Report of trouble with landowners on the Tepee Springs Fire in Idaho

(UPDATE, October 1, 2015: we further analyzed this incident in a new article, including additional information.)

According to a report filed on SAFENET, a private landowner in Idaho armed with a weapon aggressively accosted firefighters and interfered with fire suppression operations in several other ways. Law enforcement officers had to be called more than once and two hot shot crews refused an assignment ordered by the incident commander.

This occurred on the Tepee Springs Fire which is three miles east of Riggins, Idaho on the Payette National Forest. As of September 24, 2015 the fire has burned over 95,000 acres.

The “event start date” in the report was September 2, 2015 but the harassment apparently occurred over multiple days.

Records show that the Great Basin Incident Management Team #2, led by Incident Commander Chris Ourada, was assigned to the fire from August 28 until September 12, 2015.

It is not clear what person or position on the fire filed the report. This may be just one side of the story, but we will be interested to see if the charges in the report hold up, and what corrective actions will be taken, if there is a need for any, other than “[we are] looking in to this matter”, and “thank you”.

Below is the Narrative from the report. Following that is the “Immediate Action Taken”, and the “Corrective Actions”.

****

Narrative:

On Division Delta on the Tepee Springs fire a “turn down” of assignment occurred where two IHC’s refused an assignment due to numerous safety concerns that were not mitigated. These safety concerns will be addressed below. The IC of the incident responded to this turn down by stating “I am the boss, you work for me and you will do what I say. And I am saying go in there and go direct!” In response to this the crews still refused the assignment and were sent to another division the following day and remained on those divisions for the remainder of the assignment.

Division Delta on the Tepee Springs fire featured large tracts of private land mixed with State, Forest Service, and BLM land. A large elk ranch lay in the middle of the division and was the epicenter of the issues. The land owners, on multiple occasions expressed frustration towards fire fighters with their suppression actions which ranged from verbal threats to aggressive posturing. LEO’s were called on multiple occasions and the incident eventually resulted in two of the land owners verbally accosting a BLM employee while armed with a weapon. The land owners made multiple unsafe demands to fire fighters such as downhill line construction in extremely rugged terrain with fire below them, attempting burnouts on mid-slope dozer lines with no escape routes or safety zones, and to drop water from helicopters with personnel in the work zone (the land owners).

During at least one documented occasion the land owners took it upon themselves to attempt a burnout and began igniting fire below crews without any communication or warning. Crews had to be pulled to safe areas during this. Other unsafe suppression actions by the land owners were extremely fast driving, attacking fires at the head, felling trees in the middle of crews, and operating dozers on federal and state land with no communication with fire resources. In addition to the ill-advised suppression actions their continued harassment of fire line personnel in an attempt to force their own initiatives distracted important leaders from their primary jobs of managing people as well as the entire division and the fire as a whole.

These issues were brought to the land owner’s attention and were met with little to no regard for fire fighters safety as long as we stop the fire where it was at. On countless occasions attempts were made to explain the reasons behind our tactics and the safety guidelines that we operate under. The issues with the land owners were passed up the chain of command on multiple occasions.

The night of the armed verbal assault by the land owners the entire division was evacuated and night resources were instructed to not enter the area. The decision was made by Operations, Branch, and DIVS that no personnel would be re-engaged on the division due to the escalating violent behavior shown by the land owners. Government equipment and supplies would be retrieved under LEO escort at a later time and no personnel would be exposed to the serious safety issues present. In the meantime, the IC met with the landowners regarding suppression activities on their property and the adjacent land. The IC was joined by the IC (T), Branch I, and the Liaison officer as well as local law enforcement. The IC did not request to speak to any of the agency individuals involved in the incidents of the prior days, but rather told the land owner that four hotshot crews would put in a “check line” on their property less than 24 hours after the owners assaulted an employee while armed with a pistol. He also made this promise without including Operations, who was still under the understanding that the division would go forth with the plan agreed to in the morning. No representation from Safety was present, either.

The IC, IC (T), Branch, Liaison, DIVS, DIVS (T), and leadership from 4 IHC crews met to discuss the plan. The directive was to put in a “check line” on the land owners property and end the line somewhere out in the green at an undetermined location. A liaison officer would be used to talk to the land owners. Two of the IHC’s turned down the assignment due to safety concerns with the land owner’s erratic and escalating behavior as well as doubts about the tactical sense of the plan as compared to its political purposes. Two crews agreed to attempt the plan, citing that they had not been personally exposed to the land owner’s actions, but added that they will disengage if they felt threatened at all. Upon hearing the denial of his plan the IC responded angrily with “I am the boss, you work for me and you will do what I say. And I am saying go in there and go direct!” He showed little regard for the safety concerns brought up and could not promise that the land owners would behave appropriately.

The liaison officer who was present stated several times that he had been shot at and his house and work had been bombed, but you had to give it a try. He said he could not guarantee that the land owners would not take their anger to the next level, but you have to try. The two IHC’s again turned down the assignment.

After the IC, Branch, Liaison, and IC (T) left the crews discussed their plan of action and the two IHC’s that turned down the assignment stayed at camp while the other two crews engaged on the “check line.” The use of an LEO at the work site was denied because in the words of the IC “we brought guns a few days ago (by ordering an LEO after being verbally threatened) and that made them (owners) bring guns to show us they had them too.” During the next 3 shifts the crews engaged on the check line with no reported injuries. The land owners at times worked between the crews mopping up and felling trees (on federal property) and the crews mitigated this by assigning a crew member with a radio to alert the crew of falling trees and other hazards.

Crews were put in hazardous and volatile situations without proper mitigations allowed to be implemented, such as mandatory evacuations and LEO’s. Political pressures were put in front of on the ground decisions and fire line personnel safety. Ego was put ahead of common sense and crew safety. Finally, leadership was non-existent to poor from numerous positions in the chain of command.

Immediate Action Tanken. Reporting Individual: please describe actions you took to correct or mitigate the unsafe/unhealthful event.

I gave crews the option to engage or not engage and to disengage if they felt uncomfortable. I requested LEO presence, but was only allowed to stage them at a spike camp 40 minutes away. Avoided land owners by locating myself at a parking spot on federal land and out of the way. Staged medics at various areas with quick response times to crews. Worked with Liaison officer to explain to land owners our intentions and limitations. Spoke to IC about his inappropriate actions and lack of leadership.

Corrective Actions. Taken by Beth Lund, 9/18/2015:

Region 4 (Beth Lund–Acting Director, FAM) the Great Basin Coordinating Group takes firefighter safety very serious, is looking in to this matter further and will provide further response and follow-up. Thank-you!

Thanks and a tip of the hat go out to Chris.

Typos, let us know HERE, and specify which article. Please read the commenting rules before you post a comment.

Author: Bill Gabbert

After working full time in wildland fire for 33 years, he continues to learn, and strives to be a Student of Fire.

22 thoughts on “Report of trouble with landowners on the Tepee Springs Fire in Idaho”

  1. THE SAFETY OF THE FIREFIGHTERS IS NOT NEGOTIABLE

    I just want to Thank the superintendents and assistant superintendents of the hotshot crews that refused to continue the assignment for safety reasons. Not only were you working with difficult terrain and ranch owners, they had an IC that did not have there back. You did not budge, there are firefighters, parents, wives, husbands, children, brothers, and sisters that say Thank You!

    As a parent of a hotshot in one of those two crews that refused to continue due to safety, I know that he has stellar leaders. What you did was not popular but it was right. THE SAFETY OF THE FIREFIGHTERS IN NOT NEGOTIABLE.
    Thank you again from the bottom of my heart.

    0
    0
  2. Dave, there are bad seeds in every type of fruit. Your anecdotes are not helpful. I can tell you of at least two homes that the owners wanted them to burn down, one that ran firefighters off who were actively protecting her home, one that refused to rake pine needles off their deck, and a whole bunch of folks that were too lazy to even weedwack or rake anything but had plenty of time to sit around and drink beer and talk **** about the firefighters… and that was one neighborhood. It’s best if we don’t get too carried away in painting broad generalizations onto groups of people based on the action/inactions of a few.

    If everyone could do me a huge favor and quit trying to say that firefighters want the forest to burn so they can make money. These people do exist as Dave pointed out, but I don’t know them. I do know a whole **** ton of people that love fighting fire and helping people. They all have their own reasons for loving it, but they are excited and passionate about the chance to do so. One reason is certainly to make money. Isn’t this normal for 99% of us? Pretty sure at least one of the reasons, the Walther’s fenced off a large piece of wild and rugged land to kill elk on, was to make money? Is their end all-be all goal in life to own some pieces of paper with Ben Franklin on it at whatever sacrifice they need to make? Doubt it. You should doubt this generalization about most people, bad seeds among them or not.

    Feel free to call us pansies, idiots, bureaucrats… But for god’s sakes, most of us make $20-40k a year. Please don’t call us crooks! We could make the same in places where we might not be killed or actually get to enjoy a summer with people we love. We work and mostly live in the forest too. We love it with you. You love your spot more then we do, but we get it. We’re jealous of your little pieces of paradise. We would own them too. If only we could afford it.

    0
    0
    1. Hoby, I know it feels like every firefighter is being blamed for something here. We like to believe that we are a “ground up” type of organization … every firefighter has a voice and a choice right? .. Reality is that we are a “top down” type of organization .. with 14 day assignments .. teams are only useful for about 10 days with transitions now taking 8 days out of 28 ..With 21 day assignments, we had 8 days in transition in 42 days … with all due respect to all teams our leaders are becoming stuck in inaction, our firefighters continue to get hurt and killed, and the civilians continue to suffer. We need to examine how useful our teams are and find better ways for them to communicate to firefighters and civilians. We have a tough job, but we are capable of handling it with compassion and a clear objective for the future. However, blind faith in our leadership style and our management objectives is not going to get us there… hard work ahead.. saddle up folks .. and remember every firefighter does have a voice and a choice! that is originally what this post is about.. speaking up

      0
      0
    2. Sorry my comments didn’t help. I was attempting to point out that there are two sides to every coin and that administratum can get in the way.

      If you work with your state Civil Air Patrol, you can get photos of trouble areas before a fire and show them to both the landowners and the county teams as a means to mitigate fire dangers.

      The CAP is tasked to be able to take digital aerial photos and send them in real time to appropriate agencies. Usually during exercises, the target areas are made up by the exercise coordinator. So, it is easy to work with the CAP early when the year’s exercises are set up and give them coordinates to take photos of. The hitch is that you will get the photos during a weekend and need to respond quickly so that the CAP crews get feedback on the quality of the photo and if it meets your needs. That also gives you the opportunity to request another set. CAP crews get actual, real time training and you get photos that will help you update and change your mitigation plans. It also shows landowners where they should clear their property before fire season.

      Years ago, Idaho CAP took photos in the Farragut State Park area which were used for the local fire mitigation plan. When it was released it was praised as being a model plan for other states to emulate. Alaska CAP took pictures of downtown Anchorage and the surrounding areas for their earthquake mitigation plan.

      0
      0
  3. Howard, where in the conversation was anyone told to “go to hell?” Whoever she was talking to did a poor job explaining why they were making the decisions they were, but he was cordial and far more patient than I could be.

    0
    0
    1. I was thinking the same thing, after listening to that woman.

      #1 The guy was a poor communicator, and gave poor answers, and wasn’t at all used to talking to irrate citizens. And shouldn’t have been.

      #2 I wouldn’t have had the patience to listen to her rant that long.

      #3 Nobody works for her. Her only power is the ballot box.

      #4 The IC should have “mitigated” out the whole family by assigning that ranch it’s own liason to deal with that EXTREMELY annoying lady.

      #5 I don’t believe those IHC’s weren’t made to feel threatened. Not for one second. And as the IC, I wouldn’t have sent ANYONE back without mitigating that threat.

      #6 On the above, the on scene crew boss makes the ssfety call. If he felt unsafe, his crew doesn’t go back. Sorry IC.

      #7 Can we PLEASE start arresting these obstructing ranchers everywhere? A ranch is not a fifedom. Everyone follows the law.

      0
      0
  4. “Landowner’s quote about the FS letting fires burn because “there is no money in putting them out” is just asinine and shows you where they are coming from. How do you communicate with that level of illogical rhetoric?”

    In 1997 I was flying air attack and the hot shots in our area wouldn’t call for help until in the afternoon when they would get meals and other incentives. This was not unusual and not just our region. If you remember, there were air attack pilots back east who set fires to keep themselves flying and hotshots and others in the fire business set fires so that they would be out of base.

    Years ago, Grangeville had a lighting set fire that the landowners were going to put out, but the BLM wouldn’t let them move heavy equipment across one thin stretch of BLM that separated the landowner’s property. The fire could have been put out easily at the start, however because of bureaucracy, it grew and eventually threatened Grangeville.

    There are two sides to every story and just saying look at where they are coming from doesn’t help fix things. Idaho, individual counties and the USFS need to revamp the mitigation plans for our state.

    0
    0
  5. Reading “Landowners” post I initially found myself agreeing. Even as a federal employee on a Hotshot crew, the bureaucracy we deal with on large fires with Type 1 and Type 2 teams can be frustrating. But, there is nothing simple or straight forward with managing an organization that is capable of dealing with big fires. I have to remind myself of that on most incidents my crew goes to, when my blood boils dealing with inefficiency and misguided tactics.

    What “landowner” doesn’t grasp is the big picture and effective firefighting. We serve the public as a whole, not individual landowners, and we can’t allow individual property owners with no or minimal fire experience to dictate our strategy or tactics. Listen to the audio landowner captured. We don’t allow non-fire personnel to order or direct helicopter drops, that’s absurd. If a decision was made to not commit personnel, it was for a reason. Aircraft working without support of crews accomplish nothing but expose pilots to risk and waste money. Landowner doesn’t grasp this, and whoever she is on the phone with does not communicate this effectively.

    Landowner’s quote about the FS letting fires burn because “there is no money in putting them out” is just asinine and shows you where they are coming from. How do you communicate with that level of illogical rhetoric? They’ve got an axe to grind more than anything. It’s easy to complain about the FS!

    0
    0
    1. It is not accurate to say that helicopters can not be used on their own. Helicopters are used frequently and to great benefit without ground troops. They simply need a clear objective from their leader. Any pilot will tell you that. They are very capable of doing their jobs without danger to themselves or wasting money. I’ve seen countless times where the ground contact is the danger. Their lack of understanding of the aircraft and the situation at hand wastes more money and puts more pilots at risk than one would imagine.

      0
      0
  6. The Land owner was more less to go to hell when they asked for help. The taped conversation proves that. The lady that was asking for help told the jerk that she had taped the phone call. The fire Fighters and the big wigs had already made you their minds that they was not going to help the Land Owner It is not only in this fire but all of the fires that involve Land owners. I can tell you of many fires in the past that the Lander owner asked for help and was told to go to hell. I was always told that the Fire Fighters was there to help and to protect if people land got in the way of a fire. I will stand with any and all Land owners that ever has to deal with this kind of treatment. These people always carry guns because of wolves and other animals that endangers their lively hood.

    0
    0
  7. What landowner says is very interesting and a big contrast to what had been said before. The roster for DeMasters’ Great Basin IMT #7 shows Sam Hicks as Ops trainee, but maybe landowner was using IC in a very general sort of sense. If the conversations started August 26, but team 7 was transitioning over to Chris Ourada’s type I team 2 on the 29th, with team 2 taking over at 0600 on August 30, there might not have been anyone at the old contact numbers to return calls. Possible? The fire was growing from 18,000 to 48,000 acres from the 26th to the 29th, so could contacts have gotten lost in the shuffle? Was landowner aware of the change in management teams?

    0
    0
  8. Private land owners are way better stewarts of the land. Its time the feds get out of the land owning business and give it back to the states.

    0
    0
    1. Along with all of the management and suppression costs too?
      Private land owners are just like Fed Agencies: some good, some not so good. Difference is that while a private landowner can clearcut trees or graze to asphalt if he/she so choses, the Feds have lots of Laws they must follow and lots of folks watching their management of the land.
      Most of the responsible State Forestry folks in the western US want NO part of taking over the responsibilities and COSTS of the Fed Lands in their States.
      There is always a small but vocal minority that is ready to criticize fire suppressions actions with perfect 20-20 hindsight. 40+ years in the fire business have conditioned me to those attacks, and to move forward doing the best I can.

      0
      0
      1. While some states dont want anything to do with the federal surplus land and some do. Going from Federal to state forestry fire organizations its a night and day experience. Arizona state forestry has been fighting the BLM for years over their holdings down in the southern part of the state that are not maintained what so ever. These are small surplus BLM holdings up againts and in between private lands not the huge wilderness everyone thinks the BLM only has.

        0
        0
    2. I think it is worth the discussion if agency folks are simply ignoring the needs of landowners within fires. Can I imagine that what the landowner said is true.. YES.. I can imagine someone giving them a phone number and then not including them in the actual actions they plan on engaging in. Can I imagine a landowner wants his/her property to be priority.. YES I can … so where is the middle ground this is important as we see so many acres burned and so many people impacted. This is not simply about burning forest land..or fire suppression cost.. that is what tax payers pay for isn’t it? Or is the fire organization to big to be effective with tax payer dollars? Is it simply now about the fire organization doing whatever it chooses? I can still see the tears coming down from a landowners face as she left her property that type 1 crews were burning up .. with hoots and hollers .. and go get em boys type of stuff.. she did not need to hear the excited nature of the crew burning up her families land. Isn’t there any understanding or is it just a day job for firefighters now?

      0
      0
  9. Interesting that the landowners are STILL a problem….I’d like to think that they should have been arrested for interfering with the operation of emergency personnel the FIRST time. As a landowner myself, I could see questioning the tactics used in the fire operations (they’re just worrying about their property, and likely aren’t wildland trained)…but conducting falling operations and burnouts without regard for the safety of the firefighters? Hopefully, no one gets hurt!

    0
    0
    1. We first became involved with the fire at the public meeting on Wednesday August 26th. We just heard word that day the fire may be threatening the ranch and that we were being evacuated. I attended the public meeting to ensure the fire management team was aware of the upper elk ranch located on a mountain called Dog Town. I showed the IC Sam Hicks the location and visited with them for almost an hour about our operation. Sam gave me his cell phone and assured me he would make sure the team was aware of the elk ranch.
      As the fire started to progress I called Sam’s Number several times, but he never answered or returned any calls. On Friday afternoon we saw our first Forest Service personnel show up on the ranch to address structure protection. Stating they did not realize we were up on top this mountain.
      We clearly expressed to them at this point that the structures were not near as important as our livestock and land. We asked for resources to slow this fire down, and were promised resources to help build fire line, specifically two 20 man hand crews. The two 20 man hand crews never showed up The fire was rip roaring in the lake creek drainage Friday night. On Saturday the fire made a huge run with all forest service and ranch personnel evacuating. On Saturday afternoon the rain came in and slowed the fire down. The Walters thought we had survived. There was significant damage to timber and rangeland, but all the livestock and a large section of the ranch were okay. That next two days were followed by rainy cloudy weather. With about half an inch of rain. During this time all forest service employees took a break from the fire and the fire was left alone in the bottom of the lake creek drainage. At this time we repeatedly asked them what their intention was with the fire, and they told us time and time again that they intended to use air attack as well as hot shot crews to attack the fire directly. This never happened. If only they had told us that they had no intention of fighting the fire we would have had an opportunity during the two full days that the fire had laid down to put it out ourselves.
      We knew the fire was still burning and tried our best to stop the fire from attacking the ranch, but without the support of more dozers and personnel were unsuccessful. Several times a couple fire employees tried to send dozer resources to the fire, but were denied because they were told that the two hour dozer drive into the ranch was too big of a safety concern. ( They later had four dozer working above the ranch preparing a back burn line.)
      The fire made another run at the ranch on Tuesday taking most of the range land and trapping the ranch personnel and a hot shot crew at the home on top of the mountain. The house was surrounded by fire and then the air resources started to dump to save the large number of people surrounded by fire. Several seats dumped to reinforce the dozer line the Walters had put in around the home. Meanwhile the fire team had sent their dozers to the head of the mountain in front of a large amount of fuel to put in a dozer line in preparation for a backburn line. While no dozers or resources were ever devoted to helping us save our property. The backburn that was being prepared would not only endanger the livestock and buildings, but would destroy the lake creek watershed that provides irrigation water to the ranch and feeds into the Salmon River. When this was first proposed it was a contingency plan, throughout this ordeal it became increasingly clear this was plan A, as no resources were ever devoted to fighting the actual fire.
      On Wednesday after the ranch had been burned over twice, we started to demand some resources on the fire. I confronted the division Delta trainee supervisor and he was reluctant to work with me. Acting like it was rude to ask for resources to save our ranch and livestock. At first he told me we could not have any resources because there had been a vehicle rollover. Concerned for safety I asked some question and found out an employee had forgot to put their side by side in park and it had rolled down the mountain. Once I found out no one was hurt and there was no danger I asked can we send resources to the fire. After they had to deal with several safety officers and reports they said they would start to work helicopters. We just wanted to keep the fire down to protect any livestock that were still living after Tuesday’s fire. Air attack told us at one point our only option would be to push our animals to the black and hope they made it. We were just asking that they try to dampen the fire so it did not rip roar through the property like it had twice before. We left the division supervisor trainee to go and try move some animals to the black and when we came back they had called law enforcement and brought two federal officers and the sheriff deputy with guns. We had expressed our frustrations to the fire team, but had agreed to work with them and in no way threatened them. At this point we said if they are going to bring guns on our property we are going to carry guns too. The sheriff deputy asked if we felt threatened by the federal agents with guns and we told him we absolutely did and that there was no need for them to show up on our property with firearms. We did ask for resources and for help protecting our livelihood, which includes our range land and animals but at no time threatened anyone and the federal agents with guns were completely unwarranted. I was literally begging these guys to at least send a helicopter in to fight the fire and they treated us like we were second class citizens that did not have the right to ask for such a thing. They did start helicopter drops around noon on Wednesday, but had to shut them down for two hours while they dropped two heavy tankers and four seats on the backburn line that they had been preparing. They had denied our request to drop retardant on our dozer lines right next to the fire citing that it was only effective for 24-48 hrs but had no problem dropping it on the ridge at the top of the drainage miles from the fire. We asked for a number of retardant drops but only received them around the structures when the fire was really blowing up.
      Wednesday night brought again another rain storm, which we thought would give firefighters the perfect chance to attack the fire, but when no one showed up on the mountain Thursday we asked the forest service to leave our property. They said the road was wet and they were afraid if they came up they would damage our road. The division supervisor trainee showed up at the lodge and we asked him what his intentions were with the fire. He said he would look at it. We said it is 30 yards for a well maintained road and smoldering, He said no. Eight hours later he had still not gone down to look at the fire at this point after we had been repeatedly lied to about resources and about their intentions with the fire it became very clear that they had no intention of putting the fire out. The only thing they had done to this point is bring about 150 fire personnel to stand on top of the ridge, watch the fire burn and plug the road. We then told them if they had no intentions of putting the fire out then there was no point of them being there and asked them to leave our property. At no point did anyone threaten or verbally attack any fire personnel.
      The IC met with the ranch the following morning agreeing to devote resources to directly attacking the fire. At this meeting wih the IC the ranch enforced that the backburn would
      Endanger the livestock, buildings and the life blood of the ranch, the lake creek water shed, that provides irrigation water to the ranch and feeds into the Salmon River. The IC along with the other top personnel on the fire finally admitted that there was no safety concern and agreed to go direct on the fire. Everyone present pointed to the same spot on the map and they said “we will have personnel in there this afternoon””. This too was a lie. Finally two days later when the fire was almost out they showed up with a hot shot crew to help with the fire. This fire that was such a huge safety concern because of the extremely rugged terrain was actually about 50 yards from a well maintained road on a grassy ridge and was easily contained with a crew of a few guys over the age of 60. The reality is that the Forest Service had no intention of putting out the fire because there is no money made by putting out fires, only monitoring them.
      The forest service “Let it Burn Philosophy.” has endangered not on only ranchers livelihoods but rural communities as well. This fire started as one burning snag that could have easily been put out and turned into 100,000 acres of burnt wasteland. It is bad enough that they are more than willing to standby and monitor the fire spread on our public lands while the federal money rolls in but even worse when they refuse to help protect the private land that they burn up in the process. The forest service personnel we encountered during the course this fire had no interest in putting the fire out. The sad part is when it is all over they get to go home and cash their giant federal paychecks for overtime and hazard pay and we are left here to pick up the pieces with our muddy rivers, filthy air and black forests. The lack of resources dedicated to protecting private land and the management of public lands has been very frustrating. If the government is going to “let it burn” they should not be allowed to burn down their neighbors.

      0
      0
      1. Land Owner,

        Always interesting to hear the other side of the story. Thanks for the detailed account from your perspective.

        Having grown up on a ranch, worked fire with the USFS for 10 seasons as a squad boss and engine boss, and now living on a little acreage with my family, I definitely appreciate the stark contrast between the “get it done” philosophy of the landowner (that’s how I was raised”), and the political bureaucracy that is inherently present in federal firefighting efforts. Toss mother nature, and the unpredictability of fire into the mix, and you’ve really got a mess!

        I feel that in recent years, there’s been an increase in ‘butt covering” by fire overhead due to tragedy fires, lawsuits, etc.. I don’t blame them, but can definitely see how that would be frustrating.

        0
        0
      2. Land Owner, as a long time viewer of this fire world… I would encourage you to document and report up .. that is how it will work if anything is to be done. You see that is what has been done for those that felt threatened. I am not agreeing with either party because I know nothing except a few words on the computer, however the discussion should be had.

        0
        0
  10. Did authorities ever find who was responsible for the bombings and threats to forest rangers during the sagebrusher era bombings years ago? Is the Mr. Pence who appears as a liaison officer on the Great Basin IMT 2 roster the same unfortunate who was bombed and threatened back then for the crime of doing his job? Very sad if some people are still subscribing to that hateful violent philosophy of might makes right and damn the public. Maybe cattle rustling or horse thievin’ isn’t good enough if there are more fun things to do such as trampling public laws and lands or plinking at federal workers.

    0
    0

Comments are closed.