The Coalition of the Swilling

I guess they haven't learned from the last round of California brush fires?

Look, I'm an ecologist. I'm all for preserving stuff. But there is a point at which you look at stuff and go, "holy crap, there's too big of a fuel load here" and you take some out - EVEN if you are planning to prescribed-burn.

I know a few ecologists who are more than frustrated with the whackos agendizing things in the name of ecology - stuff that most of us, who actually DO the restoration work, would never support.

I've wondered about this kind of thing a lot when I hear about wildfires near small towns and suburbs, especially out in California. Just what are people and governments doing to mitigate and manage risks? Are there barriers being put up to doing so? I rarely see that aspect covered in media reports.

My sister was a volunteer firefighter in northern Minnesota and she said they took a pretty hard-nosed view with the cabin/home owners in their area. Either they made an effort to clear around their structures and give the VFD a shot at saving them, or those structures went in the book as not salvageable in a wildfire situation and the VFD would focus efforts elsewhere. Most people at least made an effort.

After the big Oakland Hills fire in '91, that's exactly what the local govenment did. They required people to keep brush cleared away from the houses. Too bad the less enlightened municipalities don't learn the lesson.

There is an issue with folks "living with nature", and I have little sympathy for them.

But there is also the very real problem of fuel. Trees die, branches fall off, brush grows high, and goes dormant. When dry, all of this is literally tinder waiting for a spark. Forests are self-correcting by fires caused by natural sources (mostly lightning).

That's sometimes well and good in wilderness areas away from populated areas, where fires are (usually) allowed to burn. But in populated areas, or in forests that might be harvested, that's not an option. The normal approach is to selective tree harvesting and controlled burns to reduce the fuel supply. Neither really impacts the environment, no more than any other use.

However, many eco-nuts actively campaign against either. Hell, they campaign against basic tree harvesting, which would do much the same thing. As a result, many forests are firebombs waiting to happen.

Granted, people who live in the woods should take precautions....and I've seen some mighty fancy homes snuggled up to the wood line. But even with reason efforts, a major fire that might have been mitigated to a minor incident can threaten even the most protected structures.

The big Yellowstone fires of 1987 were an example of a "natural" situation where fires should have been allowed to burn, but were not - misguided policy.

I guess I tend to be of the opinion that if people want to live out in the woods, they need to:

a. be educated on the fire (and other) risks. Some forests are not fire-prone; other forests are. And also be educated on preventive maintenance.

b. Do (and be allowed to do) necessary maintenance around their structure for protection

c. Accept that they will be at a higher risk than someone who lives in town. I admit I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for someone who insists on building right in the middle of chaparral brushland in California because they "want to be close to nature" but who doesn't bother to learn about fire risk of how to prevent problems right around their house. And who then demands "something be done!" when a fire threatens their property but they are 50 miles from the nearest town and nearest firefighters.

Me? I live in town. I want to be within 5 minutes of the firefighters arriving at my house if that becomes necessary. Sure, I pay for it in the form of having to listen to barking dogs and cars, and possibly having a higher burglary risk, but I wouldn't be comfortable living miles upon miles from the potential of help if a situation I couldn't deal with arose.