Firefighter Blog

The story of the Baker Family in Anakie Australia written by the L.A. Times paints a realistic picture of what confronts residents who choose to stay and fight approaching wildfires.

Clearly here in the U.S. we are entering a new era where federal firefighters are backing away from directly attacking wildfires. Firefighter safety is cited as the main reason but whatever the reason it's becoming clear homeowners will be forced to begin taking matters into their own hands.

Cal Fire has a homeowner education program called "Why 100 Feet?". They offer videos and PDF's to help urban-rural interface dwellers comply with state fire ordinances. Maintaining a defensible space is not voluntary.

Aussie pragmatism guides their decision to stay. There are generally more homes at risk than responding fire equipment. The article points out how the Bakers took part in training. Their property had been cleared and they had a plan. The decision to stay saved their property.

Similarly properties in Big Sur and the Tassajara compound were saved by homeowners and residents during the 160,000 acre Basin Complex Fire earlier this summer. These were properties given up on by Fed. firefighters.

Stay or go? Many seasoned firefighters frown on the "stay" side of the debate. I'm on the stay side as long as rural homeowners cleared their property, have a plan and own the equipment necessary to defend their homes.

In the next few weeks I'll post a checklist of equipment necessary to mount a defense.

As a disclaimer I want to point out the obvious. If the local Sheriff or fire department tells you to leave, then grab your important documents and photos and leave.
Though I fall on the side of staying that option is not a hard and fast rule.

Labels: Defensible space