Forestry

Division of Forestry Strategic Direction

Statewide Forest Strategy 2010

Statewide Forest Assessment 2010

Forest Sustainability Framework

Statewide Forest Plan 2004

C12. Issue: Development is increasing in fire-prone areas.


Comment #: 1
While the basic statement is true, it seems unfair to assume that ALL human presence contributes to the problem. Homesites and wells often provide access and water which could be valuable while fighting or monitoring fire.


Comment #: 2
Establish areas where building homes is off limits.


Comment #: 3
This situation is analagous to building on the beach in hurricane prone areas. These people should be told they build at their own risk in fire prone areas.


Comment #: 4
I support more rigid minimal acreage purchase requirements 40 plus acres to build residential properties.


Comment #: 5
These so called fire-prone areas are now roaded, providing easy access, water power. The budget for "fire protection" continues to be way out of line.


Comment #: 6
People should be told they are putting themselves at risk in fire prone areas. Developers should be held responsible.


Comment #: 7
Better land use regulation in rural areas - appropriate development.


Comment #: 8
With increased pressure on urban forest and more forested land becoming urbanized, I think we need to maintain our large state forests as primitive and non-motorized as possible.


Comment #: 9
Note Bend, Oregon over develop part in fire prone areas


Comment #: 10
Not to mention in river flood plains . . . We're due


Comment #: 11
Potential landowners must be EDUCATED to these risks and let their insurance companies deal with their decision! If a landowner knows the risk and $'s involved to protect his investment he may make a better educated decision! We surely would!


Comment #: 12
education may prevent disaster


Comment #: 13
The more the state gets involved, the more liable they become in any ancident that what has been touched by state people!


Comment #: 14
Better/stricter land use planning and zoning is a must. A home a mile in on a forest road should not be permitted.


Comment #: 15
Development should be severely restricted by any legal means possible


Comment #: 16
What would your plan propose - no development? Or an educational plan so they would be more careful?


Comment #: 17
Maybe these houses should burn down


Comment #: 18
Need landuse planning and zoning.


Comment #: 19
Consider but not dwell on.


Comment #: 20
Development can be given an incentive to adapt to ffire through less emphasis on fire suppression.


Comment #: 21
More education on this for proper building in fire prone areas.


Comment #: 22
Does development drive forest planning or should it be vice versa?


Comment #: 23
Increasing problem. Urban sprawl into the wood this down suppression forces needed to fight the fire.


Comment #: 24
The public needs to be educated, but beyond that, it is not the duty or responsibility of the state to protect everyone from fire. As in flood plain development, insurance premiums in fire-prone areas should be higher. That might wake people up.


Comment #: 25
Development in these areas should be discouraged in spite of political risk.


Comment #: 26
Do not develop in forested areas!


Comment #: 27
The fire potential can be reduced by good forestry management techniques. There needs to be an incentive to maintain large tracts of land.


Comment #: 28
People who build homes in pine plantations should either be denied fire insurance or be forced to pay exhorbitant rates.


Comment #: 29
People accept liability by location - provide no FEMA assistance


Comment #: 30
Stronger planning and zoning needed


Comment #: 31
Goes back to the firs in the west. Zoning committee's work.


Comment #: 32
Restrict building in fire prone areas


Comment #: 33
zoning codes need to be strengthened to prevent permitnenet home building


Comment #: 34
The DNR already emphasizes fire control over forest management.


Comment #: 35
How many homes have been lost to forest fire in WI. I can't think of one. Disallow homes in fire prone areas same as high H2O, etc.


Comment #: 36
This is a serious problem. Step up your efforts on fire prone property inspection.


Comment #: 37
Again we need to sincerely consider less development in these areas.


Comment #: 38
People moving to the country need to know that fire hazard and fire protection is not like in the city.


Comment #: 39
Town of Wesscott is developed now they have access for the fire equipment many streets, they can get there fast.


Comment #: 40
There comes a time where people have to make their own decision. Again education is important.


Comment #: 41
People assume the risk.


Comment #: 42
See comments to A14.


Comment #: 43
Development hast to be better controlled. The change of the landscape since the 1950s is scarry. What will happen in the next 100 years? Not encouraging -


Comment #: 44
Fire is a natural part of forests. People who build in fire areas are taking their chances. Let fires burn as much as possible!


Comment #: 45
Make buyers aware. Local zoning authorities and local governments need to look at this issue, and at the costs of providing fire protection.


Comment #: 46
They must take the beauty and the less pretty consequences, such as fire as a package. There is always a trade-off when living in remote areas.


Comment #: 47
Fines and tough laws on people starting a major fire; let them burn - or furnish their own fire protection. They chose to live there - not the state.


Comment #: 48
Set standards - increase fire insurance costs, etc. (like flood plans)


Comment #: 49
As it affects national and state forests only.


Comment #: 50
Stop development


Comment #: 51
Needs to address clearly: 1-the risks of doing this kind of development; 2-include recommendations on how one should do it to "minimize" danger/risk.


Comment #: 52
Do you educate landowners if their area is a fire prone area? People live in tornado alley and are aware of it, but if people don't know fire prone expect to be protected. Higher fire insurance rates.


Comment #: 53
Fire is more threatening than ever because of high fuel loads due to lack of mgmt.


Comment #: 54
A good fire can discourage this. FEMA is part of the problem, too. Look to the North Florida Prescribed Fire Council as a public/private model that worked.


Comment #: 55
It may be essential to curtail development of fire prone areas. Otherwise the public in place will require roads, water supply and other to protect their property. Of course at the expense of the particular ecosystem.


Comment #: 56
Lack of law enforcement.


Comment #: 57
Once urbanized risks change.


Comment #: 58
I see the development of housing in the pine plantations a great potential for a hazard waiting to happen. Thinning, replants in hardwoods, forest floor growth.


Comment #: 59
2


Comment #: 60
If develop in fire-prone areas - you suffer the consequences just because someone builds in fire-prone area doesn't mean you have to make it fire proof.


Comment #: 61
If they want to live in fire prone area just carry better insurance


Comment #: 62
Can't do much about it anyway


Comment #: 63
If they are dumb enough to take the risk of building in an area that is prone to fire let them pay higher insurance for when their homes burn.


Comment #: 64
Let the buyer beware!


Comment #: 65
sprawl costs us all


Comment #: 66
If they build in this area let them worry about it


Comment #: 67
Development of fire-prone areas will have less effect of fires potential than NO access to those areas with a no new road policy or not managing those area's using sound and proven forestry practices.


Comment #: 68
This is a key concern - public costs and ins. Costs will go up fast


Comment #: 69
This issue should bring out the land use plannign concept.


Comment #: 70
Those who devlop in fire prone areas do so at their own risk and expense.


Comment #: 71
Rural settlers take their own fire dept. with them. It is called the US Forest Service.


Comment #: 72
Require landowners to conduct prescribed burns on private lands if lands meet specific criteria (I.e. size, density, type, etc.)


Comment #: 73
Increase size of acreage per dwelling.


Comment #: 74
Need to educate


Comment #: 75
This is all ture. Possibly some areas should be zoned to preclude future development similar to flood plaine zoning.


Comment #: 76
Possibly building codes should be developed so that there is an area around dwelling as a fire buffer from forest fires


Comment #: 77
In fire prone areas when it is dry or a threat for fire, this area should be closed to off vehicular traffic.


Comment #: 78
Make the local government responsible for fire suppression in these developed areas. The state should not be responsible for additional fire control needs which result from development encroaching on forest lands.


Comment #: 79
Lets discourage development.


Comment #: 80
A balancing act, I agree!


Comment #: 81
Include local fire department peple in four training exercises.


Comment #: 82
We have laws about building in "flood plains," though some could be applied to building in the deep woods or fire prone areas.


Comment #: 83
The control of forest fires depends a great deal on a quick response to a call. Our local volunteer fire departments are doing a great job of responding to emergencies.


Comment #: 84
owner risk


Comment #: 85
True


Comment #: 86
Many of these newly developed subdivisions have also been poorly planned, in fact, it is irresponsible. Some how, county or town zoning must come into play here.


Comment #: 87
Someday, fire will knock off 200-300 homes. Only then will it become a real issue.


Comment #: 88
People who move to high fire risk areas should be informed about that. There are things they (as landowners) can do on their property to help reduce the risk. Many will not take the time to make their property less fire prone. I also realize that in some years all the prevention will not make one bit of difference.


Comment #: 89
We are due for a bad one!! It is inevitable and only a matter ot time.


Comment #: 90
I think that people in high fire prone areas should be informed of that when they build there or move there and then they are responsible for themselves and their own insurance. How foolish to build on the banks of a river and never expect it to flood ... same sort of thing in fire prone areas. People need to take some responsibility for themselves.


Comment #: 91
What else is new?


Comment #: 92
This will create major fire fighting problems during the next severe fire season. Many structures will be lost.


Comment #: 93
In light of the past fire season in the West, this topic deserves full attention.


Comment #: 94
People need to be aware that they are not just building in the woods, but in a potential fire zone - this couples with the type of development in woodlands and the need to cluster and not fragment - this could accomplish two birds with one stone, and sell the concept of clustering as a way to minimize fire hazard a more easily understood concept than fragmentation.


Comment #: 95
Planning in relation to this issue will be very helpful in the smart growth process.


Comment #: 96
Development around and within forests will increase risks and fire control costs. Certain areas are obviously more prone that others. Control should be considered through local zoning to prevent development. Otherwise, public commitment needs to be made to pay the costs. It's strange that the insurance industry hasn't levied more control through their premiums. It's probably like car/deer collisions-the rest of us premium payers are carrying the burden.


Comment #: 97
This is a national concern that was made evident during last summer in the west. Wisconsin is not immune from this.


Comment #: 98
This is a national concern that was made evident during last summer in the west. Wisconsin is not immune from this.


Comment #: 99
Urban interface FF and developmental problem.


Comment #: 100
We need to keep development out of those areas and let it burn.


Comment #: 101
Make the beneficiaries of public expense of fire control pay. Just like rescue on a mountaintop-in many public lands, you pay!


Comment #: 102
Limit new development in forested areas


Comment #: 103
There is also a concomittant implication toward insurance costs and the need to protect private property from damage. A close analogy is the deer damage and automobile problem. Insurance claims and costs might have greater future implications to fire control priorities than the present.


Comment #: 104
People moving to high risk areas should understand the risk and make their decisions accordingly, education should certainly be a part of the plan


Comment #: 105
Education needed. Require insurance against forest fires (similar to flood insurance).


Comment #: 106
people should be warned, but if they dont want to listen that is up to them to suffer the repercussions.


Comment #: 107
Precautions need to be presented to these landowners. They need to understand the position they've put themselves in and do what they can in order to avoid disaster.


Comment #: 108
Precautions need to be presented to these landowners. They need to understand the position they've put themselves in and do what they can in order to avoid disaster.


Comment #: 109
I DIS AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT .NO YOU CAN'T ALL THAT HAS NOT BEEN DEVELOPED TO TURN INTO STATE LAND.


Comment #: 110
If they want to build, let them. We will just pay them again to build back when they burn out.


Comment #: 111
Well...they move there, they take the risk, huh?


Comment #: 112
I know it is a concern to give aid to people in cases of natural disasters. But if they are stupid enough to build in a dangerous area then they should pay the consequences.


Comment #: 113
Educate those so they choose to take the risk wisely. Some areas should not be developed.


Comment #: 114
This should be controlled by local ordinance and insurance prices.


Comment #: 115
Development of forested areas and its impacts should be interfaced with SMART GROWTH efforts.


Comment #: 116
That's what insurance is for.


Comment #: 117
Educating the public and both wildland and structural firefighters becomes more important.


Comment #: 118
Infer a cost ot people wanting to develop these remote areas.


Comment #: 119
Fire education, insurance rating and charging for fire protection are some of the ways needed to respond to the fire risk.


Comment #: 120
Convince insurance agencies not to insure these folks, and charge them pints of blood in taxes, so they realize how much risk they are putting their selves and loved ones into.


Comment #: 121
Harvesting timber on regular intervals can also reduce this problem.


Comment #: 122
As long as new buildings do not represent a fire hazard, the stateshould simply warn builders and be done with it.


Comment #: 123
People should be warned if they move into these areas.


Comment #: 124
See previous comments concerning fire.


Comment #: 125
The DNR should work with local governments under the new Smart Growth program to discourage further human development in this wildland/urban interface.


Comment #: 126
The DNR should work with local governments under the new Smart Growth program to discourage further human development in this wildland/urban interface.


Comment #: 127
This should be considered the same way

some people build in a flood plain. GOOD VIEW

until the water rises... Think people!


Comment #: 128
Last fire season out west an example of how dangerous fire suppression combined with development in fire prone areas is.


Comment #: 129
This is a very serious problem. See my earlier reply about working with local governments under the new statewide Smart Growth land use planning incentives program. We must discourage more development in fire-prone areas, just as we have done for years legally in flood-prone areas. Also no government subsidies should be provided that assist in building in fire-prone areas.


Comment #: 130
People need to really understand this.


Comment #: 131
Builders should be required to alert potential owners of the possible fire risks that could happen in the future. Maybe this would automatically reduce this sort of problem. Couple this with a few newsclips of fire damage out west this past year. This seems to me to be similar to building in a flood plain and then being surprised when your basement floods.


Comment #: 132
If people want to build in a fire prone area they alone should be responsible for any consequences.


Comment #: 133
I am particularily concerned about this issue as it relates to the ability of land managers to use fire as a management tool. If there is more risk of loss of structures and life, use of fire will be reduced.


Comment #: 134
Educational programs should be provided to those who would develop rural, fire-prone areas. Realizing that this sprawl taxes our system limits for fire suppresion it is the developer that should shoulder this burden.


Comment #: 135
If they develop these areas,they MUST build the roads to support these areas.


Comment #: 136
Big issue and one that also needs to be emphasized at the land use planning level.




Comment #: 137
Fire management should be based on the (public) forest, not the people developing there. That is a private issue for them and their insurance companies.


Comment #: 138
Not all forest fires are harmful. Some plants need fire to regenerate. look at Yellowstone Park after the fires there.


Comment #: 139
urban sprawl must be controlled people must refrain from building in fire prone areas.


Last Revised: Monday July 30 2007