Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 35 of 35
  1. #21
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    You are the one that somehow dragged the topic of searching structures into a thread about firefighters being burned in a brush fire.

    How the two are connected I have no idea.

    There is a great difference between a risk being taken to protect structures in a brush fire situation and searching buildings that in 9.95 cases out of 10 will be empty.

    The risk/reward is here high in a wind-driven wildland situation. The risk/reward here is extremly low when operating in abandoned structures.

    If you spent any time in this environment, you would understand that.
    And if you spent any time in the urban enviornment, you would understand that the term "vacant" or "abandoned" has very little accuracy.

    In this country, what is the percentage of grass fires that result in civilian fatalities?

    I would be certain that it is significantly lower than the percentage of allegedly vacant building fires that result in civilian fatalities.

    Despite what the sheriff tells you.....


  2. #22
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,533

    Default

    And if you spent any time in the urban enviornment, you would understand that the term "vacant" or "abandoned" has very little accuracy.

    In this country, what is the percentage of grass fires that result in civilian fatalities?

    I would be certain that it is significantly lower than the percentage of allegedly vacant building fires that result in civilian fatalities
    .

    That's your environment. And quite honestly, how accurate those terms are in those environments don't make a damn bit of difference to me. I have never argued that.

    In my environment, they are very accurate terms, and that's all that matters to me. I'm not in the urban environment. What happens there has absolutely no bearing on how we do business in the rural environoment. It's honestly that simple.

    There were folks that attempted to tell me how important their urban experiences were and how our operations were wrong because it didn't match what they were seeing in the cities. We don't need into buy into that urban "we got to search everything" b******t because that ain't the reality here. And never will be.

    As far as the difference between deaths in vacants and deaths in brush fires, when you present some data, we'll discuss it. That data will exclude folks that were already dead before they were dumped in the vacants, of course.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 02-04-2009 at 08:30 PM.

  3. #23
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And if you spent any time in the urban enviornment, you would understand that the term "vacant" or "abandoned" has very little accuracy.

    In this country, what is the percentage of grass fires that result in civilian fatalities?

    I would be certain that it is significantly lower than the percentage of allegedly vacant building fires that result in civilian fatalities
    .

    That's your environment. And quite honestly, how accurate those terms are in those environments don't make a damn bit of difference to me. I have never argued that.

    In my environment, they are very accurate terms, and that's all that matters to me. I'm not in the urban environment. What happens there has absolutely no bearing on how we do business in the rural environoment. It's honestly that simple.

    There were folks that attempted to tell me how important their urban experiences were and how our operations were wrong because it didn't match what they were seeing in the cities. We don't need into buy into that urban "we got to search everything" b******t because that ain't the reality here. And never will be.

    As far as the difference between deaths in vacants and deaths in brush fires, when you present some data, we'll discuss it. That data will exclude folks that were already dead before they were dumped in the vacants, of course.

    Do you have data on how many civilians were killed in grass fires?

    It is you that stated that the risk/reward is "high" during a "grass fire" and the risk reward in a "vacant" building is low .

    So I just want to know how you are making that claim...unless you value homes more than lives. And quite honestly, based on several things you have said in the past, I am starting to truly believe you do.

    I can assure you that in my city, there has never been a civilian death that resulted from a "grass fire", but there have been plenty of civilians found within allegedly vacant or abandoned buildings. So where I am speaking from, the risk/reward corollary that you speak of is reversed and would make searching these buildings anything but...how did you say it...."bullsh*t".

    The problem I think many of us have with your logis is quite simple:

    When you make sweeping generalizations about what is safe and acceptable and what isn't, you never take into account that most of us don't operate in the rural south and that the structures, life hazards and demographics that many of us deal with make for a much different fire problem than you probably encounter.

    But every time you are challenged on what it is that YOU do, you throw geogpraphy out as an acceptable limitation to what you can and cannot do and then try to broadly define what it is that everyone else should be doing based on that.

    You can't make the argument both ways. It just isn't logical. So if there is something that you want to do and you want to defend it based soley on YOUR geograhpy or YOUR vacant building situation or YOUR demographics or YOUR driving conditions then allow others the same liberties in defending their tactics as they are speaking from THEIR perspective.
    Last edited by jakesdad; 02-04-2009 at 09:13 PM.

  4. #24
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,533

    Default

    jakes ..

    The risk/reward is high only if there are civilians on a very consistent basis in those abandoned structures.

    Here there are not. Never have been. Risk/reward is amazingly low.

    Even when i was up north for the first 25 years of my career, in the communities I served in, the numbers simply didn't justify interior ops in abandoned or vacant structures. The statistics in those areas didn't justify it. Math. Cold and analytical. Plain and simple. Likelihoods and probabilities. If the math didn't justify it, I didn't do it or i would work the change the system so we didn't do it anymore. And that was true for a lot of the crap that we do . The math didn't justify it.

    I would be curious what is the percentage of times that you encounter civilians in abandoned structures. 2%? 5%? 10%?

    Unless it's significantly higher than that, I would still classify your reward as extremly low and the risk as exceedingly high.

    But as I said, and have said many times before, the firefighters you bury performing operations in these structures is your choice and YOUR problem, not mine. It's your choice and it's your men that pay the price, not mine. So it really doesn't affect me one way or the other. You are the ones that have to justify to yourselves, and the widows and children. So again, it's not my problem.

    And I really don't care either. I have very little kinship with urban firefighters and for the most part, they have very little kinship with rural firefighters. It is two different worlds. I care about talking sense into the rural boys who simply have no need to operate, and often don't have the training or experience to operate in abandoned structures, but may be influenced to do so with no real reward by the crap the urban boys are spewing out to them. It is those rural boys I give a damn about and try to protect.

    We choose not to take those risks because the reward simply isn't there. It's really that simple.

    As far as brush fires, in northern LA, northern TX and OK, they represent a significant threat to the rural population. In some places and/or under some conditions, they represent THE major threat to the rural population. So we act accordingly and when fuel and weather conditions allow. We take offensive actions when property is involved. But we operate within a set of pretty defined guidelines as far as defensible space and water supply when we make choices about protecting structures. In the 6 years I have been here we have yet to send anyone to the hospital from a brush fire, so the SOPs we have developed must be working out pretty well.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 02-05-2009 at 07:46 AM.

  5. #25
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    jakes ..

    The risk/reward is high only if there are civilians on a very consistent basis in those abandoned structures.

    Here there are not. Never have been. Risk/reward is amazingly low.

    I would be curious what is the percentage of times that you encounter civilians in abandoned structures. 2%? 5%? 10%?

    Unless it's significantly higher than that, I would still classify your reward as extremly low and the risk as exceedingly high.

    But as I said, and have said many times before, the firefighters you bury performing operations in these structures is YOUR problem, not mine. It's your choice and it's your men that pay the price, not mine. So it really doesn't affect me one way or the other. You are the ones that have to justify to yourselves, and the widows and children. So again, it's not my problem.

    We choose not to take those risks because the reward simply isn't there. It's really that simple.

    As far as brush fires, in northern LA, northern TX and OK, they represent a significant threat to the rural population. In some places and/or under some conditions, they represent THE major threat to the rural population. So we act accordingly and when fuel and weather conditions allow. We take offensive actions when property is involved. But we operate within a set of pretty defined guidelines as far as defensible space and water supply when we make choices about protecting structures. In the 6 years I have been here we have yet to send anyone to the hospital from a brush fire, so the SOPs we have developed must be working out pretty well.
    I will ask you again, what percentage of "grass fires" result in a loss of civilian lives?

    If the chances or finding someone within a vacant building sits at 1%, then that risk is worth taking in the eyes of most firefighters in most departments. Buildings with fire conditions that allow a search get searched. Conversely, if you don't want to search them, perhaps you should find another calling. There are many other things to do with your time.

    But please spare us the rhetoric about sending "our" firefighters to the hospital or injuring "our" men. Does a civilian inside a vacant building deserve to die simply because he is inside a vacant building while you justify placing people in harms way over "burning grass"?

    You place very little value on human life, other then your own of course.

    And you are actually trying to make a case that saving structures is a higher "reward" for the risk than searching for occupants. I have been to the south. Believe it or not, the people down there are every bit as valuable as in other parts of the country.

    Just ask the sheriff. Or does he also like to choose who is worth looking for and who isn't?

  6. #26
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,533

    Default

    If I have some time today, I'll do some research about the number of people killed out west in wildfires.

    And I expect you to be able to give a me the number of folks killed in abandoned or vacant structure fires. Not including those who were already dead before the fire started, of course.

    I would bet the number is going to be a whole lot lower than you think.

    I do put value on life. primarily our lives. 1%, IMO, is not enough to justify the risk to our members in buildings of unknown condition and stability. We can't save everyone, and if they choose to act in a risky manner, such as hanging out in a vacant structure or try to burn them down, I don't feel an overwhelming responsibility to try to save them if the risk to OUR members is that substantial.

    We are number 1. Always.

  7. #27
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I do put value on life. primarily our lives. 1%, IMO, is not enough to justify the risk to our members in buildings of unknown condition and stability. We can't save everyone, and if they choose to act in a risky manner, such as hanging out in a vacant structure or try to burn them down, I don't feel an overwhelming responsibility to try to save them if the risk to OUR members is that substantial.

    We are number 1. Always.

    That is what most on here have a problem with.

    You don't feel an "overwhelming responsibility" to anyone other than yourself on most matters.

    The fire service is simply not the place to practice that mentality. Regardless of what state you are in.

    Now not only do you make judgements on who is worth searching for based on whether or not they have smoke detectors, you now also make judgements on who is worth searching for based on someone's "risky behavior"?

  8. #28
    Forum Member nyckftbl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    On a Hill, overlooking George's Kingdom
    Posts
    2,572

    Default

    LA....how many times have you come into threads concerning urban environments and spewed your BS? THAT is the issue here. You give these brothers the benefit of the doubt (as everyone else did)...yet you seem to assume that you know whats going on in OUR urban environments enough to make comments before the f*cking bodies are cold. Heres an idea. Stay out of any threads concerning any large metropolitan FD, until the actual facts come out, or you can bite your hypocritical toungue enough to only allow get well wishes.

    BTW. nice comment about widows and children. Mutt.
    Proud East Coast Traditionalist.

  9. #29
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,533

    Default

    Australia -

    14 confirmed dead. Toll may be as high as 40. In just one day, from brush fires.

    Sorry I didn't have a chance to look up the numbers for the US in the past few years as i was busy at work dealing with ..... brush fires. But maybe yesterday's activity down under may suffice to prove my point.

    Brush fires are a threat to life.

  10. #30
    Forum Member skvfd5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Kalispell, Mt.
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Prayers for a speedy recovery.

    Just wondering how many depts. attack the head of a grass fire that has 20-30' flames from the unburned side? Not bashing these folks just wondering if they need to look at how they fight wildland fires in the future.
    Fight fire aggrressively having provided for Safety first.

  11. #31
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,533

    Default

    High intensity brush fire operations are as risky as structure fire operations, and the risk needs to be measured just as carefully.

    Under these types of conditions, offensive operations should only be used to save lives.

    Property is simply not worth the risk.
    .

  12. #32
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jakesdad View Post
    And if you spent any time in the urban enviornment, you would understand that the term "vacant" or "abandoned" has very little accuracy.

    In this country, what is the percentage of grass fires that result in civilian fatalities?

    I would be certain that it is significantly lower than the percentage of allegedly vacant building fires that result in civilian fatalities.

    Despite what the sheriff tells you.....
    jakesdad
    As far as deaths from wildland fires go, there have been quite a number over the years especially in California. I'm not sure if the fire in Oklahoma was just a grass or prairie fire or wildland although from being there, I would suspect the latter. Right now in Australia, the death toll is well over 100 in Victoria and Queensland states from the worst fire there in recent memory. I have really no idea of any comparison between "occupied" vacant structures and wildland fires but the latter can be extremely devastating.

  13. #33
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLoader View Post
    jakesdad
    As far as deaths from wildland fires go, there have been quite a number over the years especially in California. I'm not sure if the fire in Oklahoma was just a grass or prairie fire or wildland although from being there, I would suspect the latter. Right now in Australia, the death toll is well over 100 in Victoria and Queensland states from the worst fire there in recent memory. I have really no idea of any comparison between "occupied" vacant structures and wildland fires but the latter can be extremely devastating.
    I have never argued that civilians haven't been killed in these types of fires.

    I questioned the percentage of "grass fires" that result in civilian deaths in this country.

    That number is minimal at best.

  14. #34
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,533

    Default

    And I would submit the number of times people have been killed in vacant fires when compared to the total number of structure fires in this country is also minimal.

    I would submit in rural areas, such as ours, the percentage is even less.

    Until we have data, we really can't make a valid comparison.

  15. #35
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jakesdad View Post
    I have never argued that civilians haven't been killed in these types of fires.

    I questioned the percentage of "grass fires" that result in civilian deaths in this country.

    That number is minimal at best.
    It may be semantics here, 2000 acres is in excess of 3 sq miles, this "grass fire" may have encompassed areas with a lot of different growths, Oklahoma can be similar to Victoria area north of Queensland, as far as flora goes. Unless you've been in or close to a big wildfire or grass fire, it might be hard to imagine the speed and damage they can do. A lot of the deaths are the result of loss of oxygen due to the fire sucking it right out of the atmosphere. Some of the people from California can give you more in depth information on this. As is demonstrated in Australia, over 200 dead and more expected. My back to back is from there but his land is far enough away to not be hit yet.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 3 UK Firefighters burned
    By SteveDude in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-25-2008, 01:56 AM
  2. 3 Firefighters Burned in California Blaze
    By coldfront in forum Wildland Firefighting
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-13-2008, 08:25 PM
  3. Rookie firefighters burned at training
    By mtnfireguy in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-03-2006, 06:31 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-21-2003, 06:42 PM
  5. Burned out
    By gonzoff16 in forum Meet and Greet
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 09-02-2001, 10:03 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts