![]() |
|||
|
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hey,
Just teasing. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
I realize that, it was all said in good humor, I have no ill fellings about what was said
|
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
It is pretty sad to see both CAL FIRE and the Forest Service stepping backwards towards MANY problems that were already addressed in the early 1970s following FIRESCOPE, and the increased spirit of interagency cooperation that existed in the 80s and 90s.
The DPA boundaries were set up using an often missed concept nowadays... "What makes sense?" Does it make sense for a "donut hole" of federal land surrounded by SRA to be protected by the feds? No. Conversely, does it make sense for a donut hole of SRA surrounded by National Forest to be protected by the State? No. In the areas being considered, there are ALREADY fire protection districts providing structural fire protection and EMS services. DPA is strictly related to the prevention, detection, and suppression of wildland fires. The root of the problem exists within the Forest Service. Several recent GAO audits "noted" that the USFS was spending an increasing amount on structure protection within its DPA. Specifically, two areas were identified.. the Tahoe Basin and the San Bernardino National Forest. See Angora Fire (LTBMU) and Slide/Grass Valley Fires (SBNF). The "bean counters" and Agency bureaucrats (non-fire management) simply could care less about what "makes sense" anymore. It is only a dollar and cents thing to them. As usual, firefighters and fire managers are left to work things out and minimize the carnage from non-fire bureaucrats' stupid decisions (.. and trust me.. the meetings are already on-going). For those sharing misinformation and trying to "drive wedges" between agencies (not on this forum)... be assured that folks are talking from Unit Chief to Battalion Chief (CAL FIRE)... Forest Fire Chief to Battalion Chief (Forest Service)... and in between on an INTERAGENCY basis to address the mess. The "Tri-Party" agreement was long ago replaced with the "4 Party Agreement" and most recently superceded by the CFMA (CALIFORNIA MASTER COOPERATIVE WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT AND STAFFORD ACT RESPONSE AGREEMENT) IMHO. Ref: WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT Federal Agencies Have Taken Important Steps Forward, but Additional, Strategic Action is Needed to Capitalize on Those Steps GAO-09-877, Sep 9, 2009 WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT Federal Agencies Have Taken Important Steps Forward, but Additional Action Is Needed to Address Remaining Challenges GAO-09-906T, Jul 21, 2009 WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT Actions by Federal Agencies and Congress Could Mitigate Rising Fire Costs and Their Effects on Other Agency Programs GAO-09-444T, Apr 1, 2009 Last edited by RamblingChief; 01-30-2012 at 00:09. Reason: Added GAO info |
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
|
Seems that the meeting tomorrow (02/06/2012) will only be Unit Chiefs and Forest Chiefs and their deputies only. All other subject matter experts (Division Chiefs and Battalion Chiefs) will not be allowed to attend or contribute to the discussion.
|
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rambling Chief,
Would you ever expect otherwise? Something took place several years ago in the USFS Fire Control organization and all of a sudden a very far sighted leadership just faded. Then the reductions in services began. I seriously question the integrity of the current Washington and Region level managers. There are still many unanswered questions about many large, long term damaging wild fires that originated on lands they are responsible for. I don't doubt the firefighters, I am skeptical about the leadership and just how this entire scenario has been handled. I feel some have perjured themselves. |
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|