Letter: Fire danger, liability, and protecting your property

To the Editor:

At a town meeting in Wallagrass earlier this spring, a question was raised concerning property owner liability for Forest Service expenses incurred during fire fighting operations.  The current policy appears to be very unclear. There are a half-dozen uncollected encumbrances from towns that owe the State for such activities.

Wallagrass Town Manager Jim Gagnon said that the State has suggested the town keep an eighty thousand dollar slush fund to help defray expenses to the property owner.  In actuality, the Town can only insure twenty-five thousand dollars of the landowners' domain.  This fund would be spread across all landowners involved with a Forest Service firefighting effort.

The Big Kahuna has a real potential to land in the property owners' mailbox.

This is true even if the fire was caused by a known culprit miles away.  Jim and the town council do a remarkable job of balancing an affordable budget in a disastrous economy, a lesson other communities and cities could learn from.  He is very reluctant to pass this liability on to the landowner.  However, since the State is not clear on debt resolution and responsibility, the communities involved with fire fighting or other State incurred expenses may have few options available.

We, as landowners, have numerous costly insurance policies covering various conditions that protect the homestead.  No policy, including liability umbrella, covers any portion of a firefighting or other State activity.  Considering the extent and cost of land-based and airborne equipment and personnel that is typically required, the liability could be staggering.  It is also unclear as to who assumes liability for injuries sustained on the landowners' property.  As an active pilot with some recent experience in assessing fire damage in the Everglades region of Florida, be assured that this is not pocket change.

Why is this kind of information not made clear and being disseminated to landowners by the State, who insists on running a public business on private property with no compensation to the landowner?  Maine does a better job than most states for landowner protections, but in this case, tourism and the Planning Commission programs take precedence. As a result of such programs, the landowner can be put into very precarious circumstances.

We have been contacted personally as to why our property is closed. We have taken this very seriously, posted and barricaded the property, and have recently served two parties of intruders with misdemeanor and felony trespass.  We highly recommend and actively encourage all landowners do the same.  The State encourages, protects, and nurtures industry that has a demonstrated and documented history of keeping this state broke. This happens even at the expense of turning away significantly strong out-of-state business ventures.  But that's a topic for another day.

Perhaps the State will address this liability issue for which the current guidelines are vague.  This needs to be defined with legal procedure and policy that the landowner can clearly understand.  Until then, adios, amigo, desaparecer.

Gary Striker, Wallagrass