Pear Lake wildfire near Clinton, B.C., reported at 165,929 hectares with minimal growth
Reports differ on the fire's size and name; officials say the fire is being held.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 29, 2026, 7:00 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 29, 2026, 7:00 p.m. ETFirst report
Pear Lake Wildfire Near Clinton Shows Minimal Growth, 165,929 Hectares Burned
The Pear Lake wildfire in British Columbia has burned 165,929 hectares, according to the Caledonia Courier. The fire is showing minimal growth, the outlet reported.
The fire's status remains under investigation, and the cause has not been determined. Officials have not reported a containment figure.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
- More properties downgraded to all clear as Pear Lake fire near Clinton shows minimal growth - Fort St. James Caledonia Couriercaledoniacourier.com
- More properties downgraded to all clear as Pear Lake fire near Clinton shows minimal growth - Campbell River Mirrorcampbellrivermirror.com
- Big Bar wildfires now considered held, BC Wildfire Service sayscastanetkamloops.net
Revision history
- Version 35 Sept 2026, 21:24current
Added the competing size and name from Castanet Kamloops, and the 'held' status.
- Version 230 Aug 2026, 23:02
Updated to include both sources and clarify that the size is as reported, not independently confirmed.
- Version 129 Aug 2026, 23:23
First published.
- Version 129 Aug 2026, 23:00current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.