A New Option For Wildfire Medical Extractions. The SHERP Was Tested In The Remote Terrain Of The Jenkins Creek Fire.

Many thanks to the resources that passed along all this awesome information and footage of this medical extraction training from the Jenkins Creek Fire in June.

An excellent breakdown of this equipment, possible uses, and their After Action Review.

SHERP Use as Wildland Fire Medical Extraction Equipment, AAR:

The Jenkins Creek fire in Minnesota is a 16,000+ acre fire that began in May, 2025. On the Jenkins Creek fire during the MEDL transition, the incoming MEDL and MEDL(t) were briefed on a potential medical extraction piece of equipment called the "SHERP." The resources inherited included an amphibious tracked vehicle that had apparently failed to extract a patient during a mock IWI.

After being briefed on this other equipment, the MEDL(t) placed an order for the SHERP due to the capabilities of the equipment. The capabilities include being able to cross smaller bodies of water/swamps, can float on water and move at a walking speed, has a relatively smooth ride while climbing over obstacles such as boulders or downed trees, can push over trees up to 4" in diameter, can go up to 30-35 mph on land, is a little larger than a heavy duty pickup truck, is a low impact vehicle on the environment, and much more.

The environment on the Jenkins Creek fire includes snags, timber, shrubs, boulder fields, marshy and wet areas, creeks, and the Saint Louis River. The SHERP had no issues navigating the environment. The SHERP was tested on mock IWI's and scouting missions. During the first test, the crew set up an obstacle course in the staging area with large boulders along with a dirt mound with approximately a 25-30 degree incline.

First impressions: The SHERP we ordered was not fully equipped to handle medical extraction. I (MEDL(t)) ordered a SKED kit, 2 1/8" foam sleeping pads, and a steeping bag from SUPL based on the medical crew's recommendation. The crew first assigned with using the SHERP (1 EMF and 1 EMPF), as well as our ALS ambulance crew, developed a way to safely secure a patient using one of the ledges on the inside. With five personnel (the operator and both medical crews), the group was able to safely package a mock patient and load them into the SHERP in under 5 minutes.

MOCK IWI: Division NN used the SHERP on a mock yellow IWI on 6/1/25. At approximately 1300, the scenario started near DP 180 in a remote location with a 54 y/o male with a left ankle injury. One EMPF, one ALS ambulance, and one EMTF were dispatched along with the SHERP. The EMPF arrived on scene shortly after the mock IWI was announced (the EMPF was already embedded with the crew).

The crew and the EMPF made an improvised splint for the patient. The patient was not able to put weight on the injured ankle. The patient was stable. The SHERP arrived on scene about 10 minutes later, along with the EMTF. Crews assisted with packaging and loading the patient into the S.K.E.D. for transport and attached the S.K.E.D. to the inside ledge of the SHERP. The SHERP was then able to go over large boulders, swampy grass, and brush to link with the ALS ambulance to transfer the patient within 10 minutes. The total scenario time took approximately 45 minutes.

MEDL(t) Review: I was able to go out to the line on 6/4/25 and review the SHERP myself. I had the medical crews at DP 176 demonstrate patient packaging and patient transfer with the SHERP. Afterward, I had the operator drive me over the obstacle course from the back to see how it might feel as a patient or medical provider. The steering is the same as a skid steer, and with an inexperienced operator, it can be a bit jerky in that sense. As far as driving up and down a steep dirt mound and over boulders, it was a relatively smooth ride. The only noticeable detail is the unavoidable sense of gravity, which requires all items and personnel to be secured so as not to be jostled around too much. It was a noticeably better patient experience than any tracked vehicle/UTV I have seen when going over terrain.

WHAT CAN BE IMPROVED

The SHERP ordered was initially set up for suppression. The medical team had to modify the equipment to meet the needs of medical extrication. Having the correct SHERP model would have been a much better fit. The manufacturer makes an EMS/SAR specific model that appears to address many of the issues that we ran into.

ISSUE 1: Patient packaging, loading, and transport. The medical team modified a S.K.E.D. in order to secure a patient on one of the interior ledges. The ledges were very narrow, but could safely hold a patient up to 6'2" and 240lbs using the S.K.E.D. modification the medical crew rigged up. The S.K.E.D. was able to be secured to 2 brackets on the side wall inside the SHERP. Another issue with loading is the unstable ladder that drops out of the back. This makes loading very difficult, poses a potential impalement hazard, and requires 4 personnel minimum (5 if C-spine precautions are needed). The EMS/SAR specific model comes with stairs and ramp in the back, which is better suited. There were only four handles on the ceiling in the back for medical providers, thus making it a difficult ride over rough and uneven terrain for the providers. There were no seats in the back either. One recommendation is to have fold down seats for medical personnel as well as a single handle running the length of both sides of the ceiling. Lastly, there was not a safe way to secure an o2 tank nor was there a retention hook for a cardiac monitor for ALS resources.

ISSUE 2: Mechanical and operating procedures. While the capabilities of the SHERP are impressive, side-hilling is still a hazard. The SHERP claims to be able to handle a 30-degree side slope, and this was verified by the local county emergency management coordinator with their own SHERP. One thing the county did was install a tipping indicator. This could help mitigate some of the risk.

Another thing we learned was that it is best to deflate the tires all the way during patient loading. Lastly, an O-ring failed, causing steering to become difficult. A mechanic was able to replace the part and the downtime was limited, but this is a risk of using equipment built similarly to a skid steer.

ISSUE 3: General final thoughts. Initially, this piece of equipment was designed for suppression purposes with a roughly 264-gallon water tank. I find that suppression purposes seem less useful, and a type 6 engine would be much more suited. While it may serve as a means of suppression in remote areas (especially environments like Alaska, Minnesota, or Florida) where a Type 6 is unable to navigate, it makes much more sense to me for it to be a dedicated EMS/SAR vehicle.

Rather than trying to adapt the equipment for medical purposes, it can and should come ready to go from the manufacturer. In the next section, I will talk about the versatility as a scouting tool, so although I believe it should be equipped as a dedicated medical vehicle, it could still serve other purposes.

WHAT WENT WELL:

First, this piece of equipment has done everything the manufacturer/contractor claimed it could do. During the mock IWI, the patient was successfully packaged and transferred to the ALS ambulance after 10 minutes of transport through rough terrain. The terrain would have caused an extraction on foot to take at least an hour and exposed personnel to more hazards. To add to this, the patient comfort was much better due to the relatively smooth ride over this rough terrain.

While this is not as smooth as driving on a paved road in the back of an ambulance, it is significantly better for the patient than had we used a UTV or tracked vehicle/marsh master.

Second, this vehicle still remained versatile despite pulling out the 264-gallon water tank. Division J was able to use this vehicle as a scouting tool without pulling the medical personnel away from the equipment. The SHERP was able to drive through small trees on an overgrown forest road.

The READ and Ops were trying to see if this road was going to work as a contingency line. The SHERP allowed them to scout the entire line with minimal impact. Further, the SHERP was able to make a *SHERP line" (term coined by one of the DIVS) by pushing over these smaller trees. One of the ideas during this scouting mission included leapfrogging chainsaws for crews to start work on this section. This leads to the general idea of using the SHERP as a sort of mechanical mule for certain tasks without losing the capability as an EMS/SAR vehicle.

Last comments: This is a versatile piece of equipment well suited for EMS/SAR situations. The additional uses and multifunctionality that was displayed during the Jenkins Creek fire demonstrate the efficacy of the SHERP and should be considered going forward on future wildland fire incidents, as well as all-hazard incidents.

Justin Wilson, MEDL(1)

AAR Contributors: EMPF Stephen Lewis, EMTF Taylor McDonald, EMPF Ethan Biederman, EMTF Evan Chinadle, EMTF Jackson Pixley, EMPF Jonny Deal

THE HOTSHOT WAKE UP — Thank you to all of our paid subscribers. Your support allows us to donate generously to firefighter charities and supports all of our content. You also receive all of our article archives, more podcast episodes, Monday morning workouts, and also entered into our giveaways, plus more.

INSTAGRAM PAGE LINK

TWITTER PAGE