5 ms·

See also: https://lhc.ca.gov/report/fire-mountain-rethinking-forest-management-sierra-nevada https://lhc.ca.gov/report/fire-mountain-rethinking-forest-ma... t

See also: https://lhc.ca.gov/report/fire-mountain-rethinking-forest-management-sierra-nevada https://lhc.ca.gov/report/fire-mountain-rethinking-forest-ma... tl;dr: state and federal officials have actually been thinking about most of the contents of the article for a while, there are intermediate political/resource/coordination problems to solve.

sbierwagen 5y ago
Sure, planned burns. The big political problem is this: a planned burn is started. It hops a firebreak and incinerates a retirement home, killing a hundred grandmas. Who's responsible? If you want to have a functional planned burn program, the answer must be: nobody. Everyone shrugs and says oh well, no wrongful death lawsuits are filed, and life insurance companies are prevented from clawing back payouts from the state. But if the state is at fault for property loss or death resulting from planned burns, you will get exactly what we've got right now: no planned burns. I the political will isn't there for California, and I can't really imagine any circumstance where it would be, unless a wildfire someone wipes out all of LA.
- wwweston 5y ago
  Yeah, the way planned burns make people anxious and provoke questions about unintended consequences is a pretty good example of a political problem with implementing something officials have known is generally good policy for a while. That said, there are certainly other areas in which the law has come down on the side of limited-to-no liability for officials acting within certain bounds of reason/propriety in their capacities of office, so it's not exactly unheard of.
- jdavis703 5y ago
  Who’s responsible? The fire department obviously will have committed manslaughter. But also clearly the nursing home management has some responsibility here because they failed to evacuate after an evacuation was ordered.
  - vkou 5y ago
    > Who’s responsible? The fire department obviously will have committed manslaughter. Which is why prescribed burns won't happen. Nobody wants the liability.
    - TigeriusKirk 5y ago
      Make them liable for fires in poorly maintained forests and watch the prescribed burns happen very quickly.
      - fiddlerwoaroof 5y ago
        Or no one will sign up
      - jdavis703 5y ago
        Who is “them?” The taxpayers? I don’t see anyone who’s not in the WUI going for this.
  - jefftk 5y ago
    > The fire department obviously will have committed manslaughter. This isn't obvious, and it's not the only way to set up policy here. If you have an area with enormous built-up fuel, you could choose to treat it as something that is going to burn at some point instead of trying to set up incentives so that no one sets it off. More: https://www.jefftk.com/p/fire-law-incentives https://www.jefftk.com/p/fire-law-incentives
- femto 5y ago
  Here's a case study. The solution was: cover it up. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/the-bushfire-investigation-the-government-wants-to-stay-secret-20210621-p582tt.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/the-bushfire-investigati...

sbierwagen 5y ago

Sure, planned burns. The big political problem is this: a planned burn is started. It hops a firebreak and incinerates a retirement home, killing a hundred grandmas. Who's responsible? If you want to have a functional planned burn program, the answer must be: nobody. Everyone shrugs and says oh well, no wrongful death lawsuits are filed, and life insurance companies are prevented from clawing back payouts from the state. But if the state is at fault for property loss or death resulting from planned burns, you will get exactly what we've got right now: no planned burns. I the political will isn't there for California, and I can't really imagine any circumstance where it would be, unless a wildfire someone wipes out all of LA.

wwweston 5y ago
Yeah, the way planned burns make people anxious and provoke questions about unintended consequences is a pretty good example of a political problem with implementing something officials have known is generally good policy for a while. That said, there are certainly other areas in which the law has come down on the side of limited-to-no liability for officials acting within certain bounds of reason/propriety in their capacities of office, so it's not exactly unheard of.
jdavis703 5y ago
Who’s responsible? The fire department obviously will have committed manslaughter. But also clearly the nursing home management has some responsibility here because they failed to evacuate after an evacuation was ordered.
- vkou 5y ago
  > Who’s responsible? The fire department obviously will have committed manslaughter. Which is why prescribed burns won't happen. Nobody wants the liability.
  - TigeriusKirk 5y ago
    Make them liable for fires in poorly maintained forests and watch the prescribed burns happen very quickly.
    - fiddlerwoaroof 5y ago
      Or no one will sign up
    - jdavis703 5y ago
      Who is “them?” The taxpayers? I don’t see anyone who’s not in the WUI going for this.
- jefftk 5y ago
  > The fire department obviously will have committed manslaughter. This isn't obvious, and it's not the only way to set up policy here. If you have an area with enormous built-up fuel, you could choose to treat it as something that is going to burn at some point instead of trying to set up incentives so that no one sets it off. More: https://www.jefftk.com/p/fire-law-incentives https://www.jefftk.com/p/fire-law-incentives
femto 5y ago
Here's a case study. The solution was: cover it up. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/the-bushfire-investigation-the-government-wants-to-stay-secret-20210621-p582tt.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/the-bushfire-investigati...