PB
Addicted to ArboristSite
Is a landowner held responsible for a forest fire that results from poor/no forest management?
Landowner responsibilty?
- Thread starter PB
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
That depends. There are a lot of variables to consider, not least of which is fuel loading in tons per acre versus average fire return interval; that is, if "no management" means "historically normal" fuel loading, and a lightning-started fire escapes into a neighboring property, probably not. However, if a prescribed burn escapes due to negligence or faulty burn plan, most certainly. It all depends on the degree of liability the adjacent ownerships assume against each other.
PB
Addicted to ArboristSite
My parents' neighbor planted rows of red pine years ago spaced about every 4-5'. That was about 50 years ago and the trees are about 14" DBH. They are starting to die and the ground below them is ripe for a fire. It is not a natural planting.
You live in a state where lawyers don't descend like vultures after every disaster. Here any wildland fire that crosses a fenceline will have more lawyers than firefighters. There have been a 3 or 4 wildland fires in the last 3 years that are still in litigation and every land owner is being sued. Fuel models, access roads, fences, gates, structures, brush piles/slash, water supply, etc are all mentioned in the lawsuits.
We just had a small earthquake. It was predicted.
BRB
2Dogs: As I said -- "It all depends on the degree of liability the adjacent ownerships assume against each other." If everybody behaves as though everything is everybody else's fault, and hires lawyers to uphold that stance, it can get real ugly real fast.
PB: I am guessing that you are looking for a preventative measure against slopover should a fire occur? You might give an insurance company a call, see how they would handle it. Ultimately, law or no, that's where the rubber mets the road. Fire is a particularly tricky beast to corner.
PB: I am guessing that you are looking for a preventative measure against slopover should a fire occur? You might give an insurance company a call, see how they would handle it. Ultimately, law or no, that's where the rubber mets the road. Fire is a particularly tricky beast to corner.
Would checking with the local Fire Department do any good? If your folks live in an area that's prone to wildfires the local FD will probably take an interest in the neighbor's little forest.
Fire department will certainly be aware of any mutual assistance agreements in place, and which resources they will likely have available to call on should a fire occur. They probably won't know much about obligations between adjacent ownerships not specifically written into mutual assistance agreements, though.
PB
Addicted to ArboristSite
I will have to call the fire department, but I doubt they would know anything. We live in the middle of nowhere with a volunteer team. Wildfires are not a normal occurrence but neither is a thick planting of red pines. Every time I walk through there I just cringe and think about the tinderbox I am walking through. The native flora cannot even grow in the thick leaf duff under the pines. I am sure the soil is more acidic than most local plants can handle. The only conifers that grow back there are larch, hemlock and the occasional white pine. The rest are maples, ash, aspen, cherry and other hardwoods. If it weren't for these dying red pines I wouldn't even consider a forest fire as a possibility.
Just trying to be proactive. The neighbor is a "do good for nature" type of guy. Even if he cut down the dead trees and thinned a little I think it would make a huge difference. The pines would have better growing conditions, reduce the fuel, allow for an understory, etc.
Just trying to be proactive. The neighbor is a "do good for nature" type of guy. Even if he cut down the dead trees and thinned a little I think it would make a huge difference. The pines would have better growing conditions, reduce the fuel, allow for an understory, etc.
hammerlogging
Addicted to ArboristSite
TMFARM 2009
Addicted to ArboristSite
or just do as one of my neighbors did to me just come on to the property and cut them down... forced clean up will get it done.
i had a tree that had been hit by lightning three times and wasn't wanting to take it out. the neighbor cut it down and i was forced to deal with it due to laying across the lane into the field at planting time.36" diam ash tree 90' tall...makes a nice road block.
i had a tree that had been hit by lightning three times and wasn't wanting to take it out. the neighbor cut it down and i was forced to deal with it due to laying across the lane into the field at planting time.36" diam ash tree 90' tall...makes a nice road block.
It's not neighborly to press a neighbor into behaving in an un-neighborly fashion. I can't advocate that approach.
Dalmatian90
Addicted to ArboristSite
You don't list your state, which makes a difference. Laws vary.
I doubt there's any liability worries from fire here.
Being dead, they're probably less of a risk of crown fire then alive. They die, their needles drop to the ground, you get a forest floor fire, big whoop. Those are easy enough to contain with fire breaks, hoselines, etc.
When the trees are alive the needles are the hazard even though they're green. Unlike a blade of green grass, green pine needles are filled with flammable resin. Embers can ignite them, or a fire can be spread the floor below (most likely by heating the needles then throwing an ember into the pre-heated needles, or following a "fuel ladder"). The resin in the needles are why evergreen forests can support crown fires, and deciduous forests don't.
Look up at the size and spacing of the dead branches. Imagine trying to light those in your woodstove without any paper. Same idea. Needles die the hazard goes down a bit, needles drop hazard goes down a lot.
The intensity of the fire on the forest floor may increase for a number of years as new limbs fall to replace the ones that finally rotted away. But like I said, big whoop. Most ground fires are readily controlled with pretty common equipment and you can protect your own property by thinning and maintaining fire breaks and lanes to allow rapid access by engines and heavy equipment.
However, if the trees are dead and within a distance they can fall onto your property -- particularly improvements (buildings, etc) -- and the owner has explicit knowledge of the danger then there may be a liability issue there.
I doubt there's any liability worries from fire here.
Being dead, they're probably less of a risk of crown fire then alive. They die, their needles drop to the ground, you get a forest floor fire, big whoop. Those are easy enough to contain with fire breaks, hoselines, etc.
When the trees are alive the needles are the hazard even though they're green. Unlike a blade of green grass, green pine needles are filled with flammable resin. Embers can ignite them, or a fire can be spread the floor below (most likely by heating the needles then throwing an ember into the pre-heated needles, or following a "fuel ladder"). The resin in the needles are why evergreen forests can support crown fires, and deciduous forests don't.
Look up at the size and spacing of the dead branches. Imagine trying to light those in your woodstove without any paper. Same idea. Needles die the hazard goes down a bit, needles drop hazard goes down a lot.
The intensity of the fire on the forest floor may increase for a number of years as new limbs fall to replace the ones that finally rotted away. But like I said, big whoop. Most ground fires are readily controlled with pretty common equipment and you can protect your own property by thinning and maintaining fire breaks and lanes to allow rapid access by engines and heavy equipment.
However, if the trees are dead and within a distance they can fall onto your property -- particularly improvements (buildings, etc) -- and the owner has explicit knowledge of the danger then there may be a liability issue there.
