The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
IAFF president slams Calif. 'stay-and-defend' plan
From Firerescue1
http://www.firerescue1.com/fire-news/449011-iaff-president-slams-ca...
LOS ANGELES — If stay-and-defend is the best idea California's fire chiefs can come up with to do a better job containing the state's wildfires, my frustration is exceeded only by my concern for the state's residents. Stay-and-defend — outlined in several Times news articles, most recently in the Jan. 13 story, "Southern California fire chiefs debate stay-and-defend program" — should make people run and hide.
Exploring new ideas to protect Californians from the state's increasing number of wildfires is commendable, but stay-and-defend would be a failure. The program includes asking homeowners to pretend that a government education course on fire risk would provide them sufficient training to protect themselves and their property during a wildfire, thereby requiring fewer professional firefighters to be deployed.
Hearing anyone suggest that homeowners should not get out of harm's way is appalling. Hearing a public safety professional make the suggestion is shameless. Stay-and-defend is clearly a half-baked idea from people who believe that saving money is more important than saving lives.
Further reading is available at the LA Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-schaitberger23-2009jan23...
Hearing anyone suggest that homeowners should not get out of harm's way is appalling. Hearing a public safety professional make the suggestion is shameless. Stay-and-defend is clearly a half-baked idea from people who believe that saving money is more important than saving lives.
Stay-and-defend has had limited success in the Australian bush, where the tactic has been used for some time. But it has also led to disaster, and the homesteader program would not translate to a state as populous as California.
I'm not sure where they're getting their information from, but the stay and defend programs in Australia are far from being a disaster.
Most fatalities are not from the stay and defend- they're from people blindly trying to escape after it's too late and have been caught in firestorms or blindign smoke and crashing their vehicles.
The Australian public is being very clearly taught basic principles that they can adopt to make their home safer (Block downpipes and fill gutters with water, blocking doors, radiant heat safety, etc, etc).
They're also being taught (very clearly and loudly!) that just because you call 000 (Same as the USA 911 system), will not guarantee a big red truck arriving.
They're being taught to evalauate their safety and make an early decision to evacuate or to stay and defend.
Here's a link to some of the information being made available to the public:
http://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/residents/index.htm
Feel free to check it out and make your own, informed decision....
http://www.firerescue1.com/fire-news/449011-iaff-president-slams-ca...
LOS ANGELES — If stay-and-defend is the best idea California's fire chiefs can come up with to do a better job containing the state's wildfires, my frustration is exceeded only by my concern for the state's residents. Stay-and-defend — outlined in several Times news articles, most recently in the Jan. 13 story, "Southern California fire chiefs debate stay-and-defend program" — should make people run and hide.
Exploring new ideas to protect Californians from the state's increasing number of wildfires is commendable, but stay-and-defend would be a failure. The program includes asking homeowners to pretend that a government education course on fire risk would provide them sufficient training to protect themselves and their property during a wildfire, thereby requiring fewer professional firefighters to be deployed.
Hearing anyone suggest that homeowners should not get out of harm's way is appalling. Hearing a public safety professional make the suggestion is shameless. Stay-and-defend is clearly a half-baked idea from people who believe that saving money is more important than saving lives.
Further reading is available at the LA Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-schaitberger23-2009jan23...
Hearing anyone suggest that homeowners should not get out of harm's way is appalling. Hearing a public safety professional make the suggestion is shameless. Stay-and-defend is clearly a half-baked idea from people who believe that saving money is more important than saving lives.
Stay-and-defend has had limited success in the Australian bush, where the tactic has been used for some time. But it has also led to disaster, and the homesteader program would not translate to a state as populous as California.
I'm not sure where they're getting their information from, but the stay and defend programs in Australia are far from being a disaster.
Most fatalities are not from the stay and defend- they're from people blindly trying to escape after it's too late and have been caught in firestorms or blindign smoke and crashing their vehicles.
The Australian public is being very clearly taught basic principles that they can adopt to make their home safer (Block downpipes and fill gutters with water, blocking doors, radiant heat safety, etc, etc).
They're also being taught (very clearly and loudly!) that just because you call 000 (Same as the USA 911 system), will not guarantee a big red truck arriving.
They're being taught to evalauate their safety and make an early decision to evacuate or to stay and defend.
Here's a link to some of the information being made available to the public:
http://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/residents/index.htm
Feel free to check it out and make your own, informed decision....
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Tony P on
-
I'm with you Luke. I went back to the beginning of the thread to see if I'd missed anything, nothing seen. False Alarm Stop?
-
-
Thanks Mike.
Your first photo? I'm with that tanker driver, I'd heading away from that one too!
The urban/wildland interface thing? We have it - but not to the extent that Cal has it. One of our worst experiences with that type of thing was in 2003 when part of our national capital, Canberrra, was hit by a wildfire. I know you've seen a video of that one.
As I've said elsewhere, cute photo of a koala (note, a koala is not a bear...). Looks like the poor thing is licking water from the bottle. It must have been in a bad way, koalas don't drink water, they get all their moisture from the leaves they eat. Poor thing doesn't look to have been burnt, which is a plus.
-
Permalink Reply by Mick Mayers on
-
G'day, Tony- Sorry, I didn't see your question until reviewing some threads today. I was there in November 2002. When referring to the "Christmas Fires", that's what everyone was calling that bad Christmas 2001 series in NSW and QLD and so I never paid it much mind. I guess when you all have as many fires as you do, maybe you should give them ladies' names, like we do with hurricanes ;) except that now we are having to re-use the names.
Mick
-
-
Well Mick, I should have kept my big mouth shut shouldn't I? Seeing as February gave us the worst fires in State history. But at least I had a good guess about you having been in NSW for the 'Christmas' fires! Saturday the 8th Feb 2009 is now being known as 'Black Saturday' - I simply call it 'Shit Saturday'.
Give our bad seasons female/male names as with tropical circular storms? I hope we never have enough bad seasons to need to do that!!!
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
