The Answers To High Cost Of Fighting Fires

[Wildman]

[SkierBob]

[Wildman]

That's a grand idea.  Now, if you would, please share the way that you would fight the fires that burn around the country (and will someday threaten Wrightwood once again) and more importantly, how you would pay for those efforts.

Sometimes, I think that people forget just how much of an influence that Congress has in how the Forest Service is forced to operate.  I posted this piece to illustrate the kind of idiocy that they face every year from the Beltway "experts" and "consultants" who always seem to know better.  Sadly, these are the folks that Congress listen to when they are funding the Forest Service. 
I'm not sure just how much I might listen to a fellow who works in "Think Tank"
and didn't have boot leather on the ground.

[clint]

Some of these ideas do make sense even if for the wrong reasons.
There are areas that should be allowed to burn. Not quite all, but most forest ecologists,
recognize that man's overly zealous interventon into a fire adapted ecology has had
negative effects on many species, both flora and fauna.

And if individual home that are not properly cleared are threated by fire without threatening
other nearby exposures they should be allowed to burn. Because the home owner was irresponsible
and expected to be saved regardless of the cost.

Insurance companies bear some burden of responsibility for continuing coverage for people who make absolutely no effort at fuels reduction.

The National Park Service has adopted a much more enlightened policy for prescribed natural fire than the Forest Service has. Perhaps all recreation management should be turned over to them. After all the reason the USFS is part of the Depatment of Agriculture insted of the Department of the Interior is because its job was to manage forests as crop resource, timber.

Everyone seems to paint these issues with too broad a brush, and to approach them from emotional instead of logical view points. Some fires clearly must be fought agressively. Others should be allowed to burn. All administrators making decisions in public agencies need to remember who they serve. The public. And we cannot suggest that any agency or policy should be spared from scrutiny just because it's been a round a long time or has a cuddly mascot.

Perhaps it's a time for a whole new approach to Wildland Fire Management, by a whole new agency.

[clint]

After thought...

The USFS also does not care of it's people! We lost a great ranger from our area, and the ANF is understaffed and has a hard time filling positions because it does'nt take care of it's people. Maybe a new agency would manage it's human resources better also.

[SkierBob]

That's a grand idea.  Now, if you would, please share the way that you would fight the fires that burn around the country (and will someday threaten Wrightwood once again) and more importantly, how you would pay for those efforts.

Why should I worry about your house, especially if it's not near mine?  I have done major brush clearance on my propriety located in the hills South of Palmdale to be assured my house will survive a brush fire without ANY support by fire fighters.  I'm personally never relying the fire department to protect my home in the event of a brush fire.   

I won't be yelling 'I didn't prepare, save me, save me'.   

When the fire department stopped by in the Spring they said "wow, we wish everyone would take brush clearance as seriously as you". 

You all should thank me.  In the event of a fire my house won't require protection by fire fighting resources leaving more to protect your house. 

Defensible space within WW is basically non existant.  Many of your own properties are more of a fire hazard then the public land around your town.  You want fire protection,, you start within your neighborhood.   Frankly I don't think homes in WW would have a chance in hell of surviving a brush fire without fire fighter help, there's just to many pine trees.  Maybe I'd just let it burn.