[pct-l] Why close burn areas?

[Mary Kwart]

I agree with the personal responsibility issue. Wildfires in this country differ from the natural hazards you cite because, usually, firefighters have been on the ground actively "managing" the fires--cutting down trees and brush, doing erosion control after the fire, etc. This human interference implies to the public that hazards are taken care of--thus the leverage for suing for damage done by post fire falling trees, etc. Fires are the only "acts of God" that we screw with, and so imply liability. The bridge--also damaged by an act of God that we do not try to "manage" like a wildfire.

I have been on post wildfire trail reviews--the forest in question was actually afraid to cut down hazard trees next to the trail because, the forest managers reasoned, when hikers saw the cuts made by the chainsaw, they would assume that ALL hazard trees had been cut and sue if one rogue tree fell over and injured them. Instead the forest used explosives to fall the trees, as amazing as this sounds--it makes the trees look like they were felled by natural conditions,so no hiker would assume that Big Brother was there looking after them and screwed up and missed a hazard tree.

None of us would think this way--it is the occasional city hiker in the woods that is the culprit. Unfortunately, the land management agency feels it has to manage the land for the lowest common denominator user, intelligence and woods savvy wise. Perhaps we could get waivers for going through burned areas as long as we carry the PCT permits??

And I can't agree more about staying in your house during a fire--I know a friend who wasn't let back into his house after a fire and the house and years of his artwork burned down because of creeping ground fire, way after the main fire front had passed, ignited his deck--if he was at home he could have easily put the fire out with little water. 

When I was in Australia fighting fires in 2007, may people stayed in their houses in the fire areas--they had all done their clearances and had adequate water reserves from roof cisterns to deal with the fire. The government actualy encouraged people to stay if they were prepared. But they had to make a decision to stay in a timely manner. Many fatalities happen when people decide too late to evacuate and are caught in their cars by the rapidly spreading fire.

Although, with the more intense fires in Australia due to global warming, recent fires (winter of 2009) have led to fatalities of some people who stayed in their houses due to unusually rapid fire spread. 

--Fireweed

AsABat said:   This all makes sense, and I don't disagree about any of those hazards, but
it doesn't make it right. Following this logic, the forests should be closed
when there's a thunderstorm (friend was hit by lightning), snow on the
ground (frostbite, get lost, slip), high winds, fog (could walk off a
cliff), rain (don't slip), high pollen counts (allergies anyone), bridge
out, log crossing the creek is wet (different friend slipped and cut head),
etc. Soon there will be handrails the entire length of the trails. And
better ban all rock climbing, even the experts fall and die.

It's this attitude that caused me to decide to NOT evacuate if a wildfire
caused them to issue evacuation orders. It's not about saving my house (and
I believe I am equipped to do so) but about not being allowed to return for
one to two weeks after the fire is OUT.

AsABat



----- Original Message -----
From: pct-l-request at backcountry.net
Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:48 am
Subject: Pct-l Digest, Vol 28, Issue 73
To: pct-l at backcountry.net

> Send Pct-l mailing list submissions to
> 	pct-l at backcountry.net
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	pct-l-request at backcountry.net
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	pct-l-owner at backcountry.net
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Pct-l digest..."
>