Do climbers make sparks?

This is from the inciweb report on the SQF fire that recently burned through the Needles. 

California recently experienced 12,000 lightning strikes, resulting in 560 new fires.  
The Sequoia Complex (#SQFComplex), is made up of the Castle and Shotgun fires. The fires were reported on August 19, 2020. Initial attack of these fires was a top priority.

Long Rangerwrote:

 The forests are closed perhaps so they'll be forests to visit next year. 

Forests are supposed to burn. We are the ones messing with nature by stopping the fires. We caused this problem, and now they want to close public lands so that they can continue putting out fires that should have burned a long time ago. Those lands have to burn sometime. Might as well make it now.

Do climbers make sparks?

Only while we're burning. 

Dylan Pikewrote:

Forests are supposed to burn. We are the ones messing with nature by stopping the fires. We caused this problem, and now they want to close public lands so that they can continue putting out fires that should have burned a long time ago. 

I think forest and forest fire management is a separate topic than management of recreation use.  I'm not sure if I understand your argument? I'm not against forest management via allowing forest fires to burn, but -

Those lands have to burn sometime. Might as well make it now.

I don't know if that's intelligent fire management (which again I'm not opposed); that's simply not managing at all, which is also what you seem to also be opposed to  ala We Caused This Problem. But again, that's a separate topic than opening/closing a NF for recreation. Controlled burns are a thing. Perscribed burns are a thing. We've got thousands of years of forest management from pre-Columbian residents to draw from. Just letting it burn means potentially more towns destroyed, evacuations, deaths, etc. Something has to be done right here and right now, and lessons for the future have to be learned. 

Or what is it that I'm blathering about that you have a different view on?

Dylan Pikewrote:

Forests are supposed to burn. We are the ones messing with nature by stopping the fires. We caused this problem, and now they want to close public lands so that they can continue putting out fires that should have burned a long time ago. Those lands have to burn sometime. Might as well make it now.

To respond to the initial post, closures often appear intended to limit human activity since it can and does cause wildfires.  My understanding is that it is also an effort to limit access by arsonists, who cause their fair share of wildfires.  Yeah it sucks, but it's tough being a grown up and temporarily putting aside our immediate needs and wants for a long term good.

To respond to this, in short, you're right, forests do need to burn.  However, but this comment, which has been tossed around way too much of late, ignores the obvious facts that 1) national forest were created, in part, to provide resources, not just let them burn, and 2) a lot of people now live in these areas, so unchecked burning is no longer an option.  We did not "cause" this problem.  We  helped create it, but not just through neglect or a specific plan.  Humans have pretty much f'ed up the entire planet: killed off an untold number of species, taken over areas occupied by wildlife and disrupted migration patterns, deforested millions and millions of acres, polluted the oceans, spread disease, climate change, etc., etc..  I don't see you volunteering to stop all human activity to remedy these issues.  If your home or the home of someone you know or care about is in a national forest, I suspect you'd be a lot less cavalier about just letting stuff burn.  

Fat Dadwrote:

To respond to the initial post, closures often appear intended to limit human activity since it can and does cause wildfires.  My understanding is that it is also an effort to limit access by arsonists, who cause their fair share of wildfires.  Yeah it sucks, but it's tough being a grown up and temporarily putting aside our immediate needs and wants for a long term good.

To respond to this, in short, you're right, forests do need to burn.  However, but this comment, which has been tossed around way too much of late, ignores the obvious facts that 1) national forest were created, in part, to provide resources, not just let them burn, and 2) a lot of people now live in these areas, so unchecked burning is no longer an option.  We did not "cause" this problem.  We  helped create it, but not just through neglect or a specific plan.  Humans have pretty much f'ed up the entire planet: killed off an untold number of species, taken over areas occupied by wildlife and disrupted migration patterns, deforested millions and millions of acres, polluted the oceans, spread disease, climate change, etc., etc..  I don't see you volunteering to stop all human activity to remedy these issues.  If your home or the home of someone you know or care about is in a national forest, I suspect you'd be a lot less cavalier about just letting stuff burn.  

Its hard for me to feel bad for people who purchase or build homes in a western forest and expect the government to keep their house from burning down. Call me callous, but should we really continue inhibiting forest health to preserve homes that arguably shouldn't be there in the first place?

Wait you guys are so cute!!! Just getting a taste of the closures. Arizona has been doing that for a couple years now. It is super annoying.

During the closure I was up in Lockett Meadows, one of the few open areas. It is a beautiful mixed alpine forest and I saw 3 campfires, 2 of them with flames well over the pit walls. That is why they close the forests... People cannot respect rules. There are massive road signs all the way into that area saying no fires period, not even jetboils are allowed during our dry season. Yet still people go out and build campfires and burn down forests. So the best answer is to close the forests.

Y'all ever think the forests are closed so they don't have rescue your ass when you get caught in the middle of a wild fire? This is literally the worst fire season we have ever seen and fires are starting all over the place and y'all are bitching that you cant go climbing in certain spots for a few week. Goddamn whiny children. 

Jesus guys. I thought this would go all technical on sparks but it went political, tis the season I guess.

Dylan Pikewrote:

Its hard for me to feel bad for people who purchase or build homes in a western forest and expect the government to keep their house from burning down. Call me callous, but should we really continue inhibiting forest health to preserve homes that arguably shouldn't be there in the first place?

Remember that if there’s ever a structure fire where you live.  Re the ‘let it burn‘ motto (which is, let’s face it, a conservative talking point, not one expressed out of any genuine interest is these affected areas), the severity of the fire is due in large part to climate change, so you’re arguing for what you believe is a natural occurence that’s really been artificially altered for the worse.  

Tradibanwrote:

Jesus guys. I thought this would go all technical on sparks but it went political, tis the season I guess.

Put a leash on yer snake, bro!

Do climbers make sparks?

Only if you rub two of them together. :-)

M Appelquist wrote:

The Creek Fire is now the largest ever recorded in California history.

Are you getting the names mixed up? The Creek Fire is at Shuteye and Shaver Lake. The August Complex fire, in Mendocino, Humboldt, Trinity, Tehama, Lake, & Glenn Counties, is almost 3 times larger.

Stats as of this evening: https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents

August Complex (includes Doe Fire)
902463 acres and 45% contained as of 7:38pm

Creek Fire
304640 acres and 39% contained as of 8:37pm.

Fat Dadwrote:

Remember that if there’s ever a structure fire where you live.  Re the ‘let it burn‘ motto (which is, let’s face it, a conservative talking point, not one expressed out of any genuine interest is these affected areas), the severity of the fire is due in large part to climate change, so you’re arguing for what you believe is a natural occurence that’s really been artificially altered for the worse.  

I live in a suburban area that, to my knowledge, has never been forested. Theres s big difference to living in the suburbs, and living in a fire prone forest.

As to the “conservative talking point” charge, I dont pay attention to any “conservative” media, so I guess I came up with a “conservative talking point” on my own.

I dont discount that climate change plays a role in the fires, but I dont believe that it is the primary factor. That honor goes to mismanagement by the forest service and blm. Climate change makes things drier, but we have also allowed fuel to pile up for decades. 

You are certainly correct. Thanks for the clarification!

Historic fire levels. It sucks.

Tanner Jameswrote:

You’re right. Lets shut down all forests for 11 months out of every single year and let people compete for permits for the one month they are open. Think about how beautiful it will be when the politicians finally tell us I am able to go into nature again! They can work on every single part of the NF as needed, and they can close what needs to be closed, and not a 1500 mile blanket closure because they are too lazy to be specific. Contrary to popular belief, you and I are both able to go climb in the 99% of the California NF that is unaffected without burning down another thousand acres. I’m sure you’ve been climbing for years without destroying everything to touch, so let’s continue that. No one is trying to stop anyone from working through the current problems, and no one is suggesting we fully open to include the areas that have been heavily damaged. But to reiterate again, it’s a lazy arbitrary answer to close hundreds and hundreds of miles of forests that are not even close to being in danger. Like it was said earlier, you might as well not let people act freely because they’re are not enough police to protect them, and they might be robbed or murdered or have an accident. Act like the adult you are and behave responsibly because that’s what you do, not because you’re forced to. 

Classic straw man argument. They're closing the forest because of historically dangerous weather conditions. Literally, most of the fuels for fire are more dry now than they have been since people have been keeping track of the weather in CA. This is a temporary measure to try to minimize the damage that will occur during this dangerous period. Fires will occur. And people will be responsible for starting them. This is a tool (a rather blunt one) to reduce the damage, but to me it seems worth it.  

Arizona had its largest recorded fire this year that torched our beautiful Tonto National Forest and Four Peaks area. Now CA has it's largest recorded fire. The Arizona one burned through Saguaro country, Creek fire is in forests. You really have to cherry pick your data sets to believe that forest management is the problem and not climate change. Forest management may make the fires slightly less devastating but they will continue to burn because climate change is causing massive droughts across the west. Denying this is just drinking cool aid.

Would be cool if some firefighters risked their lives to rescue climbers who didnt want to obey forest closures. I know that our resources are spread dangerously thin but I saw some sick pics on insta of trad and i wanna get more into it and im bored just playing fortnite all day.

World: Guess it’s hellfire apocalypse

Climbers: But can I climb?

This has been discussed before.  Here is a link about climbers and causing fires.

Remember... Leave No Trace.

Climbers and Fire