USFS wants to stop putting out some fires
Crews on Nov. 6 try to stabilize the burn scar left from the Emerald Fire on Tahoe’s South Shore. Photo/LTN
By Lauren Sommer, KQED-TV
California’s fire season hasn’t turned out to be as bad as some feared this year. In fact, forest managers say that certain kinds of fires — the “good” fires — were sorely lacking.
Sierra Nevada forests are adapted to low-intensity fires that clear the underbrush and prevent trees from getting too dense. After a century of fire suppression, many forests are overgrown, which can make catastrophic fires worse.
So forest managers are piloting a new policy designed to shift a century-old mentality about fire in the West.
The idea is to let naturally-caused fires burn when they aren’t a threat to homes or people. But actually making those decisions on the ground isn’t easy in a crowded state like California.
I agree with the USFS in concept, but a government entity that’s deciding whether a fire should be left burning or not has deep pockets that mother nature doesn’t possess. Agree or disagree with government entities being held financially responsible for their misses, folks will always want to be reimbursed for their losses, and lawyers will always want to feed their families.