All building code is geared towards life safety. I don't see any disconnect in adding new code to make wildland interface more safe.

Rocky:

These ARE the same issues.

First, whoever designates (owns) "wildlands" should be responsible for managing the fuels and wildfires that occur there.

Second, if the fuels had been mowed, grazed, sprayed, or burned BEFORE they were set on fire, then we would not be blaming the victims for property loss and fatalities at this time.

"Wildland" is another Animal Farm term, such as "conservation" or "prescribed fire" have become. It is, essentially, an arbitrary land zoning designation that allows the landowner to avoid normal management costs, responsibility, accountability, and liability. Because the land is "wild."

Please stop blaming the homeowners and other victims. It is a fuel owner problem and a wildfire management problem, the same as everywhere else throughout the west.

What does that have to do with logging?

Okay, Rocky, so how is YOUR property?
And even though this puppy started on private ground, whose property did this fire burn THROUGH? Was it public land? That might matter, just a little.
I agree completely that in the face of the utter failure of the federal agencies and Congress to pull their heads out and start changing laws and regulations so that public ground can be managed in, (ahem) a FIREWISE manner, private landowners need to realize they are at risk.
I am sure insurance and mortgage companies have realized this, as proven by the presence of private (and expensive) firefighting assets at Ketchum, and if mortgages are to be floated on woods construction, it is in the best interest of all to make sure that new construction meets appropriate standards.
But prohibiting construction through zoning won't address the problem of loss of habitat -- as well as valuable resources including but not limited to timber -- through incineration.
Let It Burn, politically-corrected to "Appropriate Management Response" is proving to be equally if not more dysfunctional than foisting blame on forest residents for the cost of escapement.
Look at that thing in Jarbidge. Last week Scott Sonner is saying, oh, nice fire in wilderness, and three days later the thing is tripled in size, out of the wilderness, and threatening Jarbidge. Darn those old gold miners anyway.

"Think about how much wasted efforts and money have been focused on the wildlands in these debates when the major issues for these fires lie within 100 feet of the communities."

I don't think the folks on West Mountain thought money was wasted on the Gray's fire, and I'm sure the folks in Ketchum didn't think money was wasted on the Castle Rock fire. Or the folks in Jarbridge, Murphy, Picabo, Featherville and so forth this summer. I know for a fact that the folks in Yellow Pine are very thankful this money was "wasted" in 2006 and 2007.

Has anyone addressed the huge amounts of money "wasted" just on transitioning to a new ICP every other week? The cost of moving these giant 'circus tent' fire camps every 14 days? Or the safety issue - nearly every fatality this summer in Calif was during crew transition.

And what about other economic costs, lost revenue for communities under siege that depend on tourism? And the costs of roads washed out, salmon beds silted in, and so forth.

This part confuses me: "Fires around Yellow Pine, Warren and Secesh ought to be called wildland exurban fires and treated differently."

Treated differently then the Castle Rock and the Oregon Trail fires? How should the homes in Ketchum and Boise with wooden shake roofs be defended differntly from the metal roofed homes in Warren, Secesh and Yellow Pine? Am I reading this wrong? Or are you talking about forest fire vs. sage brush fire?

I agree that all property owners no matter if they live in a subdivision in the city or in the woods or desert needs to be responsible for fire abating their property. But outside the property line who is responsible? I don't think 100 feet of thinned forest will stop a fire raging thru hundreds of acres of unhealthy forest. It would help stop a brush or range fire tho.

Keep pushing the Firewise, the more people educated the better.

Rocky:

My own research and documentation on the B&B fire shows that you are generally correct: depending on the height, size, and condition of the trees and snags and the force of the wind, of course. But most home fires are started by embers, not raging flames.

Dangerous embers can blow 1/4 mile or more, maybe further through unthinned trees than thinned. Grass and brush fires -- whether raging or not -- do better in thinned timber than dense thickets.

On the 2005 Deer Creek Fire in SW Oregon, people who watered and mowed their lawns, watered their crops adjacent to homes, and/or owned swimming pools accessible to fire pumps were able to save their homes when their neighbors did not. Roofing material and thinned trees were nonfactors.

Rocky:

I have asked you a couple of direct questions in previous posts, based largely on your past discussions of wildfire, but you fail to respond.

Is it that you are a busy man with no time to think about things, or that you might be forced to admit some ignorance in a field you consider yourself to be expert? Or something else entirely?

When (and why) did the term "wildland" come into use when describing wildfires?

What does your (mostly) inaccurate citing of "facts" regarding homes and "raging fires" have to do with thinning trees to protect homes?

I know that you have had a mostly acerbic written relationship with Mike Dubrasich, but I greatly encourage you and your readers to read today's comments in his blog for some truly expert opinions on Idaho wildfires -- those opinions expressed by retired USFS employees with a lifetime of actual experience and observation in Idaho forests:

http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2008/09/01/the-south-barker-wfu-fire

Better yet, it would be great to see you actually comment on these assertions, even though they are in sharp contrast to your own.

Buy a vowel or give up the Vacation space and a turn.