Vote no on 4A

frogger wrote: Michael....Do you also have auto aid or mutual aide agreements with the Forest Service?

I'm not sure how that works. I believe about 10% of our district is Forest Service land. We're required to protect it (although we don't receive any funding from the Forest Service for doing so). If you called 911 and reported a fire, an accident or injury on that portion land in our district, we'd be the ones responding first (I believe).

The Forest Service has rangers and their own fire crews, but their budget has been drastically cut and the resources they can bring to bear on an incident are not what they once were.

Sorry, wish I were better informed.

Michael_Davis wrote:

frogger wrote: Michael....Do you also have auto aid or mutual aide agreements with the Forest Service?

I'm not sure how that works. I believe about 10% of our district is Forest Service land. We're required to protect it (although we don't receive any funding from the Forest Service for doing so). If you called 911 and reported a fire, an accident or injury on that portion land in our district, we'd be the ones responding first (I believe).

The Forest Service has rangers and their own fire crews, but their budget has been drastically cut and the resources they can bring to bear on an incident are not what they once were.

Sorry, wish I were better informed.

Let me see if I can help answer this (and for heavens sake, if I misspeak, someone please feel free to correct me).

When the Lime Gulch fire event was in progress I had the opportunity to visit the command post and I was driven in to the fire line, with a forest service information officer.

On the 10% or so of the lands that fall into the Elk Creek Fire Protection District, Elk Creek fire will be one of the first respondents... if the forest service fire fighter are not already on scene.

Elk Creek will set up a command (or more than one) and they will access the situation and attempt to knock down what they can, if they can.

If at some point the fire is deemed to have advanced to a certain level of seriousness (and please, forgive me if I don't have the level identifiers at hand) the forest service will take the first command as they did in the case of Lime Gulch.

And Lime Gulch is not the best example that can be given, but I have to relate this to what was told to me by the forest service PIO. In the case of Lime Gulch I believe that the forest service fire fighters were at the fire first, since they were monitoring lightning strikes and saw smoke and flame the night before.

But even in the event of the forest service taking first command Elk Creek (and other area fire departments) will be recruited to assist in the incident.

Elk Creek was on various parts of the Lime Gulch fire most of the time during the event.

So how much or how little Elk Creek would be involved in a fire on forest service land depends on a number of factors usually dictated by the forest service.

Elk Creek supplied needed service and support to the forest service during the Lime Gulch fire (as did many units and departments).

I was on the fire line and saw them in action. One of the biggest roles they played (at least from my vantage point) was to keep the fire from jumping the Platte and knocking down hot spots that did develop on the north and east side of the Platte. And I know of 10-12 hotspots that did appear on the Conifer side of the Platte.

If that fire started to run uphill towards Conifer or down the south side of 285 it would have been 10 times as large of a fire then what it was (although the earlier North Fork fire that was on that side did create some natural fire breaks that would have help slow the progress of a fire on that side... that's the ying/yang of fires).

I learned a whole lot more about commands, fire lines and such and I got to speak to numerous personal and firefighters involve in the incident.

I had planned a large article for The Flume using what I learned those 4 days, but the article idea eventually evolved into the 4A article that I recently wrote.

I hope that helps, at least a little.

GO UNION wrote: Why does'nt elk creek bill for the services in these parks?

The parks don't pay property taxes, so Elk Creek Fire Protection District doesn't receive any funding from the parks.

If someone get's hurt on a trail, we respond and find them. We provide first aid in the field and we help get them out of the forest. IF they are hurt badly enough that they have to be transported to an area hospital; Elk Creek will bill their insurance for the transport (ambulance ride to the hospital). However, if they are not transported, there is no charge for our services.

GO UNION wrote: Mike Davis, why does an elk creek firefighter need more fire when last summer they could point in any direction and find one?

I'm sorry sir. I have no idea what you mean.

He is referring to the pic on Kincaid Springs website of the "alleged" fire fighter holding a sign stating he is out of work and needs a fire in front of an Elk Creek truck.

Since some of the pics have been altered on that site, it is hard to give much validity or understand the context of the pics.
Could there be some photo shopping going on?

Mr Newton, I do believe that your 4a article was one of the more unbiased articles that i've read in awhile in regards to ecfd.

Frogger. the only two pictures that were altered to strip facial identity have been removed and replaced with the real pictures from Elk Creeks Public Facebook page. You can question what you please. however all pictures were taken from public sites. No people crawling around in the forest with super telephoto lenses. Elk Creek Fire and Friends of Elk Creek provided all the ammunition themselves. These pictures are not protected and are referenced as to their origin.

frogger wrote: KinKaid Springs.....though I am quite sure you will ignore this question.....

Are you the owner of ?

Heavens no! the Kincaid springs collective merely borrows it for a small monthly fee.

Are you interested in ownership or survivorship?

MountainGirl44 wrote: Kincaid Springs....where are you getting your $19.99 threshold from? I do the financial reporting for the Friends of Elk Creek Fire issue committee and we are only obligated to report a contribution from a person if the contribution is $100 or more. This comes directly from the Campaign Finance section of the Colorado Secretary of State Website. What I find curious is that the Colorado Union of Taxpayers, who sponsored the opposition piece that was mailed recently has not filed their expenditure on the website per state law. The last expenditures I see reported from them was from 2011 where they gave money and then in 2012 where they received some money back on this issue. Nothing this year. We are being transparent and abiding by the laws of the state.

$20.00 is the threshold for donations to a PAC. If issue committees are at $100.00 than that is cool did anyone donate more than 99.99?

As far as the CUT, Colorado union of Tax payers is a non profit not a PAC or and Issue committee. Because the are a 501, they are not required to disclose donations, contributions or expenditures. So they are within the law for the current status of disclosure. For an ongoing entity, that tackles more than just one issue this is appropriate.

So...a website exists listed to a fictitious name, address and phone number using ironically your nic here as it's fake email addy and it is actually a collective group and not an individual who pays you a nominal fee to mislead a public record.

Do I have all that right?

Given all that.....what exactly should I believe coming from your keyboard?

By the way. a search of ECFD facebook page failed to yield a photo of a fire fighter in need of a fire.
Where did that pic come from?

I think I know all I need to know about you sir.