Sparking Debate

Australian wildfires ignite LEOSAD dialogue

In early February, 2009, unprecedented wildfires ripped through thousands of acres in Victoria, Australia, taking lives and decimating property, natural habitat, and a certain security in the way things have always been. No firefighter in any part of the globe could have prepared for the nightmare. Here in America, our hearts go out to all who were involved, as we attempt to understand and learn from these devastating events.

We know full well that we can only completely understand that which we have experienced. We have fires here in America that burn beyond our control. But the bar has apparently been raised to new levels of expectations, much quicker than our learning and actions can accept. We need to realize that due to incompletely defined circumstances, wildland firefighting is behind a curve of rapidly developing wildfire environmental change.  As America’s fire service, we must accept that we do not have all the answers or abilities needed to conquer any imaginable level of wildfire. Once we accept those facts, it puts us in a position to make improvements that we can realize, trusting they will help in future emergencies.

In recent years, America has begun to entertain the Australian lead on the concept of allowing wisely prepared citizens to stay and defend their homes against ravaging wildfire. These people make a choice to leave early, well before the wildfire arrives, or to stay and defend their homes. Here in America, we have been calling this “Shelter in Place,” or “Leave Early Or Stay And Defend” (LEOSAD).  

A basic impetus behind the LEOSAD movement in Australia is the fact that, historically, people have perished trying to evacuate from communities impacted by wildfires. That fact deserves scrutiny. Recent research indicates that homes do not explode when exposed to wildfire. Rather, they ignite at some point following the passage of the wildfire front. Most often this is due to direct contact with flying embers that land on or near flammable structures, or are blown into attics or under structures, where they slowly catch hold and turn into flames. 

Unfortunately, fire protection and suppression resources move with the front of the fire, providing protection to exposed structures as the fire advances.  LEOSAD asserts that a homeowner may be safer to stay at home and extinguish the embers and smoldering small fires that may appear once the wildfire has passed. This concept (and policy in Australia) was adopted as professionals sought alternatives to evacuation. America’s fire service has also been debating whether people might be safer staying indoors. Our experience with the growing severity of wildland fire, along with the vivid images communicated from Australia, mandate we go beyond debate and work collectively to find solutions to impacts of wildland fire on residents, firefighters, and properties in the WUI.

As kids growing up in the South, we spent a lot of time playing in the creek. Crawfish made good fish bait, but they are wary creatures. Often they would bravely venture out into the middle of a sandy bottom. But just one slight disturbance of silt or a ripple on the water’s surface sent them scurrying back to a safe haven. While Australia has committed to evacuation policy, in America, we are “crawfishing” on LEOSAD. The Australian wildfires give us reason to question were we are headed with LEOSAD and corresponding protection of our communities from the threat of increasingly intense wildfire. We can expect well deserved debate on this subject. The intent here is not to question Australia’s policies; chances are people would have perished regardless of policy in the face of such horrendous fire.  On the other hand, “crawfishing” isn’t all bad. The intent is simply to refocus on what we do know and what we can do with confidence.  

Preparation is absolutely key. Safe evacuation in the face of wildfire depends on preparation.  Likewise, alternatives to evacuation in the face of wildfire depend on preparation. Both sides of the LEOSAD debate concur on this. With every precaution in place, people may still perish and homes may still burn.

But even a garden variety wildfire can be devastating for the unprepared. The mantra here should be “Firewise.”  If we want options in the face of wildfire we must prepare our homes and communities using Firewise practices. For those who plan to leave early in the face of wildfire, the best insurance for the structure’s survival is preparing a Firewise home. It requires Class A roofing, fire resistant siding, Firewise landscaping, and maintenance of each of these elements.

If you plan to stay and defend your home, your very life, not just the structure you live in, is dependent on your level of Firewise preparation. If fire is already in the neighborhood and an emergency evacuation takes place, chances of survival are much better in a Firewise community. Widened streets that allow all  types of vehicles to navigate in a hurry, buried utilities, alternative routes for evacuation, and reduced forest fuels in the area all increase chances for a successful evacuation. So, regardless of the current debate over shelter in place, let’s first agree to insist that citizens understand how to prepare for these emergencies.

Having debate over when to evacuate and when to stay and defend without having first addressed Firewise principles is like buying a saddle without any plans to get a horse. What good is it?

For more information, visit GaTrees.org and www.firewise.org.