Good explanation of a current WFU here in the Journal (Cortez, Dolores, Mancos, Colorado).
There was only one comment on yesterday’s post (thanks Forester 353!), so I want to run these questions again to see where people are.
There seems to be a broad agreement among different people that we “need to put fire back on the landscape” (where feasible). Some people look at it as “there are fire dependent ecosystems so they need it” and others may think “we’re going to get fires anyway, so we might as well make life easier for suppression folks and prescribed burning is great for fuel reduction”.. these differences may play out at designing treatments on a specific landscape, but I’m not sure the differences are that important at this level of discussion.
As folks have pointed out, there are many barriers to increasing the use of PBs and WFU and conceivably everyone who thinks that “we need more fire” could join hands and work on those together.. everyone from WEG to AFRC. Which may be the kind of work the Washington Prescribed Fire Council is doing- I have a request in for an interview.
If we agree (1) We need more fire on the landscape
(2) Choices for this are Prescribed Burns (PBs) and Wildfire Fire Use. Each has advantages and disadvantages.
I’d like to hear from folks on the blog. But since we don’t represent everyone associated with the land management community, including groups known for litigation, I would be really interested to know if there has been litigation on prescribed burning projects without mechanical fuels treatment (which might be the point of disagreement). I realize that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I’m not even sure there is a public database that a person could query to find out.
Please chime in either way including with your caveats.