Great Fire of 1889 Totally Explained

Everything about Great Fire Of 1889 totally explained

According to some sources, The Great Fire of 1889 was a wildfire in California which burned large parts of San Diego County and Orange County during the last week of September, 1889. However, a body of historical evidence fails to support such claims. Consider the following source:
Assistant District Forester (USFS), L.A. Barrett, who wrote a 1935 report on California wildfires, said of it: "I was living in Orange County at the time and well remember the great fire reported herein from September 24 to 26. Nothing like it occurred in California since the National Forests have been administered. In fact in my 33 years in the Service I've never seen a forest or brush fire to equal it. This one covered an enormous scope of country and burned very rapidly."
   Yet, a recent comparative study of the 1889 wildfires and the firestorm of October 2003 in southern California(Goforth and Minnich, 2007) published in a peer-reviewed Journal of the Ecological Society of America, Ecological Applications, found significant reasons to question the accuracy of this claim:
   "The account [byL.A. Barrett 1935] is misleading however because his expertise in 1889 was limited to the experiences of his grammar school youth. According to his autobiography, he'd just turned 15 years old and started his secondary schooling in September of 1889 (on file, Forest History Society, Duke University Library). His career in the Forest Service began 14 years after the fire, in 1903(Dana 1945)."
   Their comprehensive reconstruction of the events, using archived data gathered from damage reports published in local newspapers matched to property tax records, voter registration rolls, claimed insurance, and place names mapped in a computer geographical information system (GIS) which included data from historical vegetation surveys, found that the impression of large historical wildfires is a result of imprecision and inaccuracy in the original reports, as well as a parlance that's beset with hyperbole. The study also showed that historical sources "cited as evidence of large chaparral wildfires are either demonstrably inaccurate or provide anecdotal information that's immaterial in the appraisal of pre-suppression fire size."
   Determining what really happened at the time of the "Great Fire of 1889" is more than an academic footnote of historical studies in California, it's an issue of contention in fire ecology studies which seek to understand how the size of chaparral wildfires has changed over the past century as a consequence of fire suppression management. The following wikipeda entry presents a summary of issues surrounding the 1889 fires in southern California, as thoroughly reviewed by Goforth and Minnich (2007).

Overview

According to records made at the time, the "Great 1889 Fire" actually was a complex of much smaller separate fires in southern California. The ignition of numerous fires during Santa Ana winds is similar to modern fire events that sweep across southern California. Conditions leading up to this 1889 fire event were a somewhat severe annual drought, with rains largely ceasing in March and less than 1 cm of precipitation being recorded for the 5½ months prior (records from the National Archives). This was coupled with multiple foehn wind events (known then as “northers” and today as Santa Anas) that month, one of which occurred about 10 days prior and likely added to the dryness of fuels. Temperatures during the week prior remained high and were coupled with other historical newspaper reports of several severe fires in San Diego County in which “at least 10,000 acres have burned over, a dwelling house consumed and other property destroyed” (Daily San Diegan 1889b). Some contend that one of the 1889 fires in Orange County was the largest fire in California history, and estimate it was greater than 300,000 acres in size. A report of fire in San Diego County has indicating another fire greater than 60,000 acres is also cited by some claiming large chaparral wildfires occurred before fire suppression management was practiced (Halsey 2008). Local reports indicate the Orange County fire burned through areas of chaparral coastal sage scrub, annual grasslands, as well as a number of farm fields in the Santa Ana Valley, where farmers attempted to control the fire by plowing ahead of it (Orange News 1889). There is, however, disagreement over the size of this fire and the and others which burned during the last week of September in 1889. Some have claimed the total area burned was approximately 700,000 acres (Keeley 2004, Keeley et al. 2004), while others have found their cited evidence and other gathered information supports a significantly smaller area(Goforth and Minnich 2007).

Size

Telegraphed reports describe the fire as having burned an area long by to wide, or about, which, if accurate, would make it still to this day the largest wildfire fire in California history.
   One of the first reports of the fire was delievered by telegraph. "By Telegraph. Mountain Fires! Fires Near Santa Ana. Los Angeles, Sept. 25. - A special to the Tribune from Santa Ana says the mountains for about twenty miles east of that city were on fire last night. The fire originated in Santiago cañon, in a sheepherder’s camp, and as the wind was blowing a perfect gale from off the desert the mountains were soon red with the angry flames. About 50,000 sacks of barley, threshed and unthreshed, on the San Joaquin ranch, invites the flames from the surrounding hilltops" (Riverside DPT 1889).
   Local sources report that the extent of the fire near Santa Ana was greatly exaggerated, as summarized by (Goforth and Minnich 2007):
"Reports by correspondents at the scene, as well as by the editors of local newspapers confirmed error in the telegraphed accounts. The Weekly Blade reported ‘‘From the Fire’’ on 26 September 1889 (p. 3): Many false reports circulated—The danger now past. During all of yesterday reports were brought to the city about the damage resulting from the blaze, but when they were run down the result generally proved that there was no foundation to them. . . These ‘‘false reports’’ were widely circulated by telegraph, as the Weekly Blade later reported (3 October, p. 1): ‘‘Count Bozenta, who is in New York, received the impression from the many exaggerated telegraphic reports sent from here in regard to the fire, that his house in the Santiago Canyon had been burned, and telegraphed here yesterday morning to have the insurance policies looked after. He was misinformed. No damage has been done to his buildings."
   Goforth and Minnich (2007) comment that:
"Articles reported by telegraph among distant newspapers misrepresented this wildfire as a widespread disaster. Distant newspapers had no means of initially verifying the telegraphed accounts, and the sensational headlines printed for reports suggest that cautious objectivity would have diminished the story. For example, headlines for the telegraph reports included: ‘‘FEARFUL FLAMES’’ and ‘‘BURNING OF THREE THOUSAND SHEEP’’ (San Francisco Chronicle, 25 September 1889, p. 6), or ‘‘SMALL TOWNS IN PERIL’’ and ‘‘MILES OF RUSHING FLAME’’ (San Francisco Examiner, 25 September, p. 2), as well as ‘‘FIGHTING FLAMES’’ and ‘‘Great Fires Raging Around Santa Ana’’ (Los Angeles Times, 25 September, p. 1). The description of natural disasters through sensational characterizations shares attributes with a more infamous form of newspaper writing later acknowledged as ‘‘yellow journalism,’’ through the use of ‘‘prominent headlines that screamed excitement often about comparatively unimportant news,’’ in order to attract more profitable quantities of readership (Mott 1962:442, 539; Campbell 2001:7). Accuracy was compromised for sensation by the Examiner in the telegraphed report of a ranchers encounter with the wildfire (26 September 1889, p. 3): A RANCHER’S ESCAPE. SANTA ANA, September 25.—Serious results are reported from the great foothill fire to-night. Charles Baker, a rancher living up Santiago Canyon, rode into Orange with a team and a hive of bees in his wagon. While driving over the burning district the hind end of the wagon was burned off and the bees were consumed. One horse expired shortly after arriving in Orange, and the other is in a serious condition. The man is also badly scorched. Much of his clothing is burned off and his hands and face seriously blistered. The editor of the News later reprinted the telegraph report and commented on the exaggeration of Charles Baker’s experience (9 October 1889, p. 3): ‘‘Mr. Baker, who is an old news paper man, reads such reports as the above with a good deal of interest, and hopes the reporters won’t kill him outright before they get through with him. He didn't receive any injury, and his horses are doing well. . ."
   Goforth and Minnich (2007) further state that:
"While conflicting accounts of telegraph reports and local correspondents indicate the unreliability of distant sources, the totality of reports from local newspapers also fail to satisfy an expectation of damages that should have resulted from a putatively 100 mile (160 km) long wildfire in 1889. For example, one should expect accounts of substantial property loss across this large region of southern California because the land was utilized for agriculture and grazing (for example, Cleland 1951, 1952). It follows that one would also expect reports of insurance claims filed for burned property and destroyed agricultural commodities across this region. Yet damage was only reported near Santa Ana for this wildfire, and we found only the claim for a burned grain crop valued at $5000 (Riverside Daily Press & Tribune, 25 September 1889). In fact, the Times clarified that no disaster had occurred, issuing ‘‘A Delayed Report of Forest Fires’’ by a correspondent that traveled to Santa Ana and verified that damages reported in the telegraphed accounts were simply ‘‘not true’’ (27 September 1889, p. 4). This account contradicted the telegraph report printed on the next page (p. 5), and shows the hazard of mining newspaper archives for quotation of past events without consideration of accounts from local sources in totality. It is likely that many individual wildfires were confused as one single event by a news wire service that produced and circulated the reports. The telegraph report in question doesn't explicitly state the size of a single massive wildfire, but rather that ‘‘the burnt and burning district’’ extended ‘‘over 100 miles from north to south, and ten to eighteen miles in width.’’ These are more likely the estimated dimensions of an area that would include all the nearby reported wildfires that had burned during the week or were still burning (Fig. 3). Distance and area couldn't be accurately estimated near Santa Ana in 1889 because topographic maps were unavailable (Moffat 1985)."
   Other accounts written in the "sensationalistic" vein of journalism describe fires elsewhere during that same week, but provide either anecdotal information which doesn't allow for precise reconstruction of the events, or claims that are contradicted by previously cited local accounts. For example:
"The Fires. Reported From Nearly all Sections of the County. Reports from different sections of the county show that last week’s fires were widespread. For two days there were over thirty miles of burning brush on the westside of Santa Rosa Range, and thousands of sheep are supposed to have lost their lives in the conflagration. In the Aliso District, near Encinitas, the fire raged several days, resulting in a heavy loss of crops to the farmers in that section… the most extensive fires for years have been raging on the Santa Margarita ranch. A bridge on the line of the California Southern railway, below Temecula, was burned as the result of forest fires. Fires near Julian burned considerable timber and did other damage" (Daily San Diegan 1889b). "Fires in Three Counties. During the past three or four days destructive fires have been raging in San Bernardino, Orange and San Diego severely. Mr. Warren Wilson, who arrived from San Diego yesterday, says it's a positive fact that two or three thousand sheep were burned near Santa Ana, while great quantities of grain in the bag, fencing, hay, etc., have been destroyed. So far, no human lives are reported lost. A fatality seems to follow this ill-omened year of 1889. Fire and flood and earthquake shocks have marked this year for their own. It is a year of disasters, wide-spread destruction of life and property – and, well, a year of horrors" (Daily Courier 1889).
   Goforth and Minnich (2007) present compelling evidence that report of a 60,000 acre fire on Rancho Santa Margarita that same week in 1889 isn't relavent to study of chapparal wildfires because the rancho is mostly grassland pastures. Quoted from their study:
"Fire on Rancho Santa Margarita The Union provided another report in the same week of September 1889 appearing to document a large historical wildfire on Rancho Santa Margarita that was witnessed by train passengers before arrival in San Diego (29 September 1889, p. 5): "Fire on Santa Marguerita [sic] An immense territory swept by the flames. Mr. Hardy, who has just returned from the Santa Marguerita [sic] ranch, says that for three days a number of men have been fighting the flames. The fire originated at the Coral del Luce [sic] and extended to the Santa Rosa Mountains, and the east wind then brought on fire in the direction of the ranch, and it's estimated that fully 65,000 acres [26315 ha] were burned before the fire was extinguished. He reports that the fire is still raging in the mountains and the people in that section say it's the worst ever known." Fundamental details of the wildfire are not discussed, including how the size was estimated, or what vegetation burned, or what criteria of valuation characterized this fire as the ‘‘worst ever known?’’ It is necessary to consider the historical context of this report to interpret ecological conditions. Trains passed along the southern edge of Rancho Santa Margarita (Fig. 1), on the California Southern Railway from San Diego to Colton, with a stop at the Corral de la Luz station near the Santa Margarita ranch house (Pourade 1964: 158–162). The primary activity on the rancho was cattle production that utilized extensive pastures (Baumgartner 1989). A biography of the Baumgartner family that resided on the rancho provided concern for only grass fires on the rancho, stating (Baumgartner 1989:46): ‘‘The biggest fear that Uncle Jerome and all the vaqueros had was of grass fires. If a grass fire were to start, there was no way of controlling it and it would go on burning until it had burned itself out. And it was the grass that fed the cattle that was the sustenance that made the ranch go.’’ This brings to question the relevance of the Union account for evaluating the size of pre-suppression wildfire in chaparral landscapes. Men were reportedly engaged in activities to extinguish wildfire on the rancho, and an estimated total of 65 000 acres (26 315 ha) was reported to have burned before the wildfire was extinguished, although fire was ‘‘still raging in the mountains.’’ Thus, the report emphasized damage to land having direct economic value, for example, cattle pastures, because only the burned area on the rancho was estimated. In fact, the informant for the Union account, Mr. Hardy, was a worker on the rancho (Baumgartner 1989). The burned area of neighboring mountains covered with coastal sage scrub and chaparral wasn't estimated because these shrublands had little economic value in cattle production.It is essential to evaluate the appraisal of a historically reported quantity. The report that 65 000 acres (26 315ha) was burned on Rancho Santa Margarita by a wildfire in 1889 couldn't have been estimated with the aid of topographic maps because this information was first available nine years after the fire (Moffat 1985). Given the imprecision in this historical context, the reported quantity of burned area can't be an accurate representation of the wildfires size. It isn't possible to accurately reconstruct the location of this wildfire because the reported landmarks are indefinite, and other documentary evidence is lacking. Yet, it's certain that comparing this reported quantity of burned area with the size of modern wildfires that are measured would represent the historical data with greater precision than the available means of detection, for example, the fallacy of misplaced precision (Fischer 1970: 61)."
   In summary, Goforth and Minnich (2007) write:
"It is hazardous to rely on only one account without considering the totality of observations available among other local sources. Telegraph reports of wildfire near Santa Ana in 1889 are cited as evidence of a massive chaparral fire that occurred before fire suppression activities may have influenced the fire regime (Keeley and Fotheringham 2001, 2003, Keeley 2004, Keeley et al. 2004, Keeley 2006). Yet, the extent of chaparral within a reconstructed area of this burn is about 40 times smaller than the size reported by telegraph. Is this evidence of a large pre-suppression wildfire in chaparral?"

Further Information

Get more info on 'Great Fire Of 1889'.

External Link Exchanges

Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:

<a href="http://great_fire_of_1889.totallyexplained.com">Great Fire of 1889 Totally Explained</a>

Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned.