel wilderness and has been making active runs through various drainages in the area"
I assumed that Matt meant all of the ANF except for the rather sizable Santa Clara piece to the north and west of the San Gabriels. I was hoping that Matt was wrong. Alas, he was evidently right.HikeUp wrote:Oh. So by southern, Matt meant eastern. Clear as a bell!
Yes, I kind of had figured out what he had meant by southern. The area in question is indeed both south and east of the the open part of the ANF.
I bet this is the only thread where people are overjoyed when they're wrong.AlanK wrote:I am glad to hear that Newcomb's Ranch survived. Sorry for posting erroneous information. In this case, I am happy to be wrong!
I'm waiting to wake up and find out that the whole damned thing was just a nightmare!
I knew I shouldn't have had that spicey mustard right before bed.AlanK wrote:I'm waiting to wake up and find out that the whole damned thing was just a nightmare!
I guess this is what I get for directly quoting the Forest Supervisor!HikeUp wrote:Yes, I kind of had figured out what he had meant by southern. The area in question is indeed both south and east of the the open part of the ANF.
It's good to see that most information being quoted here is at least accompanied by a source and is not pure conjecture and hearsay!
That'll teach you, Matt!mattmaxon wrote:I guess this is what I get for directly quoting the Forest Supervisor!HikeUp wrote:Yes, I kind of had figured out what he had meant by southern. The area in question is indeed both south and east of the the open part of the ANF.AlanK wrote: I assumed that Matt meant all of the ANF except for the rather sizable Santa Clara piece to the north and west of the San Gabriels. I was hoping that Matt was wrong. Alas, he was evidently right.
It's good to see that most information being quoted here is at least accompanied by a source and is not pure conjecture and hearsay!
cougarmagic wrote:Well there's yer problem right there. They have the map turned sideways. No wonder they can't contain this thing. Dumping water all over Barstow!
Hey welcome aboard!scott johnson wrote:This is my first comment here at this site.
I endeavor to perseverescott johnson wrote:BTW, great job on the fire maps!!
Are we/should we be worried about Buckhorn? Newcomb's is awfully close - too close for my comfort.AlanK wrote:I am glad to hear that Newcomb's Ranch survived. Sorry for posting erroneous information. In this case, I am happy to be wrong!
Until this thing is out everything is in dangerLayne Cantrell wrote:Are we/should we be worried about Buckhorn? Newcomb's is awfully close - too close for my comfort.
Don't worry where all a bit "loopy" here esp when it comes to our beloved San Gabriel Mtns!Layne Cantrell wrote:I've been going to Buckhorn since I was about five (I'm 26 now) with my dad. The site has become something of a spiritual place for me, one of the few constants in my life as I've grown. Its hard to explain really without coming across a bit "loopy."
Federal authorities failed to follow through on plans earlier this year to burn away highly flammable brush in a forest on the edge of Los Angeles to avoid the very kind of wildfire now raging there, The Associated Press has learned.
The U.S. Forest Service said that months before the huge blaze erupted, it obtained permits to burn away the undergrowth on more than 1,700 acres of the Angeles National Forest. But just 193 acres had been cleared by the time the fire broke out, the agency said.
The agency defended its efforts, saying weather, wind and environmental rules tightly limit how often these "prescribed burns" can be conducted.
Also, Forest Service resource officer Steve Bear said crews using machinery and hand tools managed to trim 5,000 acres in the forest this year before the money ran out.
That's what I figured/hoped. It was also comforting to hear about the firefighters at the Christian camp nearby. My biggest fear was that they'd simply let the eastern flank go since there aren't a lot of structures there (which to me is what makes the place so wonderful!).mattmaxon wrote:Until this thing is out everything is in dangerLayne Cantrell wrote:Are we/should we be worried about Buckhorn? Newcomb's is awfully close - too close for my comfort.
But Buckhorn is quite a distance away, even if the wind was to pick up I'd venture a guess that it is 2-3 days away
Thanks man. I've been lurking here since I read about 39 possibly re-opening to 2 and I figured if anyone understood my over-the-top love for the SGs it was you guys. Its been a great comfort reading this board the last few days.Don't worry where all a bit "loopy" here esp when it comes to our beloved San Gabriel Mtns!Layne Cantrell wrote:I've been going to Buckhorn since I was about five (I'm 26 now) with my dad. The site has become something of a spiritual place for me, one of the few constants in my life as I've grown. Its hard to explain really without coming across a bit "loopy."
It isn't hard to explain to us
Careful there, Layne. This board has been known to cause severe intellectual or emotional setbacks!Layne Cantrell wrote:Thanks man. I've been lurking here since I read about 39 possibly re-opening to 2 and I figured if anyone understood my over-the-top love for the SGs it was you guys. Its been a great comfort reading this board the last few days.
I'm having enough of an emotional setback trying to figure out what's going on up there.Mike P wrote:Careful there, Layne. This board has been known to cause severe intellectual or emotional setbacks!Layne Cantrell wrote:Thanks man. I've been lurking here since I read about 39 possibly re-opening to 2 and I figured if anyone understood my over-the-top love for the SGs it was you guys. Its been a great comfort reading this board the last few days.
Crap. The NPS in the San Gabriels is looking better all the time.mattmaxon wrote:The data shows the Beast at the head of Santa Anita Cyn
If no effort is made here it's likely gone, since there are no transmitters or homes in there......
Pray for rain as the FS won't do a thing
http://mattmaxon.homeip.net/data/Fire%2 ... 200902.kml
I listened to the press conference at 5:00 pm this afternoon with all the big muckity mucks. They stressed that their main concern/area of concentration was now the southeast front of the fire and that one of their priorities was protecting Santa Anita Canyon. The FS says they are doing something. I hear two sides of the story at every turn.mattmaxon wrote:The data shows the Beast at the head of Santa Anita Cyn
If no effort is made here it's likely gone, since there are no transmitters or homes in there......
Pray for rain as the FS won't do a thing
http://mattmaxon.homeip.net/data/Fire%2 ... 200902.kml