As for your last sentence, that could apply evenly to any natural disaster. The [ocean|tectonic plates|flood plains|super cells] were there first. Let's stop protecting [hurricane|tornado|tsunami|earthquake] victims from loss due to their poor decisions.
And, no, we shouldn't be bailing out people who build stick-built homes in flood plains. There are house designs built to withstand occasional flooding; you don't want to spend for that, then you shouldn't be bailed out.
And none of them should.
Also through bush land they cut roads which also service as firebreaks, that way bush fires hit these gaps and should stop a proportion of the time.
Anyway, my point is I dont know we need to hate on 'rich people's houses' because 1) I would say even more ordinary people have houses in the bush, at least in Australia, and this feels like personal hatred without knowing your area and 2) Australia has clearly shown people can manage an enviroment (with occasional exceptions) to live within a bush/forest fire area.
I'm not sure how supported or funded this is in the states. And in Australia we have large volunteer groups of bush firefighters that help with back burns and when larger outbreaks of bush fires occur to increase manpower.
I've seen some very nice houses with tress so close you can reach out the window and touch the trunk. I guess they have another home to go to when that one burns.
(by abandoned, I meant the firefighters abandon the doomed houses that do not have defensible space)
For some of us, living in a city seems as stupid as living outside of one seems to others. Each has their risk, but when a person is mugged or killed in a city I don't blame them for a poor decision.
Humans need to be good stewards to the land and stop framing themselves as somehow not a part of "nature."
[0]: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/fire-fighting...
You either walk around the fire carrying your belongings, or you light a fire downwind from where you are and move onto the burned down ground before the original fire reaches you.
Uncomfortable, but (unless you are really unlucky) survivable.
As the Lolo Peak Fire burns 6 miles from my house it is frustrating to me that the DNRC's hands are tied by regulation that prevents them thinning and keep our forests healthy. It is both a revenue stream for our school system and an important role in keeping the woods healthy. Unfortunately both wildlife and habitat conservation has some aspects that are counter-intuitive to most folks when they ask why taking an animal or taking a tree actually helps in the long run. This isn't meant to be a pro/anti regulation stance but a call for balance.
There is also the most important factor in fighting these fires and currently that number is 2, as in we've lost 2 firefighters during this season's wild fires.
I had my own property logged - luckily you can still do that. I cleared around my house and thinned out the rest. It didn't destroy the forest, it created jobs, created some lumber and some pulp for paper. In a few years the remaining trees will grow straighter, stronger and better resist insects. How is this bad? It is frustrating to see so much public land overgrown to the point it can't be used and isn't good for wildlife.
Good forest management has to include some logging. If you disagree, please stop using paper, especially toilet paper.
Thanks to all the men and women who rush towards the fire when others are leaving. Listening to them on the radio last night - they were doing a great job under pressure and while dealing with some nervous people.
The line between extinguishment and containment blurs as human settlement expands.
Also, shouldn't humans just stop settling near forests altogether? Easy way to incentivize this - stop extinguishing the fires - they're supposed to burn anyway.
Yeah, sure, there's problems. But mother nature cares not. The fuel load will continue to build until it burns, unless we remove it ourselves. That's the shortsightednes of "let fires burn but...", IMO. One day it will burn, whether you like it or not, unless you're willing to pay from now until kingdom come for manual fuel reduction. The only question is will it burn on our terms or hers?
In our area, there were a number of properties that were lost, because the owners did not follow the rules about fuel control around their property, allowing boughs onto their roof and not clearing back from the buildings. I pin a lot of the policy problems on those sorts of folks. They haven't realized we have to live with fire, like the pines around us. Stopping it is a losing game.
We can't do this everywhere, but I reduced the fuel on my property for exactly $0. No government grants, no tax payer money - the timber paid for it. As a bonus it was done in the winter so it disturbed very little ground.
In earlier times, farm fields actually were separated by bushes, patches of rocks, tiny rivers, whatever. Humans have flattened all of this, in order to make really huge strips of farmland that can be worked on really, really efficiently by machines. Not only has this practice destroyed the living space of small animals like rabbits or birds, but it also contributes massively to this problem as there's nothing left to stop or slow down winds :(
Embers travel over roads remarkably well.
> In earlier times, farm fields actually were separated by bushes, patches of rocks, tiny rivers, whatever.
My point is that the modern prairie is far more divided than it was 200 years ago. And groves of trees are not just for snow drifts. They provide much protection from wind. To protect from snow drifts, you typically build a very distinct looking snow fence which allows you to control where the drift forms (e.g., not on a road).
If you look at pictures of homesteads of South Dakota in the 1880s, there are virtually no trees anywhere, including around farms. There are far more today. Hence why I am asking where the OP is talking about.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5653133,-95.6495983,2380m/da...
The policy of "let some fires burn" has been in practice for a few decades now in our corner of the woods. Ever since the Yellowstone fire in the 80's, we've focused our efforts on containment instead of extinguishment (i.e. make a best effort to keep it away from human settlements); letting land lost to the fires just burn out naturally while stopping them from claiming too much land. Should we let them burn more? Perhaps.
But it's never so easy. The cost of just letting some go when they're a couple dozen or even hundred acres can spiral out of control when you're suddenly attempting to stop a 300,000 acre fire that has already burned out 16 homes and is threatening towns. Yes, firefighters die fighting fires. Civilians also die when an uncontained fire goes from a theoretical threat on the horizon to consuming their house in a matter of minutes.
Fire doesn't respect property boundaries, and can travel a tremendous speeds (upwards of 10mph). And they aren't really like floods - it's not just the forests that burn, it's the flat lands with all the nice dead grasses. Grass fires can move even faster than forest fires, given a wind to push it along.
Humans aren't the only ones affected, either. The livestock which used that land for feed still has to be fed, or face starvation. Argue all you want about the inhumanity of our treatment of livestock generally; letting them starve due to a lack of hay (tied to a lack of money) is worse.
There are some who feel that they should not have to support those affected by natural disasters. I'm sure others will be happy to return the favor.
(300,000 acres ~= 142,000 ha)
https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/5399/