Fire on Backside of Flatirons

saw this picture of the fire taken last night, shows where there is some activity on the front side.

facebook.com/photo.php?fbid…

Is Boulder Canyon still closed to climbing due to the
fire?
Thanks

Good luck guys. Hopefully the weather cooperates today and they can get that under control. Colorado Springs is still dealing with this one down here. Thoughts and prayers are with all who are in the danger zone

J. Thompson wrote:#3 As to burning into the city (boulder in this case). It can happen, but its pretty rare. The Waldo incident in the Springs is pretty amazing, in a very bad way ofcourse. Typically the subdivisions that loses structures to wildfires are in fully forested areas. The fact that that fire burned into a full on suburban "cookie cutter" neighborhood and then started to burn house to house in what can be describe as a true conflageration, is interesting and atypical.

I don't know if there's any truth to this rumor, but I heard that a lot of new construction in that area of The Springs had shake shingles rather than asphalt. It's hard to believe, given what I imagine would be much higher insurance costs, but if it's true it would go a long way toward explaining what, as you say, is a very atypical event.

GO

wildfiretees.com/

Saw this website online and thought some people might be interested. All proceeds go to help Colorado wildfire victims.

Does anyone have any information about a small fire last night near devils head and rampart range road?

GabeO wrote: I don't know if there's any truth to this rumor, but I heard that a lot of new construction in that area of The Springs had shake shingles rather than asphalt. It's hard to believe, given what I imagine would be much higher insurance costs, but if it's true it would go a long way toward explaining what, as you say, is a very atypical event. GO

That would be interesting... I'm pretty sure Shake shingles have been banned in new construction? Some places for sure, and there was some talk about adding it to the international fire code...hmmm.

josh

JLP wrote: I'll give them 30% of my insurance premiums. All my neighbors will be kicking in, too, despite living nowhere near such fire danger.

Classy JLP. Those families houses that were destroyed, it's totally their fault that your premiums went up.

A lot of people need help right now. If you can donate, great. If not, that's OK too. No need to be a dick.

JLP wrote: Help me out here. It doesn't sound like a very efficient place to send money.

I'm guessing a cash donation to the Red Cross would be best. They are the ones setting up and working the shelters where many evacuees are staying right now.

JLP wrote: It's a tragedy, for sure. I would hate to be a victim of it. However, I'm failing to make the connection between buying a t-shirt to support a food bank, and upper middle class families going hungry because of a fire. Help me out here. It doesn't sound like a very efficient place to send money. The main thing I see in the news is tax money supporting fire departments going to good use. Seems to me all systems are working as they should. The victims will get new houses with spiffy kitchens and the fire departments will get checks for their services - life goes on.

So, your main argument is that we should continue to perpetuate stupidity because at the end of the day, everybody gets paid? Look JLP, I am not one of those people who doesn't believe in stupid questions and generally find your insults thrown at n00bs, trolls, and the like somewhat entertaining. But to take the position that since insurance covers the homeowner's loss and the rescue workers ultimately get paid, we should assume everything is just dandy is pretty short-sighted. Wouldn't you like to save the 30% on your insurance premiums or at least have it steadily decrease because less and less homes are being built in high danger areas? Moreso, wouldn't you like to see fewer people need to be evacuated and risk losing their homes if and when a fire does flare up? The way to achieve this is not by throwing your arms up and saying, "Well, insurance will fix it." It's to avoid the problem in the first place. It seems to me you're playing devil's advocate for no apparent reason and when there isn't even really a case to make on the other side.

Not to change the subject, but does anyone have any updates on the fire situation and the Eldo closure? Just curious what kind of progress is being made up there.

Sorry to interupt. Please continue the debate.

GabeO wrote: I don't know if there's any truth to this rumor, but I heard that a lot of new construction in that area of The Springs had shake shingles rather than asphalt. It's hard to believe, given what I imagine would be much higher insurance costs, but if it's true it would go a long way toward explaining what, as you say, is a very atypical event. GO

i don't believe this is true but am not certain. it certainly isn't necessary to explain how this fire exploded and would probably have caused a lot more destruction than it did

i've seen asphalt and tile in the photos and want to say that CS ordinances prohibit the use of shake. but i'm not motivated enough to look it up

@J. Thompson thanks for dropping the knowledge.

edit - i just spoke with a coworker who lives in the affected area in CS (she believes her house survived, which is a small miracle). the ordinance prohibiting shake shingles was enacted in 2002 and anything built prior was grandfathered in. so quite unbelievably there were people up there with shake.

ROC wrote:Not to change the subject, but does anyone have any updates on the fire situation and the Eldo closure? Just curious what kind of progress is being made up there. Sorry to interupt. Please continue the debate.

according to the website Eldo is still closed. Check there for updates.

Shake shingles:

shake

TheBirdman wrote: Too bad. Fire has been occurring in forests for as long as there have been forests and will continue to occur long after humans are gone. Hence why certain pine cones only open in temperatures above a certain level and why many western conifers have developed fire resistant bark. The problem is the urban/wilderness interface. People simply live too close to wilderness areas. Proper planning and zoning has been effective in rectifying this as evidenced by case studies in Montana. In response to your comment that we "thin" forests and that we can do X, Y, Z in terms of military force, it's incredibly anthropocentric. Humans do not have the answers to everything and "controlled burns" are one of the greatest examples of human hubris. How many "controlled burns" turn into forest fires? The fact is the safest ecological solution is to let nature do it's thing and properly plan to stay out of it's way. Admittedly, things like super volcanoes, earthquakes, etc. are much more difficult to plan for but it's something that you need to consider. If you live in the wilderness in the West, fires are a concern. If you live in CA, plan for an earthquake. If you live near Yellowstone, have a volcano plan if you aren't instantly vaporized. The fact is thinking we can control natural disaster is plain arrogant and wrong. Trying to figure out how to exist while mitigating the damage and still letting nature do what it has to do is the best solution. Full disclosure: I'm an environmental attorney whose had this debate with USFS too many times. They think they can control something that is uncontrollable when the better solution is to just mitigate the danger by requiring defensible space and creating a thorough master plan that prohibits any structures too close to the urban/wilderness interface.

I'm interested in hearing your arguments continued, especially in the vein of the anthropocentric vein. The arguments familiar to me in that vein are usually anti-Spinozoan, or ignores early man.

The evidence I've seen supports that following the megafauna extinctions the archeological record clearly shows man-made fires as frequent and deliberate. Wooly mammoths and others likely played a similar forest-thinning role elephants often perform to this day; absent such megafauna and with the productivity and macro-biodiversity of mature forests so much lower, fires were the most efficient and restorative land clearing device.

With disease and the wave of American settlers, the new human population out west discontinued such practice, valuing tall stands of timber in different light. Similarly, would be the explosion of buffalo numbers as disease ravaged the numbers of the first nations' tribes. 200 years plus the misguided fire suppression tactics following the 1910 WA-ID-MT fire, seems to have primed American expectations for huge stands of totally unburned timber, as well as the seemingly frequent mega-fires.

Personally, I think Smoky the Bear is one of the most harmful things ever created.

s.price wrote:DB, are you sure those are shake? They make a lightweight concrete shingle system that looks just like wood.

Yeah, but its relatively new whereas this subdivision dates back to mid-90's. Also, if you check out the slideshow of the destruction from aerial pics on KMGH's site, you can see where slate and concrete tiled roof's survived right next to several homes that did not.

Delta Bravo wrote: Yeah, but its relatively new whereas this subdivision dates back to mid-90's. Also, if you check out the slideshow of the destruction from aerial pics on KMGH's site, you can see where slate and concrete tiled roof's survived right next to several homes that did not.

I don't quite understand what I'm looking at in the pic. One of the homes with a circle above the roof is on fire. The fire just hasn't made it to that part of the structure yet. And, it looks like the other homes are just in front of the fire line at this point but may (or, may not) survive.

Explanation of the pic, por favor?

There were some discussions above about the whether or not there were shake shingles in that sub division. The local FD confirmed that, and that picture shows shake shingled roof's, so I was just clarifying things a little.
One reason (of many) that there was such a conflagration up there was combining shake shingled roofs with embers of up to a pound being blown out of the firestorm hundreds of yards.

dailycamera.com/boulder-cou…

New fire behind the first...saw it on the way home from work today. From that HUGE bolt I think. Sucker stayed lit for like 3 seconds at least.

Wow. I'm blown away that so many homes there still had shake shingles! That answers alot of questions. A shake shingle roof is like a huge bullseye for embers...especially in a year like this when the chance any fire brand will ingnite is over 50% of the time.

Crazy...it really does explain alot.

josh