Google Map
Shows potential perimeter of the burn area in green with current fire area in red.
Fire Command Considers Burning Out Backcountry
Entire Dick Smith Wilderness Inside Possible Burn Perimeter
Originally published 12:33 p.m., August 10, 2007
Updated 10:47 p.m., August 10, 2007
In a sign that fire command may not believe it can stop the fire from crossing the Santa Ynez River and moving to the front country, officials are looking into burning out a huge part of the Santa Barbara backcountry.
With high temperatures and low humidity predicted for the next three days, operations leaders decided are considering a strategy they hoped they’d never have to use: circling the entire fire boundary and burning back into it. This represents an expansion of the fire perimeter that could encompass an additional several hundred thousand acres.
At the morning cooperators meeting this morning, Incident Commanders Mark Schmitt and Bill Molumby told those present the burn, once started, would take 10-14 days and could begin on the north part of the fire line as soon as resources were in place and on the south side as early as Monday. County public information officer William Boyer, however, noted in a later interview that no decision has been made in the matter and that the back country burn was still only a move crews were considering.
By Ray Ford
Incident Commander Bill Molumby tells cooperating agencies that fire command has decided to burn out a large part of the backcountry to keep it from spreading into populated areas.
In somber terms, Molumby, who is the Incident Commander for the Forest Service Type 1 team, described a boundary that could include all of the Dick Smith Wilderness, close Highway 33 near Ozena at times and turn what is now an 80,000 acres fire into one that could consume a large part of Santa Barbara County.
“Once you pull the switch,” Molumby told the stunned crowd, “there’s no turning back.”
“All we need to begin the burning is to get the logistical pieces in place,” Schmitt added. “We’d planned on starting the burn on the north side along the Sierra Madre crest but we weren’t quite ready.”
Operations leaders expect that about 60-70 percent of the country inside the perimeter would burn. “We’ll have a black edge on the boundary but there’ll be lots of islands inside it that won’t burn.” Molumby explained.
With large portions of the San Rafael Wilderness already burned, the impacts on wildlife and watershed quality will be immense as well as the amount of smoke, ash and other particulates that will be released when an area this size burns.
Tonight, another in the series of community meetings will be held at the Museum of Natural History. Meeting time is 6 p.m. Perhaps more explanation of the burn out will be given then.
Forest Service Map
Map shows burn area on the lower edge of the fire. Higher temperatures the next three days should cause this area to burn quite a bit.
On the lower front of the fire, there was additional movement on the fire line, with flames moving over Pie Canyon Jeepway and down into the wilderness near Indian Camp.
Map of the upper fire perimeter shows the fire is moving into the Sisquoc River area and expanding down canyon as well. The fire is now near Cottonwood Camp.
Comments
Wow, that's huge!
robert (Robert LeBlanc)
August 10, 2007 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm no fireman but there has got to be a better solution than burning down the entire backcountry. I understand strategic backburning in order to save homes but to give up on the entire area is a horrible approach. Hwy 33 to the east is still a month away from the fire - as frequently as things changfor the better. Not to mention the very real risk that the backfire gets out of control. Seems to drastic to me!
Say your temporary goodbyes to wildlife, trees, water quality, access, and backpacking season anywhere in SB County.
BeBe (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks Ray, now can you find out what this means for the Edison lines? Does this plan burn out the supply lines as well, or does it prevent the fire from approaching the lines?
I'll try to get to the meeting tonight to see what the command has to say about this.
Thanks again
marksb (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey, everyone, say a prayer for all these heroic guys who are doing this work. This is major.
HiAll (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks Ray for keeping us up-to-date. Any details about the northwest corner and how that will figure into the burnout operations?
bmunger (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You know that a decision of this magnitude was not made without major deliberation. Still...I'm stunned. Ray, can you or anyone else help me understand how this will really help?
barbara (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well...land that has been burned won't burn again (at least for a while).
GoletaResident (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
wasn't it in the '80's that funding was cut by the feds for fire maintenance? I remember as a kid, growing up here, that they used to regularly do controlled burns to help prevent this sort of disaster.
LOL (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For a thorough and relevant review of fire management in our area and a chronical of large fires that have burned here, I recommend Ray Ford's 1991 book entitled, "Santa Barbara Wildfires."
This book lends needed and thoughtful perspective which is highly germane to the current situation.
Observer (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What if the winds change after they start this inferno? If they can't stop this fire at its current size, they certainly won't be able to control it after they increase it by a couple of hundred thousand acres.
alexander (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
On the plus side, the floral regeneration that occurs naturally from this Mediterranean climate's adaptation to fire will be amazing come springtime. Say goodbye to dead, diseased and dying material and hello to fabulous wildflowers, new growth and a fascinating study of our native flora.
And thank yous go to the firefighters who are doing everything they can to protect us and our homes.
SBCitizen (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Notice that a major change has been made to the article. It now says that the burn is being CONSIDERED, not that they are going with that course of action.
-----------
Correct. This article has been updated and changed, as noted in the dateline. Thanks --WebAdmin
sibilant (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think this means that once they start the perimeter fire that all wildlife inside that perimeter trying to escape will face a wall of fire no matter which direction they go...
Is this 'desperate' solution not due to the wilderness area policy that bans the use of heavy machiery inside a wilderness area ??
tallbear (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The news media tends to exaggerate things.
I believe that the decision was not to "burnout" the back country (which would make no sense), but instead to change the focus from fighting the fire in the backcountry to burning a perimeter around the fire. In fact, it appears that this new strategy was announced at this evening's meeting at the Natural History Musueum. Unfortunately, KEYT cut away from the meeting just as they were introducing the guy who was going to make the announcement, but the introductory comments certainly suggested that this would be the change in focus.
In any event, it appears that the Independent got this wrong twice -- first to announce that there would be a "burnout," then to backtrack and say the new policy was just a proposal. In fact, it appears the decision has been made to cease efforts to fight the fire in the wilderness, and to shift to burning a perimeter around the wilderness. That could result in most of the backcountry being burned, but the fire fighters won't be going in the wilderness and burning it out themselves!
sbwriter (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This was the plan from the start as far as the Feds go.
Burn it now and then ignore it for another 100 years..
What a mess.
thew (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I filed a PDF of the article as it was published this afternoon. The revision tells a very different story. This is not the way responsible journalism is handled. If the writer, or the editors, or the publisher, or the mayor, wanted to soften the story -- to say that no decision was actually made last night -- then the correct and ethical way to make that change is to publish a correction. Making invisible changes to a published article is a trick worthy of the SB News-Press.
StephelIndependent (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It seems to me that Ray Ford is doing his level best to bring us up-to-the-minute news, and this is an ONLINE column -- given the dynamic nature of all of this, I just want to say that I'm grateful for his stories, his maps, his commitment to getting info out as carefully and as quickly as possible. If he made changes because he got it wrong, or if he made changes because they changed their minds, or if he made changes because they changed their minds but said that he got it wrong -- whatever -- he made the changes to reflect the correct and current thinking. So thank you, Mr. Ford. Please keep us updated. You're my best source of good information!
Bingo (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 8:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ray Ford is doing a remarkable job. His lead was "In a sign fire command does not believe it can stop the fire from crossing the Santa Ynez River and moving to the front country, the decision has been made to burn out a huge part of the Santa Barbara backcountry."
The "corrected" lead says "In a sign fire that command may not believe it can stop the fire from crossing the Santa Ynez River and moving to the front country, officials are looking into burning out a huge part of the Santa Barbara backcountry."
The first phrase of the correction is gibberish. Usually, when a "correction" is ungrammatical, that's a * sign that somebody who shouldn't be allowed into the editorial office made the correction. (That anonymous tinkerer also forgot to "correct" the photo caption, which still asserts that "fire command has decided to burn out a large part of the backcountry.")
If Ray had made the correction, based on new information, he would likely have appended that correction to the end of the article, as he has done in the past. That is the journalistically ethical way to make such a change, and Ray Ford is a professional. I suspect that some other meddler has been at work here.
============================
* * * * As one of several site meddlers (but not the one who transposed Ray's lead) I appreciate you pointing out the error, which as you now can see is corrected. Thanks also for pointing out the differences in the initial posting and our first update, which occurred about 5pm today.
* * * * We have some formatting limitations on these updates -- in fact I just attempted to make the correction more transparent by utilizing a "strike-through" font, but our system won't accept it. Our current practice notifies readers of significant changes with the "Updated" dateline. Other smaller changes of grammar, spelling, style, clarity, or formatting are not indicated.
* * * * Our ultimate intent is to make the process clearer with increased graphic and format options.-- like making our addendum to your comments perhaps in bold case, which we presently are unable to do.
* * * * Thanks for keeping us on our toes --WebAdmin, 10:58pm August 10.
StephelIndependent (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Did anyone go to the 6-8pm meeting in SBA tonight? Any additional news?
So far only the Independent's web site plus www.sbcfire.com seem to be up to date (InciWeb's webserver must have died some days ago...).
GoletaResident (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 9:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bingo, bingo. Ray's reports are absolutely the best, most accurate and detailed information we've had on this fire. Thank you, Ray. I don't know what happened today in terms of the changes in the article, but I just returned from the meeting at the Museum of Natural History with the fire team, and it certainly looks like the decision has been made now. Bill Molumby spoke a lot about the burnout in answer to questions. I wouldn't have known the extent of what he was talking about if I had not read Ray's piece today. One of the speakers tonight even used the same phrase that Ray quoted Molumby saying this morning--"pull the switch"--in regard to the plan. Molumby did say he thought as much as 40%-50% of the area inside the perimeter would not burn. And in response to the person concerned about escape routes for wildlife--the plan is not to burn the entire perimeter at once.
I'm kind of appalled people are attacking Ray and the Independent--good grief, the burnout plan wasn't even reported by anyone else. The reporting here is head and shoulders AND torso above anything else you will find about this fire. I'm so grateful for it.
mtndriver (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Given the year we've had, I am surprised that someone would invoke the comparison with SBNP. Shameful! Mr. Ford's reporting and the Indy's commitment to keeping the public informed has resulted in the best source of Zaca Fire information around - better than radio, television, print, and other web sources.
I'll look forward to hiking back to Indian Creek with my daughter in a few years, when she's ready and when the canyons have recuperated. I spent plenty of time in my youth slidin' the Dam and enjoying the wind in the cottonwood trees on warm August afternoons. I know that it will all be there for her, too - it'll just take a while to get ready. Probably better than we've ever seen it. Well, maybe everyone except Ray.
Bargs (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes - and unlike the Newspress, it's free of charge...
GoletaResident (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is just completely insane.
I think a couple of well-placed F bombs is appropriate at this point.
naykidnee (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 10:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What are 'F bombs'?
GoletaResident (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm a journalist from back east who has been captivated by the scope of this fire but also the news coverage. From an X and O standpoint, Ray Ford's fire coverage has been top notch, and reliable on a day to day basis. Now that I'm in town, I carefully compare the Independent's fire coverage to the SBNP coverage and, well, there IS no comparison.
The NP seems to have no interest in writing about day to day progress on the front lines, or long range strategy. What they treat as front page material is usually what I would consider no better than sidebar stuff.
But during my visit, I thought the best thing about the SBNP coverage was their fire coverage map. Then I went to the Forest Service office Thursday (had a very interesting talk with an officer there) and got an updated map. The handouts are small, a day old, and hard to read, but they have larger, newer ones there which are available to be seen. It wasn't until I saw that map that I realized the SBNP's cute little fire logo has misplaced the actual front lines, putting the logo too far west.
I will also suggest to anyone looking for quality fire info--tune in to 1040-AM. The recordings are updated often, tell you what has happened on the front lines in the last 24 hours and what is planned next. Also mountain weather forecasts, road closings, etc. I get information there I don't get anywhere else (sorry, Ray). For example, today they talked about finding a marijuana field near San Marcos Pass. Ignoring the obvious "light it up" jokes, they talked about the hazard to firefighters from propane tanks and booby traps. 1040 is the only place I have heard that nugget.
SBNP is not immune to shoddy reporting. I saw a TV station yesterday doing a story on how the fire/ash is approaching Ojai. They had an older resident on camera saying "I think the fire is going the other way." Right. Next time interview someone who has a clue.
One final note: Did anyone else notice the change in the smoke pattern today? For my two weeks here it has generally gone from appx Gibraltar to the S and E--toward SB. Today the plume went up and blew west--toward Goleta for the first time. Nothing seemed headed toward SB I'm not a weatherman, but that tells me the wind shifted and today started blowing from the east (maybe some NE). That's not good news for the SB area. I'd sure like to see something written about that.
But my Red Sox hat is off to Ray Ford and the Independent. This is a complex story and you have found ways to keep me updated with quality information every day. I'll continue to read your reports after I leave the South Coast.
fenwayne (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 11:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
From Independent.com:
Sheriffs Seize $195 Million in Pot
Twitchell Reservoir Operation Hid 61,000 Plants
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
By Nick Welsh (Contact)
The Santa Barbara Sheriff confirmed this week what many have long suspected: that marijuana cultivation is Santa Barbara County's number one cash crop. Last Friday, Sheriff's deputies seized 61,000 pot plants growing just east of Twitchell Reservoir, which supplies water to North County residents, valued at approximately $195 million. The value of that one bust nearly equaled the value of the county's entire strawberry crop in 2006 - $200 million. Strawberries are technically ranked the county's top cash crop. [snip]
biff_arden (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 11:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
May we assume that this 'pot' would be 'backburned' in the days to come? Or was this just to give some relativity on general journalism?
GoletaResident (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 11:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting pot story but unrelated to today's news on 1040, which mentioned it might be a hazard for fire crews. I wonder if SBNP reported on that 7/11 pot story. But I think I know the answer.
fenwayne (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 11:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks to fenwayne for helpful observations.
Tailbear: the Feds have relaxed the rule against heavy machinery inside the wilderness area, according to the Fire Chief while speaking on the Channel 20 fire update. He is thankful for the super wide 'dozers'. Note to tailbear and the other whiners: you probably could go help serve meals or something if you want to help those who are in the line of danger. Don't complain, go help! Or sit on your butt and complain. Your choice.
ruralwannabe (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 11:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The F Bomb:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define...
robert (Robert LeBlanc)
August 10, 2007 at 11:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I see - just 'nuke it'...well, why we are starting to fight fire with fire (I guess we got over the pacific ocean water issue), we might as well think on the right scale. Burning down hundreds of thousands of acres or...or...or what?
GoletaResident (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2007 at 11:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you Ray for your dilagence in keeping the community informed.
Important to remember the word "community" right now.
I have a question for Ray.
Today while I was picking up my 10 year old son from Circus Camp at the Bishop Diego campus. We saw a plume emerge from behind the mountain at 12:30sh.
The kids at camp are...well....kids and very curious.
Lots of questions,lots of interesting answers coming out of the parents mouths.
There seems to be a kind of denial in the community. This idea that the fire cannot and will not come over the mountain.
I have run into this imperious sense of entitlement and control in the past.
I have also been through several natural disasters. But this fire has me baffled.
How do we "honestly speak to our children about the fire?"
I have 2 more questions:
1) Will you ( or someone with factual knowledge) help me explain the FACTS of the fire,including what exactly a plume is .. etc.
So I can explain to my kids...and folks around me.
2) AT THIS POINT (4am Sat. Aug.11 22007) Can you give an educated guess as to what we should be planning for?
We live downtown on Figueroa. How safe are we? What exactly would you suggest as a course of immediate action for a family?
Some of our more afluent friends are simply going north or east.They have the means to go and relocate for awhile.
We are somewhat more limited.
(funny... the folks who do the most to support the community are paid the least...yeah funny)
My plan so far has been to contact friends in SF and SM about possible accomodation.
To get my parents and sister on the "vulnerable population" list.
Collect water,flashlights,batteries,candles,matches,important papers,gas up the car,buy dry provisions in case we lose power etc....
I have been through ice storms ,hurricanes etc ,that took power out for a week and it is hardship.Especially with kids.
Luckily our weather is kind.
And thank God we have the beach.
When the kids and I are choking on ash and smoke, I just throw them in the car and go to the beach.
Lastly,I called Wendy at the Chamber to donate dinner at our home for ANY FIRE FIGHTERS interested in a home cooked meal (right now she does not have message space and at 2pm the line just rang and rang) I am also trying to wrangle a group of massage therapists to do some free bodywork,chair massage,for the fire fighters at base camps #1 and #2 or where ever.
I don't think it is a bad idea to be prepared,do you?
Some of my friends laugh at me.
They think it just won't happen to them.
I have seen a storm rip the gutts out of a community with no warning.
I think a conserted effort, as a community, to be prepared and help others is a good thing.
Call me crazy.
Thank you again for your help.
Maybe you have a way I can get "the home cooked meal" message to the fire fighters? Wendy's line did not answer.
Thank you for devotion to the community.
em
emenzies (Elizabeth Menzies)
August 11, 2007 at 4:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The impression I got from talking to the Forest Service rep was that those plumes which come and go are NOT the fire's ground zero, but instead are the backfires the crews are setting.
fenwayne (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2007 at 6:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
First of all, a "plume" is a column of hot air & gasses which rises above an especially vigorous area of fire. That can be a back burn or it can be an area of extra fuel mixed with a steep upward slope. As the plume rises, it can form something close to the traditional "thunderhead" cloud formation.
Will the fire burn Figueroa Street? Probably not. The fire is burning in areas that are hard to get to. As it gets closer to roads, that's where equipment can cut fire breaks, etc. In this area, it is the weather, specifically the wind patterns, that are by far the most important factor. Watch thge weather forecasts and you'll get a fair indication of where the fire will burn the next day. If we get a strong Santa Anna situation, all bets are off.
SamRedDog (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2007 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not taking credit for this, but today's SBNP has fixed the fire icons and added four of them, more accurately placed near the fire line. But they had misrepresented the fire line earlier in the week. Hope they keep it updated.
fenwayne (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2007 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope Forest Service representatives AND those knowledgeable about wildlife are having input in this stunning apparent decision to backburn an area probably larger than the existing fire-burnt area!
Sure, flowers are nice and birds can fly, but what about all those smaller creatures, also worthy of support, that can not outrace flames....? Or, if they do, like deer, have no place to which to run?
Is there no other solution other than incinerating by choice so much once wilderness?????????
citti (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2007 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
While we are hopeful the fire containment lines can hold any spread into the front country, we must be mindful of how quickly fire can move.
In Ray Ford's chronology of the Painted Cave Fire (detailed in his book, "Santa Barbara Wildfires") it is both instructive and frightening to recall that the first dispatch came in at 6:02 pm and 20 minutes later the fire had travelled 2 miles (pushed by strong Sundowner winds) and at 7:38 pm crossed the 101 freeway (thought to be an excellent fire break) at Hollister and Modoc.
While I am not an alarmist I am, simply, a prepared realist.
Observer (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2007 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
try this site for Zaca updates whether inciweb is up or not:
http://www.yubanet.com/zaka.shtml
packer (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2007 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I never thought I would be so happy to have fog in August.
LOL (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2007 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Like fenwayne, I too had noticed the Google Map posted at the SBNP's website did not jive with information the fire agencies was disseminating. On late Wed or Thu, I noticed the Google Map had indicated the fireline had grown south and overrun the Nineteen Oaks campground and hit the west end of the Camuesa ridge. It also showed a burning area west of Sage Hill! That would have represented significant progress of the fire in my mind. Fortunately that info appears to have been incorrect and I noticed the map was corrected on Friday.
Regarding winds, the prevailing winds in SB this time of year are out of the W/NW and can sometimes clock around to the NE as the day progresses if a front is passing through. Winds are usually strongest very late in the day. When the Santa Ana or sundowner winds hit, they usually come out of the NE.
For a nice description of the difference between Santa Ana's and sundowners, see Ray Ford's excellent writeup on the history of local fires here:
http://www.sb-outdoors.org/Interpretive/
For automated wind reports from stations on Paradise Road and La Cumbre Peak, respectively:
http://www2.sbcapcd.org/airdata/stasu...
http://newweb.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/g...
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2007 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great local links - thank you all!
GoletaResident (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2007 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
About the "diseased and dying material and hello to fabulous wildflowers" mentioned by SB Citizen below; although wildflowers and resprouts will certainly follow and put on quite a show IF we get the necessary rain, the notion that the area burned was "diseased and dying" is a serious misconception about the native ecosystem that dominates the Los Padres National Forest and is the most extensive plant community in California, the chaparral.
Actually a better name than "forest" would be the Los Padres National Chaparral Recreational Area.
This perspective of old-growth chaparral as diseased is based on long since rejected opinions that had more to do with cattleman rhetoric about the need to "clear the brush" than anything else. There is no scientific basis for saying old-growth chaparral "needs" to burn. In fact, many chaparral plant species need 30-40 years of accumulated leaf litter before their seeds can properly germinate. Rather than being in "need" of fire, it is actually when the chaparral is being a new stage of its development.
Old-growth chaparral represents a valuable natural resource that is quickly disappearing in the southern part of the state due to increased fire frequencies.
Although the Los Padres does not suffer the same damaging high fire frequencies as the other 3 Southern California NF, that day is soon to come with growing population growth. The impact of potential continued drying in future years (possibly the by-product of global climate change) the risk of larger fires will accelerate. This will ultimately lead to the conversion of many of our priceless chaparral shrubland to weed lots as can be seen in the front country of the San Bernardino National Forest.
More info about chaparral, chaparral fires, and how best to reduce fire risk, can be found on the California Chaparral Institute website.
Stay safe everyone. You've got a great team of firefighters protecting your community.
Chaparralian (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2007 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What would cause SB to lose electricity?
IF we were to get the evac order would the 101 be ok North and South?
Thank you for answering so many questions and concerns.
A lot of folks are saying things to me that they feel are "facts".
And they are just "guesses".
It is nice to have a place to go and find very factual info.
Thank you again!
emenzies (Elizabeth Menzies)
August 11, 2007 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Back to the $195 million of plants:::::
In an article by Tom Schultz on July 10, Santa Barbara Sheriff Department Sgt Raney was quoted as saying:
"Large-scale marijuana cultivation is a serious and increasingly widespread problem on public and private lands in California. The growers are usually armed, sometimes with automatic weapons and high-power rifles."
Last week, $266 million dollars of plants were found on National Forest land in Santa Barbara County.
http://www.topix.net/wire/county/sant...
The Twitchell post combined with last weeks find are relevant to the extent the Forest Service knows backpackers are not the only ones following the burn by canyon and watershed.
That's a lot of money to protect. There is a potential safety issue for firefighters worth comment.
Madulce (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2007 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For sure all these dope $ could pay for putting out this fire...
GoletaResident (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2007 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How about the two dopes who started it in the first place.
DarkMarcsun (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2007 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)