I'm not belittling the firefighters who died. What I object to is the media hoopla, which is a case of milking personal tragedy for profit.
My apologies- obviously I wasn't being clear.
Then you ought to think more carefully before you phrase things this way:
There is a certain mentality that wants to push the envelope and take charge of what Nature throws at us. Some people see them as heroes, others see them as fools. I fall into the latter camp.
(Bolding added)
How do firefighters feel about people who keep rebuilding a town in a place that's known to be dangerous when it comes to fires?
Do they have fire risk maps like they have flood risk maps?
There are some key things here.
First, homeowners in those areas need to focus on "Defensive Space" - having a cleared area around the structure, to make it easier to defend. Second, houses or cabins can be made out or sheathed in materials that resist fire - tile roofs, aluminum siding, that sort of thing. They need to understand that if they want a good firefighter defense, it costs money.
About a week after the recent destructive fire in Colorado Springs, there was a fire near Mid-pines in California (near where Travis lives). I used to live in near Mid-pines and nearly bought a house there (the house I nearly bought was evacuated during the fire). The resources thrown at the Mid-pines fire dwarfed the Colorado Springs fire - yet, the mid-pines fire was not much in the news, because the firefighting response worked and kept the fire outside of town.
California has suffered its share of fire disasters and is now loaded for bear. They have the usual federal agencies but they also have a very robust state government firefighting capability. Colorado is learning the hard way that it is time for them to do that, and it ain't cheap. People in CA complain about the taxes used to fund CDF, but it makes vast areas of the state safe to live in.
Rural towns need to get central water systems with hydrants installed - the big structural fire engines can do wonders for structure protection if they have water - if they have enough water they can frequently stay in the area when the flame front approaches. Rural towns need to have ponds or pre-planned water locations for helicopters to dip into. They need to have evacuation plans with routes, evacuation facilities and contact methods (like reverse 911) planned out in advance.
People also need to understand that when it is time to leave, then it is time to leave. Firefighters take risks in part because people are slow to evacuate, or refuse to evacuate then later ask for help.
To me, at least, defensive space is a key thing that gets overlooked. Colorado is demonstrating that big fires are encroaching into places not previously thought susceptible, or in times of the year not anticipated. People who never thought themselves at risk are experiencing fire on a large scale. People need to start thinking outside the box and putting in defensive space even if they live in places they don't think are at risk of wildfire.
Ultimately it comes down to cost - pay the money early through taxes, or through insurance. When areas burn, we need to resist the impulse to give federal or state money to help with reconstruction. If the true cost of defending or rebuilding from fire were expressed in advance, a good may people would not go there, or would settle for more modest weekend cabins that they can afford to let burn without too much heartache. Right now, many rural areas are effectively subsidized through artificially low insurance rates, or through statewide (or federal) tax funds paying for firefighting and reconstruction resources that only benefit a small number of rural citizens. I say that as someone who has lived my entire life in rural areas or small towns. My lifestyle is subsidized and I would not mind paying more, if there is good reason for it.
