19 firefighters killed in Arizona wildfire were part of elite Hotshot crew

Hope the anti logging enviro nuts are happy.

sawyerloggingon said:

Hope the anti logging enviro nuts are happy.

Click to expand...

I hope this tragedy causes firefighter planners to rethink their strategy. As I understand it, these men were trying to save some homes. Empty homes. One would think that, with all of the technology out there today, firestops wouldn't even take a human presence. Saving homes built in wildfire danger areas? Let them burn. They have insurance.

Names of the fallen:

Andrew Ashcraft, age 29
Kevin Woyjeck, age 21
Anthony Rose, age 23
Eric Marsh, age 43
Christopher MacKenzie, age 30
Robert Caldwell, age 23
Clayton Whitted, age 28
Scott Norris, age 28
Dustin Deford, 24
Sean Misner, age 26
Garret Zuppiger, age 27
Travis Carter, age 31
Grant McKee, age 21
Travis Turbyfill, age 27
Jesse Steed, age 36
Wade Parker, age 22
Joe Thurston, age 32
William Warneke, age 25
John Percin, age 24

MaggieD said:

I hope this tragedy causes firefighter planners to rethink their strategy. As I understand it, these men were trying to save some homes. Empty homes. One would think that, with all of the technology out there today, firestops wouldn't even take a human presence. Saving homes built in wildfire danger areas? Let them burn. They have insurance.

Click to expand...

I had not heard they were trying to save homes, what a waste.

MaggieD said:

I hope this tragedy causes firefighter planners to rethink their strategy. As I understand it, these men were trying to save some homes. Empty homes. One would think that, with all of the technology out there today, firestops wouldn't even take a human presence. Saving homes built in wildfire danger areas? Let them burn. They have insurance.

Click to expand...

I agree with letting empty structures burn rather than risk the lives of the fighters. The down side to that is people will not be able to get fire insurance if that becomes part of the standard protocol.

Also, keep in mind this event had nothing to do with their strategy, the wind changed direction on them which can (and does) happen quite frequently.

Woodman909 said:

I agree with letting empty structures burn rather than risk the lives of the fighters. The down side to that is people will not be able to get fire insurance if that becomes part of the standard protocol.

Also, keep in mind this event had nothing to do with their strategy, the wind changed direction on them which can (and does) happen quite frequently.

Click to expand...

Every time I read about the wildfires in California (as an example), I think to myself, "Why on EARTH would people build homes in these areas?" I guess that's what I'm getting at. It's hard for me to believe that, with all the technology out there, we don't have a better way to put out fires than putting men in harm's way to dig/excavate firebreaks. One would think there's a better way.

And I agree with you about the wind change: firefighters' worst enemy.

MaggieD said:

Every time I read about the wildfires in California (as an example), I think to myself, "Why on EARTH would people build homes in these areas?" I guess that's what I'm getting at. It's hard for me to believe that, with all the technology out there, we don't have a better way to put out fires than putting men in harm's way to dig/excavate firebreaks. One would think there's a better way.

And I agree with you about the wind change: firefighters' worst enemy.

Click to expand...

People build homes in these areas cause they are secluded and it's a beautiful area. Doesn't matter if it's California or Maine. Technology for firefighting, be it a home or wild fires has been the same for centuries. It's really never changed. Water, Water, Water.. or let it burn out. You dig break lines because putting out a fire that is spreading is impossible. Without the break lines you can't do air drops of water or some flame retardant. But even then putting out with water isn't the best for all. Letting the fire burn out is the best case for all. It'll make sure the risk of a fire in that area is practically 0% for the next 10 years or so. It'll allow regrowth as some of the chemicals used in flame retardant prevent growth.

The same is done during home fires.. in the suburbs.. if no life is threaten, you put water on the fire but you put in on to prevent the spread. So more often then not they are putting more water on the homes near by to keep them cool and wet so they don't burn.

austrianecon said:

People build homes in these areas cause they are secluded and it's a beautiful area. Doesn't matter if it's California or Maine. Technology for firefighting, be it a home or wild fires has been the same for centuries. It's really never changed. You dig break lines because putting out a fire that is spreading is impossible. Without the break lines you can't do air drops of water or some flame retardant. But even then putting out with water isn't the best for all. Letting the fire burn out is the best case for all. It'll make sure the risk of a fire in that area is practically 0% for the next 10 years or so. It'll allow regrowth as some of the chemicals used in flame retardant prevent growth.

Click to expand...

Heat, Oxygen Fuel.


Once fire breaks out, there is not much you can do about #1 & 2.

calamity said:

Heat, Oxygen Fuel.

Once fire breaks out, there is not much you can do about #1 & 2.

Click to expand...

Seriously? The point in fighting fires is to remove the fuel of it which brings down the heat. You can't change Oxygen. You can only change heat and fuel.

This tribute song to a previous firejumper disaster comes to mind.

Cold Missouri Waters


My prayers are with the families.

The South-west USA is warmer than it was. The fire "season" is two months longer now than it was thirty years ago. On top of that, Arizona's population has risen 25% in the last ten years alone. The risk is higher, and more people are exposed to it too. RIP the fire crew.

Manc Skipper said:

The South-west USA is warmer than it was. The fire "season" is two months longer now than it was thirty years ago. On top of that, Arizona's population has risen 25% in the last ten years alone. The risk is higher, and more people are exposed to it too. RIP the fire crew.

Click to expand...

South-West warmer? It's a desert. It's always been semi-arid (mountains) to arid climate.

austrianecon said:

South-West warmer? It's a desert. It's always been semi-arid (mountains) to arid climate.

Click to expand...

Just because tit was warm to start with doesn't mean it can't be warmer. Two extra months of raised fire risk indicates prolonged high temperatures in an already high-temperature area. Are there a lot of heavily wooded (see sawyerlogging's post) desert areas?

I just read that there were 50 mph winds when these firefighters were in the field. This sounds incredible. When is it too dangerous??

Portable shelters couldn't save 19 members of elite hotshots firefighting crew killed in Arizona blaze | Fox News

Manc Skipper said:

Just because tit was warm to start with doesn't mean it can't be warmer. Two extra months of raised fire risk indicates prolonged high temperatures in an already high-temperature area. Are there a lot of heavily wooded (see sawyerlogging's post) desert areas?

Click to expand...

Never said that. Its a desert region. Temps in this area AVG.. 100 plus during this time of the year. Temps today were only 5 degrees over it's historical avg. The trees in the area are Pine Trees that adapted to the region with it's typical rain fall between 10 to 15 inches a year. It's not heavily wooded area (that's a subjective statement) like you are imagining. It's not like Dalby Forest or Michaux State Forest (where I grew up).

Woodman909 said:

These men, in this situation, followed protocol to the letter. They took no more risks than what was expected of them when they took the job. Fires are unpredictable and this one was no different. They knew that, but went out to do their job, which is what they trained to do. Many had families and people to go home to. The implication of grand-standing is disgusting.

Click to expand...

I never said they didn't and they weren't caught off guard. I am just not disputing that some times some tend to think they are bad ass and make mistakes.

MaggieD said:

Every time I read about the wildfires in California (as an example), I think to myself, "Why on EARTH would people build homes in these areas?" I guess that's what I'm getting at. It's hard for me to believe that, with all the technology out there, we don't have a better way to put out fires than putting men in harm's way to dig/excavate firebreaks. One would think there's a better way.

And I agree with you about the wind change: firefighters' worst enemy.

Click to expand...

I could also carry that philosophy out to include people who build homes/towns along rivers, in floodplains, in areas prone to hurricanes or tornados... etc.

Natural/man-made disasters happen in just about every place around this country. If Californians didn't build homes in places where wild grass and trees grow, there would be no people in California. The central valley is completely covered in wild grass and scrub, as is the coast, the deserts covered in flammable shrubs, the mountains are covered with trees.

Don't mean to leap at you, Maggie, but I hear this all the damned time when California has a disastrous fire... most of which occur in cement, asphalt covered suburbs like the Oakland Hills... but when tornadoes flatten Oklahoma, when floods cover St. Louis, when hurricanes flatten the Gulf coast, the east coast or Florida, it's all "oh those poor people, what a tragedy!" When California has wildfires or earthquakes, it's all "what do they expect when they live over a fault zone and build homes near flammable stuff, like grass and trees."

This is a terrible tragedy, and the people living in and around Prescott should not feel that their town or homes are to blame simply because they exist.

DiAnna said:

I could also carry that philosophy out to include people who build homes/towns along rivers, in floodplains, in areas prone to hurricanes or tornados... etc.

Natural/man-made disasters happen in just about every place around this country. In Californians didn't build homes in places where wild grass and trees grow, there would be no people in California. The valley is completely covered in wild grass and scrub, the deserts covered in flammable shrubs, the mountains are covered with trees.

Don't mean to leap at you, Maggie, but I hear this all the damned time when California has a disastrous fire... most of which occur in cement, asphalt covered suburbs like the Oakland Hills... but when tornadoes flatten Oklahoma, when floods cover St. Louis, when hurricanes flatten the Gulf coast, the east coast or Florida, it's all "oh those poor people, what a tragedy!" When California has wildfires or earthquakes, it's all "what do they expect when they live over a fault zone and build homes near flammable stuff, like grass and trees."

This is a terrible tragedy, and the fact that there are people living in and around Prescott should not feel that their town or homes are to blame because they exist.

Click to expand...

Takes a Californian to set the record straight. That makes sense, DiAnna. Thanks for straightening me out.

austrianecon said:

South-West warmer? It's a desert. It's always been semi-arid (mountains) to arid climate.

Click to expand...

Not all is desert. Actually States like AZ and NM for example have very diverse terrain and ecosystems. It ranges from desert to conifer forests.

mike2810 said:

Not all is desert. Actually States like AZ and NM for example have very diverse terrain and ecosystems. It ranges from desert to conifer forests.

Click to expand...

By definition, Arizona and most of New Mexico are deserts or Steppe (semi-arid) (which is basically a desert but has greenery). Phoenix area is a desert, so is Prescott. Peeples Valley (right by Yarnell) is a desert area. Mount Union (and the mountain ranges that separate Flagstaff from Prescott and Phoenix) are a Steepe.

Just because you have pine trees doesn't make it non-desert. 95% of Arizona gets less then 20 inches of rain fall a year. Only places that records more then 20 inches are the mountain ranges. Every region of AZ from April to July goes through a dry season and then a monsoon seasons.