Obviously the firefighters have more important things to do than to report on our favorite peaks and trails...but there seems to be almost a news blackout about what's been burnt and what has not. Plus the usual rumors flying around. Everything's closed-off, so regular folks can't provide first-hand accounts, other than fly-bys.

The only things I've heard: Waterman ski lifts untouched...Newcomb's Ranch untouched...from my home in South Pas, it looks like Mt Lowe's S. face got burnt...upper SAC and upper Winter Creek threatened...Switzer's apparently is unharmed...40 of the local Sierra Club's 100 Peaks have been burned, though the Angeles Sierra Club posts no info on their site, and the Angeles USFS posts no info on their site. Frustrating.

Somebody out there must know something! Anyone know if these areas have been horribly burned: Strawberry Peak? Colby Canyon and upper-Tujunga watershed country? Mt Markham and N. sides of Lowe? The beautiful forested slopes along Mt. Wilson road? West face of Waterman? Horse Flats? Upper Arroyo Seco near Redbox? The beautiful slopes above Lower and Upper Millard Canyons? Rattlesnake Trail? I guess the basic question is: which of the most scenic areas have been burnt beyond recognition?

I'm usually too lazy to join environmental causes, but this is near-and-dear. TreePeople is already asking for Angeles re-forestation volunteers. First the soil has to cool off and the USFS hydrologists, botanists, and soil experts then do their analysis thing...then the work begins. See ya there.

--Steve

The roads are closed but the ANF is not air tight. I bagged the summit of Yerba Buena Ridge up from Oro Vista in Tujunga. Everything I saw from the top of that was totally burned out: From Pacoima Canyon across the whole Big Tujunga drainage, Condor, Fox, Lukens, Josephine, Strawberry.

Concerned about wildlife: I saw deer and coyote tracks. One lizard. Occasional trees and bushes. A rarely used fire road on the plateau saved that lizard and some ant hills. Found two deer, nothing left but a few bones.

I plan to continue to take advantage of the burn to access some ridges and peaks: Brown Mountain direct, Saucer Branch of Millard, direct lines on Lukens, Condor, Josephine and others.

http://stationfire2009.blogspot.com

http://picasaweb.google.com/ANFStationFire

http://www.mtwaterman.org/images/mt-wat ... /index.htm

http://www.facebook.com/album.php...amp ... 05d8d1daf1

http://www.advrider.com/forums/sh...php ... count=9023 <---Best link

And, of course, http://sangabrielmnts.myfreeforum.org/forum19.php

Here's a video of the devastation shot by staff of the Mount Wilson observatory on the way up.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/outposts/2009/09/angees-crest-highway-in-aftermath-of-station-fire.html

Makes my heart sink.

Firefighters I spoke with who have been in the thick of it say they are stunned by the intensity with which the fire consumed old growth in the deep remote canyons.

My home is on the edge of the affected Angeles National Forest, and my yard has become the home of many displaced animals.

One dazed and confused buck:


The Bear came over the wall:


This one's got big feet:



Mr. Coyote:



It’s sad. I can’t see things going well for a big old black bear who wanders down from here into the urban area. All so some firebug could catch a thrill.

I agree with KSolem, it is very sad to me when these giant fires erupt. All we hear about in the media is "how many homes were lost" and how humans were affected. There's a lot more things hurt by this crap besides humans. I said it in another thread, and I'll repeat, the San Gabriels will always be there, but the thin layer of life which covers it is really hurting. It's sad to me when pine trees, junipers, joshua trees are all lumped together as "brush" and burnt away with little fanfare, but we always hear how many homes that were lost. I wonder how many bears and woodpeckers were burned alive. My hat's off to the people who replant the trees, I have done that in the past myself, but the enormity of this thing is such that it really cannot be replaced. A lot of neat, old living stuff is just plain gone. It's a brave new world, it really is. Rant over.

Just a little edit, I live near JTNP, and "brushfires" have been ravaging this area too in recent years. "Brush"fires include centuries old pinyon pines, joshua trees and junipers, all called "brush" by the way. Over Memorial Day some one or ones (person was never caught) started a fire near the Lost Horse Mine and burnt out most of Lost Horse Mountain. The way it seldom rains here means it will basically revert to cheatgrass and Sahara mustard. At least no homes were lost.

Dougb wrote: it is very sad to me when these giant fires erupt. All we hear about in the media is "how many homes were lost" and how humans were affected. There's a lot more things hurt by this crap besides humans.

Doug, you make a good point. There is a classic argument in SoCal: people building homes along the edges of wilderness, without "defensible space." Then during an arson/wildfire all the taxpayers pay an enormous cost to defend these homes, many of them McMansions. Meanwhile, the forest burns because the first priority is naturally to defend lives and structures. Burnt homes make the front pages, not ancient pinetrees.

At the risk of sounding like a bleeding-heart or a tree-hugger, it is frustrating to see a massive effort made to defend 23 unoccupied cabins, cabins that are used maybe 5 months out of the year, when entire mountainsides and canyons of old-growth are being consumed. Those cabins can be rebuilt in a few months, but for the remainder of our lives much of the Angeles Forest is now history. Yes, the forest is supposed to burn on occasion, but not with the frequency deemed by arsonists. I say re-plant it, if only for future generations. It can be done.

--Steve

Yes, replant. Never say die, never give up. But all these "problems" in the world boil down to one thing, there's too many people, and our entire way of life is based on an ever increasing population; without it, we collapse. And if we don't repopulate, our enemies certainly will. A huge population also means there are going to be more criminals, like people who think it's funny to burn down a forest.
I applaud those who try to replant the forest, but unless you follow up and water the trees for a few years until the taproot goes deep, a lot will die. I once planted some pines in the forest, and did not check until about a year later, and they were dead. Another time I planted a single pine in the mountains and watered it frequently because I hiked that way often, and the tree lived.
If you're is willing to "change" the forest you have a better chance. In other words, forget about firs, try planting hardy pines like pinus eldarica or pinus halepensis. They will grow fast and can tolerate heat and drought. Pinyon pines are hardy, but grow like snails. Replanting a forest is a prodigious assignment, and I think the station fire was about 250 square miles. I'm not saying it can't be done, because it can. It would take a massive effort. A balanced budget is also possible!

As far as the lower part of the Old Mt. Wilson Toll Road (that leaves from Eaton Canyon Park), that is untouched from Pasadena up past Henninger Flats. Not quite sure about the upper reaches near the towers on Mt. Wilson proper. Eaton Canyon is currently open.

Gusto

Steve1215 wrote: Yes, the forest is supposed to burn on occasion, but not with the frequency deemed ....--Steve

Oh, and who dictates the frequency?

Appears our hands (human's) have already determined that issue and one major reason why 25+ years of chaparral burned with such a fury.

Each year a fire does not naturally mitigate this area, equates to one foot of growth. So 25+ years of not allowing nature to run it's course, created this inferno.

FACT!

This is the same sad scenario that is occurring throughout the West. Suppressing natures mitigating fires only creates a monster of this proportion.

FACT!

Oh yeah, and none of this has absolutely NOTHING to do with AGW. Has to do with the concept of playing CONTROLLERS of nature and it's infinite wisdom. Like we know better.....right?


I say we stop playing God and start allowing Nature to run it's course. It knows far better than we ever will.

A lot of what burned in the station fire was not what you would typically call chaparral, but groves of large ancient oaks. I have hiked through many of these groves both in the canyons and on the north side of mountains like Strawberry Peak. A fireman told me many of these old growths burned to ashes.

Of course it was chaparral which carried the fire to these places.

Now we're going to see some serious erosion and slides when the rain starts.

I wonder if they'll be able to keep highway 2 open...

ksolem wrote:I wonder if they'll be able to keep highway 2 open...

$10 says that you will driving 210 to the 14 this winter Kris....


EL NINO is COMING!


It is gonna RAIN the likes SoCal hasn't seen in 4-5 years if not more.

Mark my words.

But folks do not think about these issues when they insist on controlling the natural laws that need to play out. Instead, they feud over the "conservation" issue that they determine and deem to be important.

Folks just don't learn.....

My understanding is that the current el nino is moderate in strength, which does not necessarily mean a big winter. I always hope for el nino though, we sure could use the rain. One thing thay has gone missing is the summer monsoon. No significant summer rain for the desert since summer 2005... nary a grunion this summer.

Not at all what we here in Eastern Sierra have experienced at all.

Higher than normal Southern Monsoonal flow this summer.

Oh yeah, and this tid bit of El Nino (ENSO) beta...

[url=http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.pdf] NOAA ENSO Alert System Status: El Niño Advisory
Synopsis: El Niño is expected to strengthen and last through the Northern Hemisphere winter
2009-2010[/url]

I read your link, or what I think was your link (I didn't download it) and it said (in part)...

current observations and trends indicate that El Niño will most likely peak at moderate strength. Therefore, current conditions, trends, and model forecasts favor the continued development of a weak-to-moderate strength El Niño into the Northern Hemisphere fall 2009, with the likelihood of at least a moderate strength El Niño during the winter 2009-10.


My understanding is with a weak or moderate el nino, it can go either way, with most forecasts going in the middle. Only when the el nino is strong does it usually mean a biggie is coming.

Now I don't wanna argue with you Chief because you always win and I have "zero" power on this site, so I'll close by saying "I sure hope el nino returns"...we'll see soon enough.