Ideas from Down Under could save lives up north

By Cherry Sokoloski
North Forty News

Between the years 2000 and 2004, a total of 255 firefighters died in the United States while fighting wildland fires. In Australia during the same period, four firefighters died.

Those statistics got the attention of a local firefighter, Capt. Ron Lindroth of Poudre Fire Authority's Station 7 in LaPorte, a station that specializes in wildland fires. Lindroth has 30 years of fire service under his belt, but he's still learning. He decided it was worth his time to take a closer look at the way they do things Down Under.

Lindroth visited the Australian states of New South Wales and Queensland in December 2004, the height of summer south of the equator. "The Australians live in a eucalyptus forest, similar to southern California," Lindroth noted, "so fire is part of the ecology."

The Australians decided to change their approach to firefighting 10 years ago. Prior to that, they had viewed the public as a safety liability-- as American fire agencies do. They got residents out of the way first, then tried to protect their dwellings. Structure protection came first, before fighting the main part of the fire.

Now, Australian agencies see the public as a primary asset. The attitude, according to Lindroth, is, "It's your property, your fire, your problem." While homeowners work to defend their own homes, the professionals go after the main fire.

Since the shift in philosophy, fire deaths for both firefighters and civilians in Australia have plummeted. Home losses have also declined. By contrast, Lindroth said, deaths and home losses are both escalating in this country.

Two options available

When a fire occurs in Australia, homeowners are given two choices. They may "shelter in place," meaning they stay in their homes during the fire and help defend their property. Or, they may evacuate early, well ahead of the fire. Before homeowners are allowed to choose the first option, they must have a plan for defending their home and for using their home as a shelter.

Lindroth pointed out that in 90 percent of the cases when homes burn, they ignite from embers after the fire has gone through. That means that in most cases, a home is safe to use as a shelter when the fire roars through.

After the Picnic Rock Fire in 2004, Lindroth conducted a survey of homeowners threatened by the blaze, and he discovered two prevalent myths. First, most people thought a house would explode if the fire came through. Second, most planned to evacuate, but wanted to wait until the last minute before getting out. Most civilian fire fatalities, Lindroth said, occur with such last-minute evacuations, when people are overrun by the fire.

The Australian approach requires a good deal of public education and preparedness. "They're trying to get people to view fire not as a natural disaster but as a natural phenomenon they can live with," Lindroth said.

To that end, the Aussies invest a lot of time and money in educating homeowners on how to defend their own homes. They also push the defensible space concept, as U.S. fire agencies do. In addition, firefighters make themselves available to homeowner associations, offering free home inspections and education. They have also persuaded local governments to enact building codes that require ember-resistant materials.

Lindroth likes to make this analogy when describing the Australian approach: "We can coexist with mountain lions, rattlesnakes and bears, but it has to be on their terms. We can also coexist with fire, but it requires us to make proactive, wise choices. Those choices include creating defensible spaces, making our homes ember-resistant and preparing ourselves to defend our own homes."

Part of the beauty of the Australian approach, Lindroth said, is that it's more realistic. Firefighters can't defend all homes--there simply aren't enough resources. A post-Picnic Rock evaluation looked at all 87 homes that were threatened by the fire. The study found that 40 percent of the homes could have survived without any intervention. Fifty percent could have been saved with some sort of firefighting measures, from either a fire department or the homeowner. The final 10 percent would have been at risk even with intervention. Only one home was actually destroyed by the blaze, although there were many close calls.

In the American system, Lindroth noted, these figures mean that firefighters were responsible for trying to save 60 percent of the homes in the path of the Picnic Rock Fire. In Australia, the professionals would have been responsible for only 10 percent. "Sixty percent is way beyond our capability," he said, "but we have enough resources for 10 percent. We're looking for the key middle ground--what homeowners could do with proper training."

Lindroth stressed that he does not want to put people at risk, but with proper training and education both lives and property would actually be less at risk with the Australian approach.

Introducing the idea

Lindroth said his goal for the next three or four years is just to get people thinking about the Australian approach to firefighting. This spring he presented the program to officials with Poudre Fire Authority and the Larimer Fire Council, the latter consisting of all firefighting agencies within Larimer County. He's received a positive response thus far, but says it will take a lot of work before local agencies adopt the program. If local fire services buy into the idea, he will develop education programs that involve both fire prevention and mitigation. He would then like to implement the program in a test area of the county and see how well it works.

"It will require a cultural change for both the fire agencies and the public" to implement a system like that in Australia, Lindroth noted. However, he's not the only one interested in making the change. Santa Fe, N.M., and other communities are also looking at the Aussie way of doing things, hoping to import a good idea from Down Under that could save lives and property in the arid Rocky Mountain West.