I was just watching the news and you know how there these huge freaking fires... anyway I also saw that several firefighters died trying to put out an uninhabitated vacation home. Even though it is their duty to put out fires it seems a waste of resources to try and put out fires in homes where the owners can just get new homes.

What is your opinion? Do you think that firefighters should just let the vacation homes burn or try and put them out and risk more lives.

I was really close to the fires, so close i could see them, Some of my friends even got evacuated.

I think they should try to put out the fire, vacation home or not, it'll stop the fire from going elsewhere too.

I blame it on the victims for over building. Bwahahaha

I'm not sure how many millions of dollars you have, but I know most people have less than one. Most people can't just "get a new home," especially in CA. Even run down homes cost in excess of 100 thousand dollars. A mediocre house would be expected at at least 300 thousand.

Of course, most people have insurance, but most people also have priceless memories, which are uninsured. Also, getting the insurance money, and rebuilding or purchasing a new house is a long process. Even if you rent getting into a house typically takes a month or so.

Furthermore, based on what you're saying, it'd be a waste to put out residential fires in other areas. It would be better to put up a couple fire proofing walls in between the neighboring houses and let it burn to the ground. Pretty sucky fire fighting strategy if you ask me.

If people can afford vacation homes they can afford to get another.

I Think we have a fire figther System for a reason...

To put out fires??hhmm Seems like a good idea to me! LOl

Fires are difficult to control in windy, dry climates with plenty of fuel to burn. Stop being ignorant and research the Cali climate.

True but once they burn down it it'll spread to other houses, people may live in those which in that case it's a good idea to fight the fire anyway, people there or not, most houses would be unoccupied if they're evacuated anyway so you'd be saying don't save ANY houses, right?

who the fuck are you talking too?

The point I was trying to make is that if the house fire is contained, should firefighters take the time to try and put it out to salvage whatever of the home is left and risk lives? or let it burn down and fight the main fires.

Also, if they should discriminate as to which residential areas they should protect better.

I think, We need to put out the fire's so the whole entire California doesnt Burn. Not everyone in California is rich, Sorry to say..

And they died because they wanted to die for that Job, thats why they became a fire fighter, they do not have to be one, but they either volunteered or want to help people.

Been there, done that. -.- Remember the fires in Colorado? Damn straight I wanted the fire fighters to save everything that was burning. Its really hard to just sacrifice a home or two, in that...fire is not rational. Winds can change, for one thing, and failure to put it out (just because it isn't important) could severely screw up the surrounding area as well.

This was all caused by Arsonists anyways.

The fire started about five minutes away from where I live: Ramona. At first when I saw it, I thought that it would be put out rather quickly. Then an hour went by and I check outside and it greatly expanded, but I still thought that it still wouldn't be a big deal and that it couldn't be worse than the Cedar fire—which also started about five minutes away from me, but I actually could see the flames advancing the area I live in. Of course, another hour went by and I heard the police siren and the words, Mandatory Evacuation. So I got my stuff ready to put in my car and took a step outside. It was like a blizzard of ash, so I packed my stuff in my car as quickly as possible and headed to my sister's home. After five days there, I got to come back to my practically untouched home. Anyways, that's my story with the fire.

Now should fire fighters save the vacation homes from further damage? It depends where they are located. If they are by many other buildings, then yes because that would be quite idiotic not to do so. However, if they're further away from other buildings, then no because saving one house isn't worth the risk of losing the many homes the fire is heading towards.

Al-Qaeda did it, obviously.

If people have X amount of money, they have 2X amount of money. Duh. Of course, following this logic, everybody with at least one cent has an infinite supply of money.

MAIN fires? I'm sorry, but the MAIN fires are the ones that endanger homes and people. Fires that burn in the middle of a forest are kinda low priority.

Did anyone own the vacation home? If nobody owned it and it was uninhabitited but there was flammable stuff nearby they should've put it out. If there wasn't flammable stuff nearby and nobody owned it and it was uninhabitited then they shouldn't have wasted their time putting it out.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071031/ap_on_re_us/california_wildfires

Wouldn't doubt that our POS government has made these claims.

Oh wait, they already tried denying the fact that arsonists started it.



Guess it was Al-Qaeda. [/endsarcasm]

kellimus, is your sarcasm meter broken? Dr. Shotgun wasn't being serious.