Take it for what it's worth, this information was given to me from the Tahoe Forest Service in an effort to inform us and to try and keep us in the loop.

"Quotes from the Forest's Fire Management Officer (FMO):

"Statistically speaking, to date in Northern California, North Ops has assembled the following data:
# of Burned
Yr Fires Acres
2006 2,136 22,890
2007 1,575 47,784

That is: 27% less ignitions than in 2006 have accounted for about 208% more acres burned. "

"The fire behavior exhibited is indescribable. Yesterday, on the TNF with a light rain, we had a fire go from 1/4 acre to 7.5 acres. It simply has never done that before, especially in July."

"I can honestly say, professionally and personally, that the only agenda attached to fire restrictions is the following: to minimize the risk probability of human caused ignitions by concentrating recreation use in areas where we have the ability to use engines as the primary initial attack medium. It really is not any more complicated than that."


I will also add that old fire dogs (FMOs with many years of experience) have expressed that the fire behavior they have seen this year as "career changing" or "life changing." When people like this express such emotions it indicates to me they are extremely concerned about safety for people under their command, the general public and resources. In my 25 years with the federal government, I have never heard such people voice such concern--it simply hasn't happened until now. Please take this to heart."

I believe he's being sincere but in reality he's overlooking the fact that they still allow hiking and horseback riding. These two groups, I'm sure, will account for more fires than the OHV crowd. If they are truly concerned then why not shut down these areas to ALL usage? I think we all know the answer to that...

"I can honestly say, professionally and personally, that the only agenda attached to fire restrictions is the following: to minimize the risk probability of human caused ignitions by concentrating recreation use in areas where we have the ability to use engines as the primary initial attack medium. It really is not any more complicated than that."


[/SIZE]

That statement really bothers me. They want people "camping" in a paved parking spot with a picnic table instead of out in the wild. It also bothers me that we get anectdodal data that plays on the emotions instead of real data on iginition sources of the fires (lightning, illegal campfires, OHV,etc)

Pretty soon they will offer free Koolaid at all paved campsites.:shaking:

I believe he is being sincere, but that does not mean we should let our guard down.

It is counter productive to engage in inflammatory rhetoric as this thread is digressing into.

There is no judge in the land that will consider an action that is not supported by the acknowledged experts that are charged with ensuring public health and safety.

The Tahoe closure is based on public health and safety concerns by the responsible party in charge.

Other closures are bound to happen.

Any one that considers they have a stake in the closure can walk into court with their view point and be against the public health and safety view point.

Pick your battles. That is not a battle you will win.

Set aside the crap and work to the next step.

Due to public health and safety, the forest has been closed to MOTORIZED activity. You have a choice, pray for a hiker to start a fire and show the folly of the Forest position.

Or, you can pray for a lot of rain to increase the moisture content.

In the mean time, buy a lottery ticket to ensure your chance of winning the millions that will be needed to push your law suit forward.

Set aside the rhetoric and start dealing with reality.

Proposed wilderness, roadless, route designation, and facilities review are four issues that are REAL and will have a lasting impact on access to the forest.

Seasonal closures are a fact that is happening in other areas.

The effort should be to ensuring the "seasonal" or "temporary" closures are just that. That will require that people be aware of FACTS and use science to push their case.

Emotional rhetoric is going to put you on a downward spiral.

Do not listen to rumors. If and when the Plumas or any other Forest engages in an action to close the forest due to fire concerns, you have reason to be concerned.

At that point in time, protest with facts and a bankroll big enough to accept the accompanying liability.

Until then, make sure your favorite route is included for review in route designation.

Know here your routes are in relation to "inventoried roadless areas".

Know where proposed wilderness is going to impact your recreation opportunity.

Set aside the emotion and start dealing with reality.

So many thoughts running through my head...

But, I'll keep them to myself so we can keep it civil looking. I'll just write my route des letter after I attend the Placerville meeting. Disapointing.