“Fire, water and government know nothing of mercy.” – anon
An interesting article in
USBerkelyNews asks the question,
Should California consider Australia's wildfire policy?
The policy in Australia is “prepare, stay and defend, or leave early”.
The policy in California is “evacuate (often last minute) and let the government protect your house”.
Neither policy is perfect. The California mandatory evacuation plan has not reduced property loss and may in fact increase the number of deaths. Evidence from 71 Australian fire deaths in 1983 showed that “late evacuation is dangerous; while deaths did occur inside houses, twice as many deaths occurred in vehicles or out in the open. This evidence has led to the Australasian Fire Authorities Council catch-phrase, ‘houses protect people, and people protect houses.’”
The Australian plan has worked well for 60 years but failed this February when a massive wildfire grew too big for people who stayed in their homes. 210 people died, 1,800 homes were destroyed, and 1,500 square miles of land scorched. Experts are studying the situation to learn what went wrong with an otherwise sensible and successful policy.
“The key element of Australia’s policy is to train willing home-owners to protect their homes in an active wildfire; what the Australian strategy does is actively engage and help home-owners to become part of the solution rather than just needing to be evacuated.”
“The Australian approach is different from what many call ‘shelter-in-place.’ There is active participation from the homeowners before and possibly during a fire… Residents are involved in reducing the vulnerability of their homes through such activities as clearing dangerous vegetation around their property or installing ember-blocking screens for their attic vents … In the process, they become more aware of the risks of living in an urban-wildland interface, and both homes and people are better prepared to handle fires when they inevitably occur.”
The Australian plan is not for everybody and is dangerous if embraced without training. It would not work well in areas with a high number of part-year vacation homes. “Giving homeowners the option of staying home during a wildfire can be deadly if done incorrectly and without adequate preparation. It would take just one terrible instance of a family getting killed because they were trying to save their homes for the policy to be abandoned.”
Australians get special annual training to protect their house and are equipped with appropriate supplies such as hoses, radios, and protective clothing. “The noise alone of a wildfire front is phenomenal. Then the sun goes away, and the sky goes dark. It’s haunting, and people need to understand that before they sign up for this.”
BOTTOM LINE If the front of the wildfire reaches the home, residents are instructed to shelter inside as the flames burn past. This is a smart strategy even for those who may intend to evacuate early but can’t because of the speed of the fire’s advance, the researchers say. “Chances of survival are significantly greater inside the home than outside in a car when the fire’s front is upon you.”
Labels: Fire, Government, Home Safety, Wildfire
