The forest supervisor in a tv interview said (paraphrased) “the last two fires were man-made, so i decided to close the entire forest until the fire danger is gone”
For those of you not familiar with Southern California, that could mean the entire forest is closed until January or February.
It’s also the natural ecology of the forest to burn over every 40-50 years since the dawn of time.
Isn’t it unconstitutional or illegal or something to close off an entire national forest for what most likely will be 6 months?
No, it is not illegal or unconstitutional or something. Why would you think it would be? Just because it is public land does not mean that the public gets to do whatever they want whenever they want to do it. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Don’t forget that part of the government’s responsibility is to ensure safety of the general public. Keeping curious onlookers out of a raging inferno certainly qualifies as protecting.
While it’s true that fires are a part of the ecosystem, this doesn’t mean that human-caused fires are a good thing. Look at how many of this year’s large fires were human caused:
Missionary Ridge (CO) 76,000 acres
Hinman (CO) 140,000 acres
Rodeo-Chediski (AZ) 495,000 acres
(note: all acreages are from memory)
It’s very common throughout the southwest region (Arizona & New Mexico) for forest closures to go into effect whenever the fire danger becomes extreme. You should be happy the Forest Supervisor is willing to make unpopular decisions to protect the public’s safety.
I can understand how someone in Pasadena is irked by closure of the nearby forest when the fire is way out in Azusa. However, the fire fighting resources are stretched by the ongoing fire and the managers don’t want to risk another big fire somewhere else. Why not go to the beach instead of into the mountains for a while?
Plus there are lots of state and national forests around. Skip Angeles National and head up to Yosemite or Kings Canyon. Visitor numbers are reported to be down in Yosemite at the moment, so it should be very nice.
To what extent is the Angeles National Forest “closed”? Several roads of some significance run through it (Angeles Crest and Angeles Forest Highways) - are they simply roadblocked at the forest boundaries for the duration?
How about Mount Wilson? There’s a major observatory facility up there, as well as broadcast transmitters for a host of LA television and radio stations. Surely personnel involved in their operation are permitted in - how about the general public?
Well, I guess I should look before posting. In big red typo on the website linked in the OP (bolding mine):
I can’t remember hearing of a step of this magnitude happening in the 10 years or so that I’ve lived in SoCal, and it does sound pretty damn extreme. The Angeles National Forest is very large, and closure of the entire forest is hardly necessary just to keep people away from the burning area - as evidenced by the fact that roads through it remain open.
The authorities involved know the situation and resources better than I, so I have little option but the trust that the decision was made wisely. However, to my knowledge this is unprecedented in the area, so some surprise and skepticism is hardly out of place.
brad_d- Forest closures aren’t only to keep people away from fire areas. Usually smaller local closures are used for that. Forest closures are also a fire prevention tool. I don’t know the statistics for Southern Cal, but here in Minnesota at least 50% of our fires are human caused, so closures can greatly cut down the odds of getting new fire starts.
It sounds damned sensible to me. If the only traffic allowed is through traffic, in the event of unexpected changes in the direction or intensity of the fires there aren’t going to be tourists all over the place who need to be located and evacuated.
It also means that the entire National Forest can be closed off fairly quickly if necessary.
Allowing a fire to burn itself out is sometimes the only viable firefighting option (you don’t try to extinguish the fire, only to contain it within a given area); it sounds like the powers that be are keeping that option open too.
From a legal standpoint, a public forest is government property. Their justification for closing it is that as the owners of the forest they can allow or disallow access to it for whatever reason they choose.
