O/T California fires

Here we go again a lot of southern Calif is burning. Last year thousand homes burned near where I live. Several fires burning around LA. Several hundred homes burned already. I make my living making fire breakes on vaccent properities, and around homes. The fire depts.has inspectors who notify land owners of the problem. The land owners contact myself, or others to cut the weeds, by mowing, or discing. Here is the problem I have. The envioremental groups have made it so hard to clear land because of some bird, or frog or fly. All the land owners can clear is 100 ft. from structures. The last 50 ft thinned only. When there is a 80 mi plus wind blowing a fire 100 ft just isn't going to do it. Maybe they learn something this time? then that is what I said last year. stan

Just mabey it all should be left to the birds in cailf. but then the rest of us in the usa would have even more prob.

What rules do you live by down there? Up north I have never heard of those restrictions, and I am on a Fire Dept. 100 feet cleared and 50 feet thinned ? You have to be making that up. Please tell, who regulates that ?

state forestry any office will give you the rules and reg. which fire dept. are you with? ralph

My boss and I were just talking about that. From two professional engineers...you are right, Stan. Its out of hand now and seems to just get worst too.

CDF dosen't have any rule like that. Public Resource Code 4291 has been changed and the defensable space is now 100 feet, minium, not maximum. It used to be 30 feet. CDF recommends an additional 70 feet of thining. Nothing by the California Dept of Forestory or the PRC restirct a property owner to a 100 foot space. Perhaps if you are clearing on State land they may say something, I don't know. If the restriction was to protect birds, frogs and flys it would be an Endangered Species Act issue enforced by US Fish and Wildlife Service of the State Dept of Fish and Game. If someone from CDF told you not to exceed 100 feet, because of birds, frogs or flys, go talk to his supervisor.

Vegetation management is certainly part of the puzzle.

We also have to attack the 911 mentality -- we criticize New Orleans for falling apart while admiring Iowans bucked up to the challenge of this year's floods.

Well, a lot of California's problem it seems to me is a dependency / expectation for the government to do it all for their citizens -- flee! flee!, we'll try and make it look like we're protecting your property...

I really admire the movement in Australia now called Leave Early or Stay and Defend for houses with very similiar fire problems. Basically, either get out of dodge at the first sign of trouble if you're elderly, poor health, etc...but if you are able bodied stay and defend your house.

http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/dsp_content.cfm?cat_id=1214

Most of the homes you see burning in California wouldn't had they been properly prepped to keep embers out, and the homeowners were minimally trained, equipped, and stayed around to come out after the flame front passed to knock down any small fires before they grew into big fires.

I'd of thought that by now all the loose burnables would of been burnt up ? Seems like they have had alot of fires ? California must be a pretty big place.

Burn out houses, owners move into one in foreclosure, market balances, recession ends-- maybe it's a conspiracy to balance housing market in California? Eucalyptus trees a minor problem when fires start, lack of woodstoves to glean downed branches and brush that burn in next fire. French and Spanish fires a couple years back noted the use of gas stoves instead of wood burners in country had let slash and brush pile up to fuel their trouble fires during dry spell. California in future may have whole state on fire after big quake hits. RN

Matt, I would be fasinated why you think people in California are more dependent on government services that anyone else. Since prop 13 government services are spread thin and in fact California is on the lower end of state spending per person. A part of the problem is that most of those big wildfires involve BLM or National Park land, and states can't collect taxes on federal land. Still the states and counties have to provide much of the services like fire and law enforcement for that land. How much BLM land does CT have to provide services to?

I wonder how many houses would burn if the owners or builders would do the plantings far enough away from the houses so they cannot set the house on fire if they burn, and also if the roofs were made of materials that either will not burn, or are very hard to get to burn.

Sheet metal roofs, if installed correctly, will protect a house very well unless the metal is covered with flammable materials like pine needles. Even cheap 3 tab composition roofs do pretty well if they are clean and have sufficient slope. The tile roofs that are so popular in the Southwest might be OK, but I would be somewhat concerned about embers being able to blow up under the curved tiles and setting the wood structure on fire underneath.

If I lived in one of those areas that are so susceptible to fires, I would build my house with a sheet metal roof, probably stucco covered walls, concrete or other nonflammable decks and walkways, and no vegetation close to the house. I would also have things set up so it was possible to close the air entry to the attic and would have shutters on the windows I could close up. If I had a swimming pool, I would have it set up so I could pump the water out of it to fight fire using a generator, since the power would probably go off if there was a major fire. My guess is that such a house would survive even if a fire went through the area.

You would think that the powers that be would require at least some of the above design features in the vulnerable areas. Education should be the first step and then people would make their largest investments a whole lot more secure. I also think the insurance companies should inspect what they are going to insure, and charge according to how vulnerable a property is.

Like anywhere else, homes MUST be adapted to the local conditions. That area is more or less a desert most of the time, and the hot winds are going to occur. It is dumb to not be prepared.

New Handle has pretty much covered my thinking on how to build in a fire prone area. I would add that I would want concrete block walls, filled with insulation and stuccoed for appearance, with metal framing for the walls and roof support. Definately a metal or tile roof.

Then for protection MAYBE from landslides that are to come in the burned off area when the rain comes I would have a well drilling machine drill holes for a deep concrete foundation. House would be expensive but it might be there a while. Don't know what to do in preparing for earthquakes.

Sure feel sorry for the folks out there, however.

KEH

Anyway Stan, if some agency person in California is hurting your disc/mowing business in a fire prone area, claiming birds, frogs and flys are the problem, open up you email, I think I can help. I can cut through red tape like sunlight wipes out vampires.

I gotta agree with you Stan, if Cal won't clear the land (maintain it) and require homes be built of concrete or steel products that's not easily fire damaged, it's pretty hard too feel sorry for those people who choose too live there with stick homes that burn like kindling.

Just about like building homes that are 10ft below sea level.

Just don't make any since too me at all. Duh!!!

T_Bone