Failure to repress Grass and Brush has led to problems = but no profit for
removal!
What are you going to do with fire danger and no old growth or clear-cuts to
profit from???


http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sit...ry/html/139368

Headline:

Dry and dangerous: Fire officials worry blaze could hit wooded suburbs
2003-08-04
by Mike Archbold
Journal Reporter

How dry is it?

Greg Smith, fire chief for Mountain View Fire and Rescue on the Enumclaw
Plateau east of Auburn, points to the normally moist and tough Alder trees.

``Even their leaves are curling up,'' he said last week, admitting he is
extremely worried about the fire danger this summer. There wasn't any rain on
the Plateau in July. Normally the district picks up .88 inches in July, he
said.

``This is probably the driest we have seen it in years out here,'' he said.

Out here is where forests and houses mix in neighborhoods with agreeable names
like Remington, Heather Highlands and Golden Ridge. Fields of grass and scrub
brush rub up against homes.

That tranquil image is repeated throughout suburban King County, from Redmond
and North Bend through Maple Valley to Kent and Auburn. More and more
developments poke their way into wooded areas.

The image of a forest fire raging through a suburban neighborhood is far from
residents' minds as they barbecue in their back yards. Forest fires are the
stuff of TV news from remote mountain areas.

Redmond fire a `wake-up call'

But the threat is here, say suburban fire district officials. They point to the
wildland fire in Redmond July 18 that burned 50 acres and threatened 70 homes
as an classic example of what can happen.

Redmond Deputy Fire Chief Andy Hail called the fire a ``wake-up call'' to
suburban and rural communities in the area.

``The threat is real,'' he said. ``It takes the whole community to have a
defense against that.''

Recalling that early afternoon fire that started in a grassy area in the
Sammamish River Regional Park, Hail said that he never thought during his 23½
years fighting fire in Redmond that they would ever lose homes to a wildland
fire.

But he thought that would happen July 18.... (cont)

(Aozotorp) writes:

Failure to repress Grass and Brush has led to problems = but no profit for
removal!
What are you going to do with fire danger and no old growth or clear-cuts to
profit from???

The suburbs are going to have to incorporate fire and brush control
districts and tax themselves to provide public safety. While housing
developments are normally built on clear cuts around a few save trees
with no commercial value, they grow more vegetation over time. While
rural land owners often reduce fuel load through grazing, housing
developments rarely are set up to accommodate livestock. A housing
development built in the '70s can have built up a huge fuel load.

Fire suppression is the responsibility of the property owner. I pay
taxes to a rural fire district, and annual dues to the Douglas Fire
Protection Association. The DFPA fights wildland fires that the rural
fire department can't handle. I also maintain a vegetation free zone
around my house, keep a 2500 gallon cistern full all summer, maintain a
Class A fire resistive roof, keep my gutters free of debris in the
summer, keep fire fighting tools ready to go, and maintain strategic fire
breaks. If all else fails, there is always homeowner's insurance.

The image of a forest fire raging through a suburban neighborhood is far from
residents' minds as they barbecue in their back yards. Forest fires are the
stuff of TV news from remote mountain areas.

If they don't make preparations for wildfire, they are incredibly
oblivious. There are wildfire prevention standards built right into
their county development codes, but in states like Colorado the people
won't allow enforcement of the codes. I figure if they can't provide
fire truck access, egress that can't be closed by fire, a water supply
for the pumpers and a combustion free zone around their houses, they
can't whine when their brush pile catches on fire.

Urban logging is an interesting topic. The big limitation is parcel
size. There are virtually no environmental restrictions on urban logging.
It is just rare to find a parcel large enough to justify a commercial
operation. Suburban trees are worth more as firewood than they are worth
as lumber.

There is nothing keeping suburban property owners from reducing fire
hazard on their property. They don't have to file logging plans with the
state forestry department, they don't have to maintain wildlife habitat
and they don't have to reforest. If they want to cut down trees, all
they have to do is fire up their chainsaw and start cutting.

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

(Aozotorp) wrote in message ...
Failure to repress Grass and Brush has led to problems = but no profit for
removal!
What are you going to do with fire danger and no old growth or clear-cuts to
profit from???


Since when does the USFS use clearcuts to solely reduce fuels and fire
danger? Most USFS fuel reduction projects remove small diamteter trees
in overstocked stands. Bush's plans include removing some medium-sized
trees in order to insure that projects do indeed sell. Nobody wins if
the project is prepared and no one bids on it. You have major
misconceptions about how the system works. In California, we've done
many large projects that don't involve trees bigger than 30" dbh trees
and they did sell with most of the marked trees in the 9-18" dbh
range.
Get a clue, bud. (He probably thinks he's being successful if he
wastes our time but, this is all a part of educating the American
public)

Larry

(Larry Harrell) writes:

Since when does the USFS use clearcuts to solely reduce fuels and fire
danger? Most USFS fuel reduction projects remove small diamteter trees
in overstocked stands. Bush's plans include removing some medium-sized
trees in order to insure that projects do indeed sell. Nobody wins if
the project is prepared and no one bids on it. You have major
misconceptions about how the system works. In California, we've done
many large projects that don't involve trees bigger than 30" dbh trees
and they did sell with most of the marked trees in the 9-18" dbh
range.
Get a clue, bud. (He probably thinks he's being successful if he
wastes our time but, this is all a part of educating the American
public)

I doubt the USFS is much interested in what happens in the suburbs.
Perhaps the BLM has some land near developed areas, but unless they have
shop buildings on the land or have developed a BLM park or campground,
all they have to worry about is vegetation.

By blocking operations in the woods, the preservationists have turned
trees into a fiscal liability instead of an asset. The result was
congress refusing to appropriate funds for fire fighting.

In truth, the responsibility for protecting homes in the urban-rural
interface properly belongs with the local fire departments, and counties,
not with the federal government. Expecting the federal government to
fund fire suppression on private land is beyond reason.

The federal government pays counties to maintain emergency services, like
police and ambulance, on federal property. They are, after all, exempt
from local property taxes, so it is only fair that they pay for the
services that they receive. If rural homeowners want federal protection
from fire, they should pay the federal government for the service. That
is what a Fire Protection Association is for.

My FPA integrates seamlessly with fire fighting efforts on all levels. I
pay annual dues to the FPA. Dues are collected by the county tax
assessor and just become part of my property tax bill. Most years that
money goes to fight fires on state and industrial forest land. However,
if there is a fire in my neighborhood, the FPA will fight it. The last
time my valley burned was in 1961, and a fire fighter was overtaken by
flames and died.

If those oblivious suburbanites haven't formed an FPA, it is their
responsibility. They should get ready to fight the fire on their own.
An FPA is the cheapest fire insurance you can buy. Virtually all rural
private land in my county has signed up for FPA protection, so it only
costs a few dollars a year. When catastrophic fires are decades apart,
the equipment only has to run for 3 months a year, and many private
property owners annually clear fire breaks, suppress brush and maintain
heavy equipment, funding fire suppression is not expensive.

You will notice that when big forest fires burn into industrial timber
land, they don't burn far. That is because the fire lines are already
built.

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

(Larry Harrell) writes:

Since when does the USFS use clearcuts to solely reduce fuels and fire
danger? Most USFS fuel reduction projects remove small diamteter trees
in overstocked stands. Bush's plans include removing some medium-sized
trees in order to insure that projects do indeed sell. Nobody wins if
the project is prepared and no one bids on it. You have major
misconceptions about how the system works. In California, we've done
many large projects that don't involve trees bigger than 30" dbh trees
and they did sell with most of the marked trees in the 9-18" dbh
range.
Get a clue, bud. (He probably thinks he's being successful if he
wastes our time but, this is all a part of educating the American
public)

I doubt the USFS is much interested in what happens in the suburbs.
Perhaps the BLM has some land near developed areas, but unless they have
shop buildings on the land or have developed a BLM park or campground,
all they have to worry about is vegetation.


Christ Man, Have you actually been around the West Lately! Have you seen how
close to National Forests and other Public Lands Housing Projects are going
up???

(Aozotorp) writes:

Christ Man, Have you actually been around the West Lately! Have you seen how
close to National Forests and other Public Lands Housing Projects are going
up???

Well of course, but why would the feds care? They aren't the ones
building the housing developments. If people want to live in the
country, they should realize that they have to provide their own
services, including fighting wildfires.

The feds generally fight fires on federal land, but they are getting
less interested in that. The preservationist political machine has
convinced congress that forest fires are a beneficial natural process,
which to congress means they don't have to fund fire fighting. In the
current political climate, trees are worthless and forest management is a
constant drain on the treasury, so forest fires are just a way of getting
rid of a lot of worthless vegetation real cheap. Meanwhile, the USFS and
BLM are busily removing fire breaks on federal land, AKA forest roads,
also at the urging of the preservationists.

You should also realize that there is no way to stop a forest fire if it
is dry and the wind is blowing. It is beyond human ability to stand in
front of that. However, it is fairly simple for your house to survive a
forest fire. Roof it with metal, side it with concrete, clean all
the debris out of your gutters, clear all vegetation for 100' in every
direction, and install several thousand gallons of water storage. That
means no cedar shakes and no cedar decks. Install a concrete patio
instead.

Either that or run the risk of losing your home to a wildfire. It's your
choice. Accept the consequences.



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

Larry Caldwell wrote in message nk.net...
(Aozotorp) writes:

Christ Man, Have you actually been around the West Lately! Have you seen how
close to National Forests and other Public Lands Housing Projects are going
up???

Well of course, but why would the feds care?

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!

Donald L Ferrt wrote:

Larry Caldwell wrote in message nk.net...
(Aozotorp) writes:

Christ Man, Have you actually been around the West Lately! Have you seen how
close to National Forests and other Public Lands Housing Projects are going
up???

Well of course, but why would the feds care?

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!

And most of them also pay for that insurance when they buy their home.
As unreliable as FEMA maps are, they probably include 90% of the actual
100 year flood plain. It's the "extraordinary" stuff that the Feds pick
up the check for. A similar mapping project for fire hazard would be
interesting. It might show more of local politics than geography though.
Flood hazard zone building codes are very strict around here as well.

(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

Larry, This (Michigan) ain't the west, but here, the State of Michigan and the Feds

work together to put out fires on all land ownerships. Now, I'm not sure who pays
the
bills, but I know they do care...

Geoff Kegerreis

Larry Caldwell wrote:

(Aozotorp) writes:

Christ Man, Have you actually been around the West Lately! Have you seen how
close to National Forests and other Public Lands Housing Projects are going
up???

Well of course, but why would the feds care? They aren't the ones
building the housing developments. If people want to live in the
country, they should realize that they have to provide their own
services, including fighting wildfires.

The feds generally fight fires on federal land, but they are getting
less interested in that. The preservationist political machine has
convinced congress that forest fires are a beneficial natural process,
which to congress means they don't have to fund fire fighting. In the
current political climate, trees are worthless and forest management is a
constant drain on the treasury, so forest fires are just a way of getting
rid of a lot of worthless vegetation real cheap. Meanwhile, the USFS and
BLM are busily removing fire breaks on federal land, AKA forest roads,
also at the urging of the preservationists.

You should also realize that there is no way to stop a forest fire if it
is dry and the wind is blowing. It is beyond human ability to stand in
front of that. However, it is fairly simple for your house to survive a
forest fire. Roof it with metal, side it with concrete, clean all
the debris out of your gutters, clear all vegetation for 100' in every
direction, and install several thousand gallons of water storage. That
means no cedar shakes and no cedar decks. Install a concrete patio
instead.

Either that or run the risk of losing your home to a wildfire. It's your
choice. Accept the consequences.

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

http://www.sneadsferry.com/archive/t...lodd_insur.htm

http://www.pbrla.com/dean_rev.html

(Geoff Kegerreis) writes:

Larry, This (Michigan) ain't the west, but here, the State of Michigan and the Feds

work together to put out fires on all land ownerships. Now, I'm not sure who pays
the
bills, but I know they do care...

Various fire fighting agencies always negotiate a reciprocal fire
fighting agreement, and will send crews to other fires. The 14 Hot Shots
who died at the Storm King fire in Colorado were from Bend, Oregon. It
is mutually advantageous to share resources, since no single jurisdiction
can afford to maintain huge fire fighting crews.

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

Larry Caldwell wrote:

Various fire fighting agencies always negotiate a reciprocal fire
fighting agreement, and will send crews to other fires. The 14 Hot Shots
who died at the Storm King fire in Colorado were from Bend, Oregon. It
is mutually advantageous to share resources, since no single jurisdiction
can afford to maintain huge fire fighting crews.

You're right about just about all of this, but let me get in a minor
quibble. At the Storm King fire, 9 Hotshots from Prineville OR died,
along with 2 helitack crewmembers from Grand Junction CO, and 3
smokejumpers - 1 from Missoula MT and 2 from McCall ID.

http://www.davisfirecrew.org/sk/

In the wildland world, federal resources in particular are moved all
over the place during the season. State resources move around also, but
to a lesser extent. Agreements facilitate just about all of this.

Bob

Larry Caldwell wrote:

(Aozotorp) writes:

Christ Man, Have you actually been around the West Lately! Have you seen
how
close to National Forests and other Public Lands Housing Projects are going
up???

Well of course, but why would the feds care? They aren't the ones
building the housing developments.

Well, as much as I enjoy a cynical comment every now and then I need to
point out a couple of reasons why feds might ca
- they are *asked* to care by the legislative branch. Check out
www.fireplan. gov
- many fed firefighters live in the woods, so they have a stake in their
neighbors and own homes
- some actually feel sort of a commitment to public service.

You should also realize that there is no way to stop a forest fire if it
is dry and the wind is blowing. It is beyond human ability to stand in
front of that. However, it is fairly simple for your house to survive a
forest fire. Roof it with metal, side it with concrete, clean all
the debris out of your gutters, clear all vegetation for 100' in every
direction, and install several thousand gallons of water storage. That
means no cedar shakes and no cedar decks. Install a concrete patio
instead.

Either that or run the risk of losing your home to a wildfire. It's your
choice. Accept the consequences.

Yep.

Bob

mike hagen wrote in message ...
Donald L Ferrt wrote:

Larry Caldwell wrote in message nk.net...
(Aozotorp) writes:

Christ Man, Have you actually been around the West Lately! Have you seen how
close to National Forests and other Public Lands Housing Projects are going
up???

Well of course, but why would the feds care?

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!

And most of them also pay for that insurance when they buy their home.
As unreliable as FEMA maps are, they probably include 90% of the actual
100 year flood plain. It's the "extraordinary" stuff that the Feds pick
up the check for. A similar mapping project for fire hazard would be
interesting. It might show more of local politics than geography though.
Flood hazard zone building codes are very strict around here as well.

Hard to say! If you know Congress, you know when the Budget Bill gets
to the end, The Congressmen slip in all sorts of funding measures that
are not read or acted on, Many in the past have been bail-outs for
such Home Pwners!