Updated at 7 p.m. MDT May 2, 2022
At noon on Sunday May 1 the Bear Trap Fire started in Bear Trap Canyon in the Cibola National Forest 36 air miles west-southwest of Socorro, New Mexico. At about 4 p.m. the Southwest Coordination Center tweeted that nine air tankers were working the fire — three Very Large Air Tankers (DC-10s) and six Large Air Tankers — plus four Air Tactical aircraft, a Type 3 Incident Management Team, one hand crew, and eight fire engines. That was an aggressive initial attack.
@VentanaRanch who was using an app to monitor the aircraft at the fire, Tweeted at 4:28 p.m., “Non-stop tankers from [Albuquerque] and Silver City.”
On Monday officials said the blaze had burned 1,209 acres. The fire behavior was described as moderate with isolated torching as it spread through pine, pinyon-juniper, and grass.
At 3 p.m. on Sunday the Magdalena weather station not too far from the fire recorded 10 mph winds out of the southwest gusting to 26, with 5 percent relative humidity. The weather forecast for the fire area on Tuesday calls for 25 mph winds out of the southwest gusting to 36 mph with 11 percent relative humidity. Similar conditions are predicted for Wednesday.
By Sunday night, based on a rough map of the perimeter, the head of the fire appears to have burned into the footprint of the North Fire which burned 42,000 acres in May of 2016. That fire was not fully suppressed, but the strategy of the Bear Trap fire is full suppression.
With about half a dozen other fires in Arizona and New Mexico, some of them very large, the Type 3 Incident Management Team which will assume command at 6 a.m. Tuesday may run into difficulty competing for firefighting resources.The teams on the Calf Canyon / Hermits Peak Fire and the Cerro Pelado Fire have listed as critically needed resources a total of 8 hand crews and 20 engines.
Thanks and a tip of the hat go out to Tom.
I wanted to know how much carbon the fire has cause so far?
That’s right, Kim. Don’t listen to all the chatter about overuse of air attack when aggresive initial attack could well keep this fire from costing all of us $millions later by not taking such action.
Since I live in the area, I am extremely grateful to the forest service for attacking this fire with speed and force. It is extremely dry and windy here. I don’t want my resources fighting 200 miles away when we need them here. If anything, they are smarter than the average bear to attack this fire head on before it turned into a monster.
I appreciate both of the last two that have commented on the air attack issue.
We all know that retardant “slows a fire” but rarely puts them out, so having ground personnel on scene is very important; if not on the scene, then in route.
One reason I support calling in heavy air attack on remote fires is because even when you properly use smoke jumpers, the air attack may provide a “holding action” until the jumpers hit the scene, while ground pounders are in route for line support to the jumpers.
All too often in recent times, Line Officers andMOs, are failing to fully utilize smoke jumpers who are highly trained to take on any and all remote ignitions. Let the Lead jumper make the call on whether or not the conditions around the fire are suitable for jumping; not someone in a District Office who most likely cannot see the fire and may not have equal credentials for making that call.
And, secondly and lastly, heavy initial air attack, while costly up front, may save $millions on the back end with out such hard hitting, and save untold amounts of forest resources and values.
OLDGUY- great points! I agree with everything you’re saying. No one size fits all solution to firefighting!
I have to wonder how much the other large fires currently burning in New Mex. influenced this decision for full suppression. I’m totally behind hitting new starts hard and fast. But sometimes I have to wonder how effective–as in cost vs benefit–a lot of air tanker work really is. In video after video I’ve seen drops that made no sense at all. Still, good not to second guess people on the ground.
The aviation trigger gets pulled far too often IMO, without thought of risk to the pilots. I can’t say I think about the cost all that much. But, I am also willing to let a few more acres burn on the right day and get around it with the boys. Yes, I have had DO’s, Ops, IC, etc mention cost vs benefit but they are usually hesitant because they don’t want people afraid to order off of that basis. I’ve also had them send aircraft to my fires when I didn’t want or need them and they get sent back when they arrive. Aviation will always be a big cost and will always be mismanaged to a certain extent simply due to differing perception and experience. But, people like to see that red mist in the air and it makes them feel more comfortable. Just my two cents
I appreciate your comments here. You obviously have a sharp eye on the subject. For me, cost must always be a consideration. We used to say, “Right tool, for the right job, for the right amount of time.” That was the measure of a competent fireman. And “people like to see that red mist in the air . . . ” should NOT a justification for calling for the stuff. Anyway, thanks for your two-cents.
Murry Allan Taylor -I agree with you. I think it got lost in my poor writing skills. I’m just trying to convey that is what happens a fair amount of the time and is usually from a person that has that political mindset. I have never and will never order air resources unless they are absolutely needed. Like I said I’ve had them sent without request and I turn them around. My point to the cost not being a consideration is to say that when we are training people up I don’t want them to hesitate on ordering a resource because of cost. That is a secondary thought on IA for a new ICT4 or 5 for that matter as many of our engines and IA mods don’t have an ICT4 on the roster anymore.
THAT is some deft ASM work right there and how VLATS and LATS should be used!!! Shock and Awe, Barfight firefighting!
Stab that fire in back, neck and chest and mouth with a broken wine bottle and then break a pool cue over it’s head instead of chest bumping and slapping it.
Great job! Now what, it’s not like they’re going to cut line around it now. Unless they do, then even greater!
I hope younger generations of fire fighters do not think quick decisive actions to stop a wildfire is only about “saving elk sheds.” We are in serious trouble if that’s common thinking.
Trying to bring some humor to the story…I hope older generations realize that suppressing fires in years past, like the San Mateo range was a mistake. Yes, I agree if that fire was not aggressively attacked it would probably burn that whole mountain range this year with the wind and current conditions, but not much WUI going on in that part of the world. At least they have a 40,000 acre “manages fire” the fire burned into, because they properly managed, but wait maybe they should of aggressively initial attacked that one in 2016?
So they had 50% of the entire Federal Exclusive Use (EU) fleet on one fire, but don’t worry, we have enough Airtankers.
“We currently have enough Fed Airtankers for everyone to fail” ~ joel lane 2006
Fresca
Wow, lots of money spent to protect elk sheds, that’s crazy.