OPINION | WHEN FIRE LEADS, WHO FOLLOWS?
The Fire Is Winning. It’s Time to Question Who’s Really in Control.

Each year, tens of thousands of firefighters, leaders, and innovators gather at conferences like FDIC, driven by a shared goal: to learn, connect, and bring something meaningful back to their communities.

But with fires growing more intense, more destructive, and more deadly—what are we really bringing back?

And more importantly…
What’s actually changing?

We live in a time when fire is setting records across the globe—blazing across California, scorching New York and Florida, torching the forests of Siberia, and even igniting landscapes in Scotland. Each season arrives with higher stakes, more loss, and more economic devastation. The patterns are unmistakable. The signs are everywhere.

And still, prevention continues to fall behind.

We are told to rebuild. We are told to recover. But who is questioning why this keeps happening?

We need to start asking tougher questions:

• Who is in charge?

• Why are they still in charge?

• What have they actually changed—scientifically, tactically, educationally—to meet the demands of this escalating crisis?

The uncomfortable truth is that much of today’s fire leadership remains traditional, reactive, and anchored in systems that refuse to evolve. We’re not following innovation—we’re following a well-funded illusion of it.

Let’s take education. The Essentials of Firefighting, published by IFSTA and used nationwide for entry-level firefighter training, recently underwent its latest revision. The result? The same content—just split into two volumes. The update promised “new science,” but when we examined the material, we found no real additions. Where was the updated fire behavior analysis? Where were the modern suppression tactics? Where were the solutions?

We saw nothing new.
And this silence speaks volumes.

Meanwhile, manufacturers push a different agenda—one of sales over solutions. Consider the growing push for electric fire trucks. With price tags as high as $1.8 million, the question isn't “how cool do they look?” but rather:

Do they put out fire faster?
Do they use less water?
Are they more cost-effective?

In almost every case, the answer is no. It's a political and marketing win, not a tactical one.

The same pattern plays out with the wave of AI-powered early detection systems. Each company claims their technology is smarter, faster, more advanced. But when pressed on how they're fundamentally different from the early detection systems that were already in place during the Camp Fire in California—one of the deadliest in state history—they offer little more than algorithm buzzwords.

Let’s remember: During the Camp Fire, the fire was detected early. CAL FIRE responders even arrived when it was still small. But due to poor road access and a failure to respond decisively—because of weather and other factors—the fire exploded. It wasn’t a lack of cameras. It was a lack of tactics, resources, and urgency.

You could have a million AI-enabled cameras—but if there’s no change in how you respond, nothing changes.

Then there’s the aerial assault—the most expensive and most glorified part of modern fire response. But aerial firefighting is often grounded by weather, wind, or terrain, and worse, the chemical retardants dropped from the sky have been tested and found to contain toxic ingredients with environmental and public health risks.

High cost. Limited impact. Long-term damage.

This is what the fire industry has come to accept. But should we?

So now we must each decide:
Will we keep following broken systems? Will we wait for someone else to lead? Or will we take responsibility for the future of fire management?

This is your choice:
Follow. Lead. Or step aside.

If you’re ready to lead—and to lead differently—call RUFF FIRE.
We’re not here to do more of the same.
We’re here to do what works.

Think about it.