Hunting outfitter settles with USFS for starting wildfire

[def90]

Hadn't heard of this being an issue until now. Apparently the Cow Creek Wildfire was determined to have started via a wood stove in a wall tent that didn't have a spark arrestor. The Jackson Oufitters is to pay $500k, in return they do not admit any liability in the matter.

https://kdvr.com/news/local/hunting-outfitter-to-pay-500k-to-resolve-allegations-of-fault-in-wildfire-ignition/

"According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Cow Creek Fire started at Green Mountain Camp when embers and other materials exited a wood-burning stove’s stovepipe and landed on dry vegetation, which ignited. The U.S. Attorney’s Office alleged that Jackson Outfitters failed to ensure the wood-burning stove had a functional and properly installed spark arrestor.

The U.S. alleged that at the time the fire started, the Green Mountain Camp had a party there who had booked a self-guided elk hunt. Jackson Outfitters operates its business in the national forest under a special use permit, which says the outfitting company “has an affirmative duty to protect the land, property, and other interests of the United States—including fire suppression costs—from damage,” according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado."

Some archive news reports:

Cow Creek Fire Archives - Wildfire Today

wildfiretoday.com

Another article I found on it:

Feds: Hunters ignited 2019 Cow Creek Fire

Findings from an investigation into the 2019 Cow Creek Fire have implicated a local outfitter. The investigation claims that the fire was caused by an improvised and improperly installed spark arrestor at a hunting camp run by the outfitter. The owner of the company disputes the findings.

www.kkco11news.com

 

[robby denning]

500K$!!!

ouch.

Do you think the Outfitters insurance pays that?

Ouch!!!

 

[deltadukman]

I'm not sure about insurance. On one hand, the $500,000 seems like an insurance settlement, however, how does insurance settle if they don't admit liability. The basis of an insurance settlement is admitting negligence.

 

[TaperPin]

It will probably go out of business and reappear as a different LLC. Barely a slap on the wrist if it was set up by a good attorney. One LLC will be responsible for operations, a separate LLC will own all the property, one will handle payroll, and even with a judgement there’s no assets in the operations LLC to squeeze money out of.

I worked for a family who owned a number of bars and a construction company - when remodeling the kitchen of the family’s attorney he explained how a properly set up group of LLC companies are essentially judgement proof.

 

[Bubblehide]

500K$!!!

ouch.

Do you think the Outfitters insurance pays that?

Ouch!!!

Nope, neglect is generally a valid reason for insurance companies to not cover/pay an incident.

 

[robby denning]

Nope, neglect is generally a valid reason for insurance companies to not cover/pay an incident.

double ouch!

But I saw your post @TaperPin so if they're taking hunters next year, we'll know what happened.

 

[Beendare]

Accountability........good concept.

Let's hope the settlement holds the company and the owner personally liable.

 

[ThunderJack49]

Personally, I don’t like these policies. Financially crushing someone or someone’s business from an accident doesn’t sit well with me. Seems like a racket.
The agencies would fight that fire regardless of how it started.

 

[ckleeves]

The whole thing is insane if you ask me. The firefighting effort was hilarious, I mean cutting down random massive trees right next to a 200 yard wide open river bottom without any vegetation is useful and all but It’s not hard to spot bored workers doing busy work and seeing who can slay the biggest pondo.

It was a drop camp so I feel like they went a little overboard on someone who wasn’t present . Going to make a bunch of dropcamp outfitters a little nervous going forward. Not having a spark arrestor is stupid on the outfitters part but I also feel like the hunters should have spoken up asap on that. It’s common sense.

 

[TaperPin]

double ouch!

But I saw your post @TaperPin so if they're taking hunters next year, we'll know what happened.

Their license number is associated with Cow Creek Outfitters, not Jackson Outfitters. It would be interesting to know if the liability goes to the license holder, or to the shell corporation.

Sounds like one of those cases where they won just to prove a point and scare outfitters. The Forest Service has never been known to be an aggressive collector of fire expenses.

 

[robby denning]

Their license number is associated with Cow Creek Outfitters, not Jackson Outfitters. It would be interesting to know if the liability goes to the license holder, or to the shell corporation.

Sounds like one of those cases where they won just to prove a point and scare outfitters. The Forest Service has never been known to be an aggressive collector of fire expenses.

sure, but I'll be double checking my spark arrestor next year.

 

[def90]

Personally, I don’t like these policies. Financially crushing someone or someone’s business from an accident doesn’t sit well with me. Seems like a racket.
The agencies would fight that fire regardless of how it started.

Well in this case it comes down to negligence vs accident. Might also be a bit of "if the outfitter had cooperated from the beginning vs they hid or made things difficult".

Adding that the outfitter relied on the hunting party to install the spark arrestor rather than just doing it themselves in the correct manner. Could have done it in less time than it took them to explain it to the hunting group.

 

[Bubblehide]

sure, but I'll be double checking my spark arrestor next year.

I use an inline and mesh around my covered cap; mesh that exceeds the FS requirements. Granted I have to keep them clean, but it's no big deal. After this I'd be surprised if outfitters don't start using 2, or carry spares.

 

[robby denning]

I use an inline and mesh around my covered cap; mesh that exceeds the FS requirements. Granted I have to keep them clean, but it's no big deal. After this I'd be surprised if outfitters don't start using 2, or carry spares.

mine is the Seek Outside stove. I'd estimate my mesh squares are 1/8". Is that tight enough?

 

[Bubblehide]

mine is the Seek Outside stove. I'd estimate my mesh squares are 1/8". Is that tight enough?

Honestly, I forget what the FS requirement actualy is, as I bought a roll of it when I did a few caps. I still have the roll in my garage, about 3/4 full. Based on what I have, 1/8 is slightly larger than the diamond mesh (at the widest point) I have. I'd bet yours slightly exceeds the FS requirements. But perhaps we both should look it up to be sure we're current and compliant.

 

[Bubblehide]

Just looked it up, 1/4 inch mesh, which is what I was thinking, but I did not want to put my foot in my mouth.