Smokey Bear was created in 1944 to spread the message that “only you can prevent forest fires.” In 2001, his message was updated to “only you can prevent wildfires.” Smokey’s “handlers” – the U.S. Forest Service, National Association of State Foresters and the Ad Council – should consider featuring Smokey in a new campaign, targeted at people who build homes on forested land.

Smokey’s new message? “Only you can prevent – and pay for – your house fires.”

Spokesman-Review reporter James Hagengruber recently reported that national taxpayers will face a growing burden to protect homes built on private forested land adjacent to public land. When home fires break out, residents expect federal land management agencies, such as the U.S. Forest Service, to come to their rescue. And this often happens.

But federal officials are worried about future demands on their resources. And they should be.

Out of all the counties in the West, Idaho’s Bonner County ranks fourth in number of homes being built in wildfire-prone areas, according to Headwaters Economics, a nonprofit think tank. Washington’s Stevens County has 300 square miles of private forest land that could be home to residential sites.

Federal land agencies have watched their budgets grow leaner by the year. Firefighting costs take away from money for trails, campgrounds and wildlife preservation, rural life “services” with the potential to benefit all citizens.

Solutions begin and end with homeowners. Homeowners can reduce risk of fire by building with fire-resistant materials and cutting down trees and brush that fuel wildfires. (Federally funded groups, such as FireSmart, will even do this for them.) They can lobby for locally funded fire districts and question why the counties that approve these subdivisions don’t take responsibility for figuring out how firefighting services will be paid for and delivered locally.

People who build in flood-prone areas understand that their beautiful ocean and river views could be lost in a flash. They pay extra – and dearly – for flood insurance, which is not covered by typical insurance policies for homeowners.

Just like flood-zone dwellers, families who build in wildfire zones make the choice to live where they desire. They are sacrificing municipal services for rural beauty. This is their right. But national taxpayers shouldn’t be expected to subsidize these private – and potentially costly – choices.