(Donald L Ferrt) writes:

It is just like people building on Coastal areas which can be damaged
by storms = They get Fed paid insurance. It is called Rep. Democracy.
Those people call their Reps in Congress and complain = They get the
ticket punched!

No, they pay federal flood insurance, which is mandated by federal law.
The feds have surveyed every 100 year flood plain in the USA, and if you
live in one, you pony up the cash for your insurance, no exceptions.
That program was instituted because insurance companies refused to insure
high risk homes.

If insurance companies start refusing to insure high risk homes in wooded
areas, federal fire insurance may become necessary. However, when only
70 homes at a time burn down, that is pretty trivial from an insurance
perspective. It is nothing like the thousands of homes that are damaged
or destroyed by a major flood or hurricane.

It might help your perspective if you read up about the Oakland Firestorm
of 1991. It destroyed 2,843 single family homes and 433 apartment units.
While there was some federal disaster assistance, the rebuilding was
funded by private insurance. The Bay Area has a modern and well funded
fire fighting capability, but in the face of high winds, high
temperatures and low humidity, all they could do was get out of the way
and retreat to defensible fire lines. That is in a city, with fire
hydrants on every other street corner and paved access to every home. I
don't believe anyone has suggested federal fire insurance.

http://www.sfmuseum.org/oakfire/contents.html

Nobody is going to fund a fire fighting effort adequate to stop a big
forest fire. If the wind is blowing the right direction, you can set
backfires to deprive the forest fire of fuel, but in the case of poorly
planned and maintained forest homes, a backfire can be just as bad as the
main fire. Fire fighters often have to make the decision to abandon
structures that are not sited in a defensible manner.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc