I’m guessing the OP has never gone hiking in the Western mountains where these fires occur.
Quit cutting their budgets.
200 buildings in the town of Yarnell have already burned in this fire; officials have advised the evacuation of another town, Peeples Valley, as well.
Around here ATV’s can pretty much go anywhere in the woods. They can handle fairly steep slopes but you couldn’t climb a mountain with one.
I thought Forest Fire Fighters use ATV’s already? Of course Arkansas doesn’t have the Rockies either. 
Seems to me you’d have a lot more than 18 casualties that way.
a fire that turns bad can cover dozens of yards in seconds. tired people aren’t going to get far running in that time. the plastic shelters give some heat protection and capture some breathable air for the short time you hope the fire will pass over you.
[ul]
[li]ATVs cost money to use, store and maintain.[/li][li]ATVs cost people to use, store and maintain.[/li][li]ATVs require access. Many fires occur where access is impossible (terrain) or outright illegal (Wilderness Act).[/li][/ul]
It’s not about technology. It really about politics, money, and Mother Nature doing whatever she wants at the time.
Okay, but now you have an ATV with a 3x7x7 box dragging behind it. Not the most maneuverable thing.
I didn’t see it as an asshole thought. It’s a statement about the risks inherent in fighting fires. I only just started reading up on this, but it was an incredibly dangerous situation where conditions were changing moment to moment. Whatever exactly happened they were surrounded by fire without basically no warning. They didn’t have a couple of minutes to get into a shelter and I doubt they could have dragged any kind of large device with them. Maybe there are ways to improve the protection they do have and maybe there were flaws in their training or the process of deciding to send them there, but I think the most you can do is make some minor adjustments in safety or the risks they face - not eliminate them by giving them a big fireproof shelter.
nobody forced those people to live in a desert.
[ul]
[li]Nobody forces you to live on a barrier island.[/li][li]Nobody forces you to live in a flood plain.[/li][li]Nobody forces you to live in Tornado Valley.[/li][li]Nobody forces you to live on landfill.[/li][li]Nobody forces you to live near an earthquake fault.[/li][/ul]
What’s your point?
UHaul beat me too the punch. 
Very slick design much like I was thinking about. Really 2.5x6.5x6.5 ft would be a big enough 6 man emergency shelter. But I realize getting it out to the fire is a problem.
http://www.prowleronline.com/ubb/image_uploads/prowler12t.jpg
this is the UHaul I usually see.
Of course you can build a fireproof shelter that could be pulled by a tractor. But such a device would be extremely mobility limited. If you restricted firefighters to be within running distance of the shelter you might as well give up on fighting forest fires.
If the priority is to save firefighter’s lives, then your only choice is to evacuate the area and let it burn, because you can’t fight wildfires from a truck.
It would’ve been especially difficult to get it anywhere near the Yarnell Hill fire, as described by a local Fire Chief here.
Like the oven you propose?
My sister did this for a summer.
As she is cutting down trees with a chainsaw and her fire shelter in her backpack, she is dodging the boulders that come down the hill, dislodged by the helicopter drops of water. She’s operating on a mountain. And creating firebreaks - which means felling trees in the path of that ATV you are planning on hauling the shelter behind.
(She’s also dodging wildlife - a couple of cougars or wildcats jumped right over her while she was working. She wasn’t even a smoke jumper, just a ground grunt.)
Surprisingly, deaths are much more rare in this profession than you’d think, but when they happen, they can wipe out a whole crew as the fighters are working in fairly close proximity.
[quote=“Duckster, post:31, topic:662472”]
[LIST]
[li]Nobody forces you to live on [/li][/QUOTE]
Followed by a list of irrelevant places.
So, since the trailer idea is obviously not cogent and needs to be replaced, if possible, with a portable device meeting additional requirements for cost and deploy time, I think the solution is to stop wasting firefighters by sending them to the brush to fight fires in cases where “homes” (yes, I know, but that’s what some people say) are imperilled.
In such cases of fighting urban and suburban fires, more regular precautions could be taken, no?
Or, alternatively, just as brush firefighters accept their risks, these incorrectly-placed “homes” and pets or whatever are collateral damage, and it’s not that big a deal if they burn up.
Explain that to the owners of the homes, and their insurance companies. Shall we extend this collateral damage to hurricane and tornado victims, earthquake victims, hell, let’s extend it to any home that might be damaged/destroyed by any natural event.
My list isn’t irrelevant. It just points out the selfish absurdity America seems to be headed.
I don’t know what you mean by “extend the collateral damage.” Clearly the damage is real.
What distinguishes houses abutting dry tinder-box forests from your other examples of Houses In Danger is that basic safety gear for emergency aid workers is de rigueur. At least it seems that way to me.
Clearly people and corporations have significant amounts of money invested in their property, I guess, but that’s no different than any other piece of property – say a tenement in 1970s-1980s Alphabet city in NYC getting trashed or a coastal amusement park having problems with rusting facades and structures.
Arguably, that’s what makes living on the frontier exciting. It’s not for me, but I admire people who tough it out and deal with the elements on their own.
I think worthier goals can be found for backcountry firefighters, while the denizens of whatever little Town In Crisis can put up their volunteer squad or a municipal group or whatever they have and fight fires using modern, urban safety precautions.
Indeed, like the trailer the OP speaks of.
fine. “You bought/built a house in an area which has hot, dry summers and is known to experience wildfires. You knew what you were getting into.”
yes. You choose to live in the plains, you accept the risk that your shit will be leveled by a tornado. You live near a fault line, you accept the risk that an earthquake might level your shit. You live on a floodplain, you accept the risk that your shit might end up submerged.
I don’t see it as “selfish.” I consider public safety (police/fire) to be a “best effort” deal. If you live in an area with a high risk of natural disasters, you get your ass out of there once an evacuation order is sent. If you don’t, then you don’t get to whine when you’re stuck in harm’s way. And if you decide to live in a place with a high risk of wildfires, you’ve decided that it’s worth the risk that your house may burn down.