I’ll admit my first reaction was to laugh at the story of the woman who tried to rid her house of a snake by pouring gasoline on it and torching it. It worked: the snake made its way out of the house and into nearby brush.
The story struck me as ridiculous. At what point did she decide this was her best option for pest control?
It is probably no surprise to those reading this that the brush where the snake sought refuge caught fire, or that the house next to the brush caught fire, or that the neighbor’s house next to the burning house nearly caught fire.
Leaving the animal-cruelty issue for other publications to address, the issue for us is that this woman in all likelihood did not understand how fire behaves. She’s not alone.
During last summer’s drought, we were dispatched to a house fire set by the owner using a small blowtorch to kill weeds between the cracks of his walkway, which was next to dry landscaping. This homeowner faired much better than did the snake woman, as his house sustained only minor damage to the facade.
I have no reason to believe the man in my district is a stupid man; he may be quite intelligent, as may be the snake woman. They simply didn’t understand how fire works.
In the end, it doesn’t much matter if our residents are smart enough to beat a computer at chess or dumber than a box of rocks. What matters is that they don’t set their homes on fire. And a fiscally responsible local government will understand that.
It takes a lot of resources to contain a fully involved structure if nothing goes wrong. That cost is compounded when you toss in firefighter work-related injuries or the worst-case scenario — a line of duty death.
It is a much better financial and moral investment to prevent the fire through effective public education than it is to battle it through suppression efforts.
Public officials may, like me, snicker at first at the snake woman’s story. But they should see this as a true measure of the value of public education when weighing budget proposals.