Hunter's distress signal sparked California fire

After reading the latest news on some of the California fires, it appears as though a lost hunter’s signal fire started one of the big fires. As of now, he has been charged with a misdemeanor.

I was wondering what this site’s posters had to say about his choice of signaling? What should happen to this hunter?

As a side-bar, the same reporter had interviewed displaced residents who were complaining that no one told them what to prepare for. Since I live on the East Coast I have to resist judging a West Coast situation, however, I can’t believe these residents couldn’t have anticipated and been at least a little prepared for a fire (or earthquake) evacuation. I don’t mean to sound insensitive, but it just doesn’t make much sense to me.

Our thoughts are with all those who’ve been affected by these fires. It’s a terrible thing to lose so much you care about in a matter of minutes or hours.

This is interesting since the same thing happened in Arizona a year or so ago. In that case it was a lost hiker. As far as what punishment should be I'm not sure. The devastation wasn't intentional but possibly negligent. I think I would need to know the person's state of mind at the time they started the fire.

I am keeping a running journal of ideas,observations and lessons. Hopefully other Southern California forum readers will join in. Temperatures quickly jumped into the 90s with a 10 % humidity level and a strong offshore flow wind just prior to the fires ( joined later by our infamous Santa Anna winds.) Large stands of bark beetle infested dead or dying trees and our FIRE ECOLOGY chapparel made for a literal time bomb. San Diego County is one of the fastest growing areas in the US. Many of those homes still have( or HAD) cedar shake shingle roofs in spite of legislation bitterly opposed by that industry. Simi valley's name comes from Shi'mi'ya, chumash for valley of the winds. The nieghboring San Fernando Valley's indian name meant valley of the smokes. So the many special interests and finger pointers should temper their agendas. Fire is the twin sister to earthquake. Both were here long before us and will remain after our departure. The San Diego fire was caused by the hunter discharging a flare. He apparently didn't even know if anyone could see it. My ranch fire was actually a precurser to the Simi fire. We were hit by embers blowing over from the Val Verde 6 short aerial miles away. That fire is now attributed to arson. The death toll is given anywhere from 11 to 24 at present. 8 people died in San Diego after ignoring evacuation orders and were overrun by fire in their cars and on foot. A private plane actually crash landed on a freeway after taking off into the heavy smoke. Recently recalled Governor Davis was in San Bernadino meeting with fire victims who statistically voted him out. Governor elect Swartzenegger met with officials near my town which statistically voted for Mc Clintock and no on the recall.

Lighting a signal fire is usually a reasonable thing to do if you wish to signal for help. It is something that is taught at all wilderness survival courses. Signal flares are similarly used and taught as a reasonable tool. It is certain that these tools only make sense when there isn't a high risk of starting a wild fire. Putting aside the blame game for a moment and foregoing the discussion of the horrendous consequences to others of the wildfire, it isn't in the survival interests of a lost individual to immerse themselves in the middle of a wildfire.

The survival lesson I take from the actions of the person who used a signal fire / flare in this case is to think hard about what I am burning and where before lighting a fire for signalling or any other purpose in a tinder box.

There was a discussion regarding this hunter last night on MSNBC's The Abrams Report...There was an Ecology guy condeming the hunter for being in the woods to shoot "Bambi and his family" and wants to press criminal charges for starting the fire with a signal flare. Seems there's a law against "Recklessly starting a fire that causes damage to forest lands, etc." Manslaughter was also mentioned. The other guy in the discussion was a talk show host who said that the hunter was smart to use a signal flare to save his life if he was lost, irregardless of the damage or further loss of life. He should be congratulated for his quick thinking under stress and no charges should be filed. Neither brought up any possible alternatives that could and should have been used in a dry ground summer hunt.
I will admit that while I have hunted for nearly 20 years, I never took a hunter's safety course. I gues that's why a signal flare has never been part of the gear I hunt with. The first signalling device that I carried - and still do - is a good whistle. These days, I also include a handheld GPS, a two-way radio, and a cell phone. The method I was taught in an extreme emergency was to fire my gun rapidly 3 times as an emergency signal. This "Hunter" seems like an idiot to me and I would agree that he should face charges.

I didn't see the piece that you're refering to but it seems as if the producers got a couple of folks to express the two most extreme points of view. Some of the legal types on the forum may weigh in with a different point of view but to me "recklessly starting a fire" is more akin to burning your human waste in the middle of a bone dry forest than accidentally starting a blaze by the firing of a distress flare. I agree that the flare might not have been to well thought out but I don't know what other options were available to the guy, what else he had already tried, what his experience level was, etc, etc. Unless you have some insight into that information then your characterization of him as an idiot might be premature. You have 20 years experience but have never taken a hunter safety course. Are you really that good or just an idiot who's been lucky for 20 years? ***I'm just illustrating a point, NOT calling you an idiot****

That's my $.02

Ed

As with any law, If there is a law against recklessly starting a fire then it should be enforced. This individual did start a fire through a recless act. Don't know about the manslaughter. As for the envrionazi flamebait about shooting bambi and his family I don't think it belongs in this conversation. If a nature loving vegan idiot got lost in the backwoods and used a flare to signal help the same situation would prevail. (The idiot label here being applied to one who used a flare in a tinder box and not as a label on nature loving vegans - that is a discussion for a different forum <img src="images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />)

I think it is a sad statement on our media focus and the thoughlessness of the audience that the media attempts to attract that the flame-bait and the focus on litigation is chosen rather than to focus as you point out on the issue of what other alternatives the individual in question should have used to signal for help and how they may have stayed found instead of getting lost.

Seems we (as a society - not this forum) tend more to focus on blame and retribution and compensation than on learning from mistakes (ours or anyone elses).


BTW, anyone know just how much Stress this hunter was under? Was he simply at the end of his first day without his blanky or had he been wandering around out there without water and food trying to find his way home for a week?

Most of the hunter safety course is focused on "how to not shoot yourself" The rest is focused on "how to not shoot your hunting partner or anything else that you shouldnt be shooting. If you can handle your firearm and have a decent dose of common sense then you probably won't gain anything from the course but a ticket that says you took the course. These courses were implemented when it was discovered that too many idiots were going out to hunt. Before that folks hunted just fine for several centuries with any kind of weapon that they could lay hand to without any more training than they got from dad while watching him hunt. I suppose it's dad's fault for not hunting and teaching anymore.

There's been no info on the actual circumstances of this hunter although I am sure the newsies will talk & speculate about him for days. My comment on his being an idiot stemmed from the fact that while this hunter may have used a flare, he didn't seem to care where it came down or what happened when it did. There's not even mention yet as to whether or not this got his buddy's attention or how he did finally get -un-lost. - I still think that in the 21st century there are bette ways of sginalling than to send a flare up in a tinder dry forest. even if that is taught in hunter safety classes.

I have read there is a difference between marine aerial flares and wilderness aerial flares. Marine flares will burn longer, as there is no chance (?) for them to ignite material after hitting the water. Wilderness flares will burn for a shorter period of time so that there will be no chance (?) of them igniting a fire after hitting the ground, as they should be burned out by then.

To the uninformed, an aerial flare is an aerial flare.

There is a reason to use/carry the proper signal equipment and understand the dangers.

The operative legal word here is "recklessly". Using a signal flare for its intended purpose is not "reckless", while using the same signal flare for practically any other purpose could easily be construed as "reckless".
Was this signal flare a handheld flare or an arial flare? Does anyone know?
Assuming it was an arial signal flare, personally, I wonder if he used one that was designed to be used over land. Few are. Most are for marine environments. I would suggest that, if he used an arial flare designed for marine-use, that could easily be judged as reckless. But, if he used an arial flare designed for land-use, that would not be reckless. That would be proper use of an safety device according to its intended design.
I agree that it is sad that the media focus so often habitually slides to fomenting conflict for ratings rather than using a tragic event to focus on education and prevention. The media could eaily use this occasion to spread knowledge that could perhaps help lessen the frequency of fires while simultaneously encouraging people to prepare better both for walking in the wilds and for potentially uprooting events.
Stay safe,
J.T.

I just did a quick search online and the only wilderness aerial flares I could locate were marine... Cabela's has a nifty new laser flare I may add to our equipment... <img src="images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> BTW Cabela's only has marine flares, too. There aren't any listed for hunting safety or survival.

PLEASE ! There are enough casualties allready. Lets not add the board's civility to the list. As I wrote in another thread,everybody rolls out personal agendas after these disasters. If it wasn't some Nimrod, any number of things could have touched the fire off; a hot catalytic converter, broken glass catching the Moonlight etc. Remember the classic movie 'Fate is the Hunter?' A whole lot of small things came together; spilled coffee, an old pier due to be torn down etc. In the end Glen Ford just shrugged his shoulders and suggested fate.

Had a house fire in the block a number of years ago.
How did it start? A bolt of lightning hit a 50' tall palm tree, the burning palm fronds fell on the roof of the house and .............
Talk about fate!

My opinion: If there is enough evidence to substantiate the allegation that his actions started one of these fires, let a jury sort it out. We should be accountable for our actions. I suppose, regardless of his intentions, that living with the consequences of his actions will be quite a burdern, but that alone doesn't seem to me to be sufficient if the allegation is true.

FWIW, in over two decades of hunting in Colorado and Wyoming, the California hunters I have encountered have been observent, concientious, and decent outdoorsmen. The worst (and the reason I refuse to hunt Colorado anymore) have been 1) Locals in both states 2) - close second, Denver area "concrete cowboys" (a sub-type - not all Denverites) in Colorado. Despite my knee-jerk reaction to characterize, say, Texans in Colorado and Wyoming, I honestly cannot do that as everyone else I've encountered afield has been pretty middle-of-the road -- only the California hunters have stood out in my experience (and some of you who know me know that it almost hurts me to write that, LoL!)

The exceptions to # 1 in both states have been very noteworthy and can be numbered on less than my fingers. I've hunted both private and public land and can't see any behavior differences based on ownership. Californians who hunt in state may or may not be able to offer some general characterizations along these lines, although the size of the population there undoubtedly offers a huge diversity in personnas and behavior.

I feel sorry for the guy that is accused of starting the fire, but not enough to let him off without properly being held accountable.

My 2 cents.

Tom

I hated having to take a Hunter Safety Course several years ago. Since then, I have changed my mind... My Dad was (and remains) ferocious about gun safety in all environs. To this day I have no idea where he got all the details - but he could walk in to any accredited Hunter Safety course and instruct the whole thing Ad Hoc as well or better as any certified instructor. BUT THAT WAS NOT THE NORM when I grew up - and even less so when he grew up.

See, it's not ME I worry about - it's the OTHER GUY (or gal). And if the price to pay for at least getting them some "no excuses" instruction is that I have to attend, well, that's just fine with me. I know I have a Constitutional right to own weapons, but I do not have a Constitutional right to hunt - that is a privilege granted by "the state".

The raw statistics of firearms accidents while hunting seem to support mandatory Hunter Safety instruction - the accident rates have proportionally declined. Maybe we should re-test every so often just like for our driver's licenses? Just a thought. I hate state interference in my life, but this seems like a reasonable thing to me.

Regards,

Tom

There is an outfit in San Diego that sells the laser flares at a bit of a discount.

http://www.searchgear.com/cart.cgi?sid=231914&doc=catalog/LIG1.html

This is not a matter of rights but resource ownership. Whether you know it or not this issue is a political hot-topic with many. Since that topic is not survival related I won't do more than to cast doubt on the validity of this assertion.

So what would our postings look like if the hunter had not started the fire with the flare, but instead led to his/her rapid rescue? Would we not see at least several postings, praising him/her for their thoughtful preparation, by including a visual rescue aid? It is easy for each of here to second-guess the actions of others with 20/20 hindsight. However, until we have been in the same exact situation, none of us, know for sure how we would react. I have seen some of the best-trained, best equipped, individuals; with years of experience literally freeze under certain circumstances. Just my 2 cents. Pete

Had he used the flare in a manner that didn't cause a wildfire then he would have been equipped with reason, skill, and gear. It seems he was equipped with gear - not so sure which of the other two attributes of proper equipment he was lacking but it seems that he lacked atleast one of them if not both. A signal fire is a valuable and useful thing whether it is at the tip of a flare or in a fire-ring but to use one without proper caution can be deadly. If this individual had make a reasonable signal fire in a safe fire ring and then fallen into it because of in-attention or lack of coordination the signal fire would have been for nought. The gear alone is not sufficient, skill and responsibility in the use of the gear is also required to ensure survival. This applies for all tools from table saws to matches to emergency space bag bivies. These may all help you survive if properly used, however if you use these tools improperly they each may kill you. You may be toasty warm in your space bag while you die of CO poisoning because you want your head warm also.

In this case the individual was rescued from his compound mistakes (first getting lost, second setting the forest in which he was lost on fire) by people responding to the consequences of his second mistake not his proper use of the signaling device. Had he used the device in the manner he did without setting the forest on fire he may still be wandering around out there but disarmed. He didn't even know if the intended target of his signal was paying attention or if anyone else could see his signal.

I used to carry some "retired" (but still usable) maritime flares in my rucksack, until I tried one (over the river, on july 14th, our national day). It make a whooop, rocket like, in the air, and two bright red stars came on, and came down..... safely in water...
I then asked myself if it was wise to use these flares in a forest area .... ??
and removed them from my rucksack.
I will launch the last ones, next july, 14th.... over water.
Or maybe on january, 1st 2004.
... just to get rid of them all.

Alain

miniMe-
What's with the rush to judgment that this hunter is a fool lacking reason and/or outdoors skills? From all that I've read we don't have anywhere near all of the facts about his story. He might be an inexperienced wilderness neophyte who used a flare to set a signal fire or he may be an expert outdoorsman whose wilderness-rated distress flare had a defective parachute. Until the facts are in passing judgement on the guy seems premature.

I'd like to quote a guy whose opinion I've come to trust:
"The hind-sight 20/20 machine is an interesting friend. It is much better used when you accept that the situation that happened to someone else can, indeed happen to you........If you hind-sight 20/20 machine only told you that you are so much smarter than the poor schmuck that this happened to that it could never happen to you then you have wasted the opportunity to actually learn."

We should all try to from this guy's bad experience but let's wait until we have all of the facts.

Ed

BTW Those are your words, you were defending Aron Ralston

While I could not agree more with you on the importance of knowledge, I am sure we all can agree it is the most important survival tool we have in our possession. However, unlike those of us here and most likely a few other forums, the average person does not dwell or think much about survival tools and techniques. We are not anything special or superior in anyway, except to say we are passionate about the topic. We love to explore, experiment and discuss this subject and sometimes feel that others should be as “responsible” as many of us here believe we are. If I were a betting person, I would suspect this individual went to the Hunting/Sports store, saw the package and all of the manufacture’s hype and thought that this was a vital piece of equipment to have – just in case. Truthfully, I have not read any of the details on this individual’s experience or his/her rational to use the device, so I do not know if this was their first line of defense or their last, but I am willing to wait before passing judgment. You, as well as all others, should feel free to make that decision for yourselves, which is what is great about this forum. I cannot speak for those who have lost life and property and will not speak for the various rescue personal, as to whom is at fault, but I will speak for myself. As one who responds to situations where people have made poor choices, resulting in the need for rescue, I do not hold the opinion that these individuals made “dumb” choices that now place my life in jeopardy. No, I made the conscious decision to pursue this form of public service and it my decision alone. If, I too become victim at a rescue incident, it was based upon an informed decision; I would not place the blame on anyone else. Pete

Thanks for reminding me. Certainly this individual may have been an experienced outdoorsman whose equipment failed him. Hindsight analysis might cause him to rethink using fire for a signaling device when he is in a tinderbox even if the equipment were rated for that use.

What I am trying to say here is less about judging the individual involved and more an attempt to bring out the survival lesson that using fire in an area prone to wildfire during the dryest season of the year is something we should all consider carefully. Whether you use that fire for signalling or cooking it is still a questionable activity in terms of survival value. You may signal help successfully, you may cook your dinner successfully - or you may burn yourself to death along with several tens of thousands of acres of forest and a few homes to-boot.

Each individual needs to evaluate their choices in implementing the use of their gear. We don't know all of the circumstances and probably never will but we can take away from what we do know the simple lesson that fire used in a dry forest carries dangers that may exceed the danger of not being found by rescue for a few more days.

If an individual files a plan of action with others, carries reasonable outdoor gear to deal with expected and unexpected weather, enough survival gear to get found then we may consider them experienced and wise. If further they find that they need to signal for aid they may choose between using their mirror, their cellphone, their whistle, their radio or their matches. If they choose to use their cellphone and there is no signal - try something else. If they have both legs broken and have lost all gear except matches but know that they are in a dry forest (something an experienced and wise outdoorsman should be able to determine from a quick visual inspection) they are indeed faced with a difficult situation. In such a situation a controlled fire may be difficult to build (both legs broken) and an uncontrolled fire is hard to run away from (both legs broken) having no signal is certain death from dehydration / hypothermia. What to do?

Certainly, a cautious evaluation of the use of a fire based signal in the context of a dry forest is a valuable lesson we can take from this individuals experience. Whether or not his actions were the best options available to him will have to wait knowledge of further details of his circumstance but those detals won't invalidate this lesson whatever they are.

We have neither the right nor the duty to judge this man's conduct. And we certainly have even less knowledge as to the actual facts of exactly what he did. Unfortunately news reportage is often inaccurate in both details and generalities. Whether he will or will not be arrested and prosecuted will be sorted out by the local sheriff and prosecutor based upon whether what he did was or was not illegal. Hopefully that will be a fair decision. Later a jury (presumably) will dispassionately judge his conduct in light of the fully proven facts sorted through the matrix of law.

I personally would be loathe to discharge an aerial flare in the dry, brushy conditions prevalent in much of southern California presently. It's a tinder box ready for ignition. The validity of the high fire danger warnings is proven by the many and large forest fires epidemic in the region. In many parts of the country, it is not so dry as to be so readily susceptible to fire. I even recall one USFS ranger admonishing me not to worry so much about fire regulations and forest fires in that state since they were welcomed as a means of cleaning and renewing the forest, a remark that struck me as being in marked contrast to the attitudes prevalent in areas like southern California.

However the potential sources for ignition are innumerable. So the question really becomes why vegetation was allowed to become so dangerously thick. While the environmentalists will deservedly get much of the blame, our political leaders and upper forestry management are also responsible for tolerating those conditions. Therefore that is really a political question and not a criminal legal assessment to be imposed one foolish or hapless individual. (End of rant.)

John

John

Glad you're OK - I was starting to wonder, as we hadn't heard from you lately. Chris had quite an "interesting" night this weekend...

Tom

Tom,

Friday night when we went to bed, the nearest fire was a seemingly safe 20 miles away. By Saturday night, the fire was unexpectedly only 10 miles off. We were starting to worry. Fortunately, our winds abated. Also the mountains behind us have burned several times over the last few years, so the vegetative growth was thin. Consequently the fire approaching us has slowed and seems to be under control. Still it is a bit nerve-racking.

After looking over my earlier post in this thread, it would appear that my temper has worn a bit thin.

I'm certainly glad that Chris has not only survived and in good form, but so has his sense of humor.

John