Lessons from a wildfire

Older houses built before modern fire standards are one thing but when multi million dollar homes that were purposely built with every fire avoiding strategy (built from concrete and steel) still "burn" to the ground, it makes me wonder if there's anything that can be done.

I'm sure every scenario is a bit different.

*not burn, but structural failure due to heat/fire, which functionally gives about the same result...
Landscaping plays a huge role. Building setbacks for trees and shrubs, rock landscaping, low flammability plantings help a lot, but where this fire is, it's old houses stacked next to each other, much of it on hillsides, yards full of bushes and small trees. The undeveloped open space areas are covered in dry brush.
 
LA isn’t exactly mismanaging a poorly thinned national forest. For those making those comments, I’m curious what specific thinning or other management activities were missing in the Palisades area (note: honest ask since I don’t know the area specifically but generically I don’t see southern CA bone dry chaparral as equivalent to pine or fir forests).

I do think we should all expect to see our insurance go up. We can point fingers at who should have done what when, but as of today I think an expectation for low cost insurance is out the window for many many parts of the country…it’s a for profit business after all.
 
The area I elk hunt they hire logging companies to cut and pile the trees, then burn dozens of massive piles in the winter. You could literally heat hundreds of homes all winter with them, and that one small area on one mountain range.
I think it would be pretty easy to hold a company liable for trash left behind.
One would think it should be easy but I can tell you, as someone who deals with contractors, getting them to come back and do things is a giant pain. We had contractors walking away from retainage payments because they could go to the next job and make more money.

I dont deal with the environment side but I can tell you that one reason we like to contract out as much as possible is because it is far easier to deal with one company for the good and bad. In your case, it is probably far far easier to contract logging company to cut the trees than it would be to allow every Tom, Dick and/or Harry to go cut the trees. Simply from an enforcement and monitoring stand point. With contracts, you can set the rules and if the rules arent followed, its one person to point the finger at. If you open it up, even with rules, who do you blame if they arent followed?

I would be curious to know why they pile and burn it versus allowing a logging company to sell it. Just to clarify, are they burning everything cut or are they just piling and burning slash?

Not saying its right, not saying its the way that it should be done but sometimes, and more times than not, people are their own worst enemies.
 
Last edited:
LA isn’t exactly mismanaging a poorly thinned national forest. For those making those comments, I’m curious what specific thinning or other management activities were missing in the Palisades area (note: honest ask since I don’t know the area specifically but generically I don’t see southern CA bone dry chaparral as equivalent to pine or fir forests).

I do think we should all expect to see our insurance go up. We can point fingers at who should have done what when, but as of today I think an expectation for low cost insurance is out the window for many many parts of the country…it’s a for profit business after all.


Yeah this is a tangential point…fire is racing through developed areas, not stands of forests. This is where I think a place like Boise is vulnerable…a fire makes it to these developed hillsides, wind pushes the fire from house to house and you have hundreds of hotspots that are impossible to contain. The videos of the wind and it literally feeding and spreading those flames is terrifying.
 
I would guess that its primarily the roads that are required to do so.

I am not anti logging at all but holy crap, I really wish that the logging companies would be held responsible for the crap they leave. Maybe its just the one area that I use to hunt but it was logged 10-15 years ago. The amount of tires, batteries, and other trash from equipment that was left there is disgusting. Most of it is less than 100 yards from the road used to access the cut.
My favorite thing to find is one of the many snapped rusty steel cables hiding in the tall grass.
 
My favorite thing to find is one of the many snapped rusty steel cables hiding in the tall grass.
Barbed wire like that is another favorite.

I wish this area was State ground as I think it would be easier to get them to open the gate and let a group go in and clean it up for a day. I might have to look into it. It would be a good project for a handful of dudes to get some service hours for Dedicated Hunter.
 
Last edited:
Yeah this is a tangential point…fire is racing through developed areas, not stands of forests. This is where I think a place like Boise is vulnerable…a fire makes it to these developed hillsides, wind pushes the fire from house to house and you have hundreds of hotspots that are impossible to contain. The videos of the wind and it literally feeding and spreading those flames is terrifying.
I agree. The “City of Trees” is great until we have a bad drought year, some high winds, and another moron that thinks 4th fireworks fired over dry grass in the foothills is some sort of God given birthright.
 
Just wait till a atmospheric river hits California and mud slides start pushing those multi million dollar homes into the ocean, California is the ultimate disaster zone a real “ catch 22” state , remove the vegetation and mud will carry off the homes that are built in places only fools will build houses on
Hopefully the insurance companies will stop paying for foolishness
I see loads of Californians moving to Texas and building homes in the flood zones it’s ridiculous
 
I enjoy talking with homeowners in interesting places - one area of northern cali that has been hit hard has a lot of brush even if you’re not in the trees, and a lot of people in the trees. I ask them every chance I get if they worry about fires and if it makes them want to clear out brush and thin trees. After a few dozen homeowners, it’s always the same story - they moved there to be in the trees, or in the middle of brush. They won’t reduce fuel on their own property and sure as hell don’t want the Forest Service or BLM killing brush or removing trees. Lol
That's my in-laws stance as well. They've lived in the same place for decades. At the end of 2 mile long private drive, tucked into a fairly tight draw with 3'+ dbh yellowpines around their house and property. At the ground level is hawthorn so thick you can't see the ground. I've offered to come in and clear their property and they turned me down every time. They've been told by the FS (they border FS ground) that they won't even bother trying to save their place. It's indefensible.
 
I live in Sierra Madre and we are under mandatory evacuation. I stayed to protect my property. Fire is 4 blocks north of me so I feel pretty safe. The wind is down for now but coming back tonight. I have a transfer switch on my electrical panel and running my generator. Being a small town the police know me and leave me alone. Devastating what's happening around here for sure.. I've been through 4 of these over the years.
 
That's my in-laws stance as well. They've lived in the same place for decades. At the end of 2 mile long private drive, tucked into a fairly tight draw with 3'+ dbh yellowpines around their house and property. At the ground level is hawthorn so thick you can't see the ground. I've offered to come in and clear their property and they turned me down every time. They've been told by the FS (they border FS ground) that they won't even bother trying to save their place. It's indefensible.
That is kind of how our family cabin is. If a fire ripped through, there would be nothing one could do to stop it. Short of cutting down every tree but that would defeat the purpose of where our cabin was built. It really does come down to the risk you run for certain things.
 
LA isn’t exactly mismanaging a poorly thinned national forest. For those making those comments, I’m curious what specific thinning or other management activities were missing in the Palisades area (note: honest ask since I don’t know the area specifically but generically I don’t see southern CA bone dry chaparral as equivalent to pine or fir forests).

I do think we should all expect to see our insurance go up. We can point fingers at who should have done what when, but as of today I think an expectation for low cost insurance is out the window for many many parts of the country…it’s a for profit business after all.
yah there is no forest there.. this is just flat out an urban fire in mixed urban chaparral. the stupid comments people are making about the lack water is ridiculous too. the water is there. the reservoirs are full. it was an infrastructure proplem of trying to fight 10,000 house fires all at once. there is not a community anywhere in the world that could support the water demand for that.
 
I predict the next place this happens is the East Bay, Concord, Black Hawk, Lafayette, Castro Valley, Hayward, Milpitis area. There are thousands of homes in there and everyone of them is surrounded by oaks, grass, chaparral. It will go up in flames again. The Oakland hills fire will look like a picnic BBQ compared to what happens in this area.
 
Mayor was in Africa prior to and at the start of the fires.
Cut the FD budget by 17 million.
Fire this size, not sure what the fire dept can do.
I ran a few big brush fires in my day. Nothing even close to this. Best you can do is try and cut off and pray for a lot of rain.
 
Back
Top