Hacker News Reader

Comment by rticesterp | Hacker News Reader

In Virginia, suppression costs of the fire are the responsibility of the fire starter even if they take all proper precautions and there is no negligence involved. It's a good law. It protects our national forests. Stories like these make one think twice before starting a fire.

"Even if a person takes all proper precautions and obtains any locally required permits, whoever started the fire is responsible for suppressions costs should the fire escape." https://dof.virginia.gov/wildland-prescribed-fire/fire-laws/...

View on HN

This is an appropriate strategy for a climate like VA where there's plenty of rain and wildfires aren't part of how the ecosystem evolved to work. On the other hand, places like this part of CA historically burned, and each year accumulate more dead flammable biomass. Applying the same sort of law in the West means companies put in inordinate amounts of work to decrease the odds that when a fire starts it gets counted as their fault: https://www.jefftk.com/p/fire-law-incentives

This particular case is a pretty unusual one where the hiker is saying they were choosing between setting a fire and dying. I doubt they were aware of the law involved, and expect they would have made the same choice regardless.

I worked at a summer camp in college. We had some campers and staff build a fire near the river and neglect to fully douse the embers. Hours later there was an "all hands" call on the radio. The fire had spread in about a 10 foot radius by the time we got to it. Since the soil was so loose and sandy, it had caught the roots on fire. Took hours of digging to put it out. Could not have been controlled without a team, equipment, and a quick response.

>Stories like these make one think twice before starting a fire.

yeah, I can't afford to run the risk of something going wrong here, guess I'll keep going and hope I don't die.

How about considering the danger that starting that fire and walking away from it stands to expose other people to? Maybe we look at things differently, but saving my own life is not worth risking the lives of a bunch of firefighters or regular folks.

Particularly not if I'm almost wholly to blame for being at risk because of my own spectacular level of stupidity.

The monetary cost of a mere $300,000 is a very poor proxy for putting the risk back on the shoulders of the person it rightly belongs on.

> How about considering the danger that starting that fire and walking away from it stands to expose other people to?

When you are dying, I doubt that should matter.

Or why even leave the house and participate in any activity if there are lifelong legal risks to everything?

We might as well require every living person to carry multimillion dollar personal liability insurance so the government can actually get their $300k. Isn't that the same logic they use with calls for gun liability insurance? Ensure money is paid as well as make "risky" (unwanted) activities cost prohibitive thereby reducing participation.

The real problem here was how he set the fire. But the case sure does focus on a lot of other stuff.

There aren't many things an average human can do that is quite as destructive as causing a 200 acre forest fire. I'm really trying to figure out anything that could cause that much widespread damage, but nothing is coming up.

The case focuses on other stuff because it adds to the recklessness charge. He started a massive forest fire because he got into a bad situation because of recklessness.

The damages are only $300k. It's very easy to cause that much damage or more doing a bunch of things, like injuring or killing someone, buring down a house or business, etc.

I'm not convinced he was reckless in going hiking. He was reckless in how he set the fire. That was the main part of my comment - that almost anyone who needs to be rescued could be found to be reckless or negligent based on the armchair logic that because I would have packed X and you didn't, that makes you reckless. You had a heart attack and had to be flown out of the backcountry. Guess you're reckless for not packing an AED... etc

If it were really so simple to know what you needed, there would be codified equipment requirements for use of public land based on your intended activity. Yet even the private lists of what to being vary wildly.

AND it's mentioned how many hikers don't take enough water!

He made a mistake, and almost paid with his life. That is punishment enough.

I'm sure that the same people who start illegal fires in panic in forests are the same people who are in shape enough to attempt to outrun the forest fire they started.

Considering that most major fires cost far more to contain than any individual has assets, I'm not sure the law can ever really work.

"If you burn a forest, we'll ruin your life". Sounds good enough for me.

That just sounds punitive, though. Anyone sensible enough to understand and follow the law probably wouldn't break it in the first place, and ruining someone's life to the extent that they may no longer even be a functioning member of society is actually harmful to us all as it means they'll no longer be able to contribute.

Its not punitive.

1) Starting a fire was already illegal.

2) Recklessness was from the fact that he walked away after setting a goddamn tree on fire, without any thought to prevent the fire from spreading

> Stories like these make one think twice before starting a fire.

That's a problem in a life or death situation. You shouldn't think. You should do what is necessary to save a life, yours or someone else's.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com