Lightning blamed in Oregon wildfire
PORTLAND — A southern Oregon wildfire destroyed six homes and 14 other buildings, and dozens of blazes ignited after thousands of lightning strikes lashed the state.
The destructive Moccasin Hill fire — named for a longstanding subdivision — began on Sunday near the ranching town of Sprague River, about 25 miles northeast of Klamath Falls, fire spokeswoman Erica Hupp said on Monday. Many residents keep horses and cattle on plots of three to five acres, and neighbors have been stepping in to shelter both stock and pets, she said.
The blaze encompasses 4½ square miles, fire officials said, and caused more than 100 people to evacuate before the threat subsided and many returned home.
Another fire spokeswoman, Tina O'Donnell, said 231 structures remained threatened, and one minor injury was reported. She did not know whether the injury was suffered by a resident or a firefighter.
Walter “Butch” Browning, who operates a general store in Sprague River, said the flames reached the driveway at his home on Sunday afternoon, forcing his wife to “get out of there” with a computer, a change of clothes, medications and the dogs. The wind changed direction, he said, sparing his place. He slept in his own bed, confident there were enough firefighters between his house and the blaze that has left burning stumps.
Wildfires are an annual concern for the community, Browning said. He has been evacuated at least four times in his 22 years on the property, and once lost a home, he said.
“I had two houses at one time; I have one now. I'm down to my last house,” he quipped. “It's the price you pay for living in paradise, I guess.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- New Orleans slow to heal 10 years after Hurricane Katrina
- George W. Bush visits disaster zone, 10 years after Katrina
- Thousands in New Orleans became targets of unscrupulous contractors
- Illinois Lottery winners get IOU instead of checks
- Surviving panda cub is male
- Court lifts injunction against NSA call records program
- Northwest fire crews hope for break in weather
- Prep school graduate Labrie convicted of sex charges
- Kentucky county clerk’s protest of same-sex marriage near end
- Supreme Court has protest-free zone, judges panel rules
- ‘Facts are bad’ for pier-shooting defendant, legal experts say