Plum Creek subdivisions could strain fire budget in NW Montana
Plum Creek timber is the largest private landholder in Montana, and now since timbering no longer pays as much as remote subdivisions do, they are planning, asking and building a lot of them. Many are located in expensive-to-service, forest fire prone country. Most county commissions seem to think that they have to let developers do as they please with their land, but who pays for all this?
As long as the US Forest Service keeps fighting fires with the primary goal of saving homes, even the most remote, never-should-have-been built homes, the sprawl will never end (except perhaps now by financial collapse of the mortgage market).
This article explores the problem and suggests the reorientation of thinking of county commissioners will be when they have to assess their constituents the true cost of fire fighting.
Plum Creek subdivisions could strain fire budget. By Michael Jamison, Missoulian.

Ralph Maughan
Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University. He has been a Western Watersheds Project Board Member off and on for many years, and also its President. For many years he produced Ralph Maughan's Wolf Report. He was a founder of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. He and Jackie Johnson Maughan wrote three editions of "Hiking Idaho." He also wrote "Beyond the Tetons" and "Backpacking Wyoming's Teton and Washakie Wilderness." He created and is the administrator of The Wildlife News.
One Response to Plum Creek subdivisions could strain fire budget in NW Montana
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 928 other subscribersRecent Posts
- Time to Reevaluate Notion That Oregon’s Rivers Are A Faucet For Agriculture January 27, 2023
- Indian Influence On The Extinction of Bison In Southeast Idaho and Adjacent Areas January 27, 2023
- Chaparral and Wildfire January 25, 2023
- Wildfire–Road Removal A More Effective Wildfire Strategy January 25, 2023
- More wildfire misinformation from UC Davis January 21, 2023
Recent Comments
- Jeff Hoffman on Wildfire–Road Removal A More Effective Wildfire Strategy
- Deane Rimerman on Wildfire–Road Removal A More Effective Wildfire Strategy
- Jeff Hoffman on Wildfire–Road Removal A More Effective Wildfire Strategy
- Deane Rimerman on Wildfire–Road Removal A More Effective Wildfire Strategy
- Jeff Hoffman on Chaparral and Wildfire
- Jeff Hoffman on Wildfire–Road Removal A More Effective Wildfire Strategy
- Deane Rimerman on Wildfire–Road Removal A More Effective Wildfire Strategy
- Ida Lupine on Wildfire–Road Removal A More Effective Wildfire Strategy
- Maximilian S Werner on Indian Influence On The Extinction of Bison In Southeast Idaho and Adjacent Areas
- Jeff Hoffman on Time to Reevaluate Notion That Oregon’s Rivers Are A Faucet For Agriculture
- Jeff Hoffman on Indian Influence On The Extinction of Bison In Southeast Idaho and Adjacent Areas
- Jeff Hoffman on Wildfire–Road Removal A More Effective Wildfire Strategy
- Ida Lupine on Wildfire–Road Removal A More Effective Wildfire Strategy
- Deane Rimerman on Wildfire–Road Removal A More Effective Wildfire Strategy
- Jeff Hoffman on Wildfire–Road Removal A More Effective Wildfire Strategy
Right now we are all paying because the FS is spending half its budget on protecting private property instead of being stewards of public property.
I would not be surprised if sometime in the next decade the insurance companies pull-out and stop insuring homes in the wildland-urban fire interface — then all the Western states will be left to self-insure these homes just like Florida now does for its properties ….. then, to answer your question, we will all pay (again) for these people to live in these remote subdivisions through higher taxes.
Todd