Let’s Discuss: Your Priorities and Bold Innovations to Carry Out Recommendations from The Wildfire Commission Report



There is much to talk about in the Wildfire Commission Report.  Kelly Martin has offered to talk to us about it (she is a member of the Commission) via Zoom, so please let me know if you are interested.  Today, though, I had heard that Commission members were making Hill visits to highlight priority actions.  I don’t know what they came up with as priorities, so hopefully someone will let us know.  But I thought it might be fun to generate ideas here.  There is plenty of expertise among TSW readers.  The way the Report is written, it’s an emergency- so that gives us room to think outside the box.. way outside the box!

Here’s mine.

1. Workforce.  Of course, give wildland firefighters a living wage and what they are already owed.  Work on housing.  How about a CE for FS and BLM to develop sites on federal land to house workers? Perhaps for workers’ RVs or trailers, or provide those to them at reasonable cost? Maybe used FEMA trailers? Cheaper and quicker than building permanent housing, as some places are trying. What else can we do?

Perhaps synchronistically, I received in my mailbox this morning a post from a person whose pseudonym is N.S. Lyons, who writes a Substack called The Upheaval.  He was talking about the failure of security systems in Israel at the border, but I thought this might be relevant to this topic.

One of the most famous sayings of the legendary U.S. Air Force pilot and strategist Col. John Boyd, who helped develop modern maneuver warfare (and is maybe best known for inventing the “OODA Loop”) was: “People, ideas, machines – in that order!” While warfighting devices were and are important, as are doctrines, tactics, and stratagems, these are all less important than the people doing the fighting, planning, and organizing – and are far less adaptable and reliable. As Boyd would often harangue Generals in the Pentagon, usually to no avail: “Machines don’t fight wars… Humans fight wars!”


Today we have come to practically worship technology and complexity for its own sake, believing it to be the sorcery that must be able to solve our problems once and for all. Except far too often it actually doesn’t – it just creates the illusion of having done so, while our own capacities have actually diminished and our vulnerabilities to entropy-induced system failure have increased. In this way, technology has increasingly become a false idol, squatting in the place of or even preventing genuine human ingenuity, innovation, and adaptability.

People, ideas, machines.. indeed! So let’s invest in them. First.

2. Build Trust About Use of Beneficial Fire. Having fuels experts live in their communities (see 1) will help.  I would add Congress asking the FS to stand down on plan revision until each Forest finishes (including litigation) a plan amendment that develops  1) PODs, or equivalent mapping of potential operational sites  2) conditions and places for prescribed fire and wildland fire use and 3) programs to understand and reduce human-caused ignitions.  The amendment would include an EIS for ongoing maintenance of PODs and maybe some programmatic stuff for prescribed fire and wildland fire use.  By doing this with an open, public process, communities could quickly get on board with understanding how PODs related to their own efforts and can coordinate.  Right now in many places it appears that communities are doing the “random acts of mitigation” without the kind of knowledge that fuels and fire suppression folks from the agencies have available.   My thinking is that building trust with individual humans who live in their community, and the kinds of discussions and public involvement that would come with an amendment, will build a solid relationship for working together on mitigation and beneficial fire.  If Forests just proceed with plan revisions, fire will be one of many things on a relatively small sample of forests.. is it or ain’t it an emergency?

3. Commission or Workgroup on Wood Waste Utilization.  When I read these recommendations in the Report, I thought “we’ve been working on this for forty years now.” And I know some of the folks who continue to work on it today.  We have long had grants for this kind of thing, and yet..  Ten years or so ago, I was in a meeting with DOE who wanted to try something at a gigantic scale, and The Wilderness Society who was afraid if we developed markets for small diameter woody material that they would take over politically and the environment would be sacrificed.  So all the bright young Colorado entrepreneurs at the meeting gave up.  Then there is the question of supply, that 4FRI was developed in part to deal with.  When I look around I see excellent efforts by some FS researchers, by Extension faculty at land grants, by entrepreneurs and so on, and yet…we’ve lost capacity in terms of forest economists and utilization specialists.  Weirdly we spend more money on modeling problems in the future than on solving problem right in our face (emergencies!). What’s up with that?

California had a 50-member working group on “advancing collaborative action on forest biofuels” (of course biofuels is only one use of woody waste) and produced a report in 2022, plus they have some zones of agreement with ENGO’s so perhaps some of those folks could be tapped to anchor a national Commission or Workgroup.  Whatever we have been trying has not been working, and needs organized, comprehensive and dedicated attention.  Key stakeholders are small businesses with experience in the space, technology folks, economists and utilization operations specialists, communities and ENGO’s.  If we keep doing what we always did, we’re going to get what we always got.

And finally (a girl can dream…)

4. Stick a Fork in the Current Admin’s MOG Initiative..err.. climate resilience and adaptation  initiative.  Parsing out what treatments are best to protect OG  or any forests from wildfire.. would be best developed by fire amendments to forest plans.  All hands on deck.  Focus.  This is what climate adaptation looks like.. worked out day by day with resource professionals and communities in specific places.  Many excellent folks are working on MOG who could be working on fire amendments to forest plans, collecting data, etc.  Emergency? Yes if you really want to protect OG and mature stands (at least from wildfire).

28 thoughts on “Let’s Discuss: Your Priorities and Bold Innovations to Carry Out Recommendations from The Wildfire Commission Report”

  1. On housing, the use of Forest and BLM lands makes sense. But note campgrounds in many areas of the west are already inadequate. Employee and affordable housing is also nonexistent. Could the federal agencies develop land they own that is near existing communities for temporary fire work and then repurpose it for use as permanent campgrounds, employee and/or community affordable housing?

    As far as RVs, tents, you could also use what are called “man camps” in the oil and gas world. Essentially large modular units with dorm rooms with a central eating area that can be used by one worker or shift workers. When the work is done the units are easily deconstructed and moved to the next place.

    • Great recommendations Rebecca. We are looking for more ideas like this and congressional members are asking us the same thing. ‘What ideas do you have for housing?’ Federal, State and county lands that could ‘pop up’ with little infrastructure investment (hookups and pads) for a place to park camper vans, trailers etc.

  2. Hi Sharon:

    First, to get it out of the way, I really dislike that our forests and woods are now being called “wildlands.” I think that was something a California college professor took from a children’s book for urban readers in the 1980s and then perverted to the even-worse (in my opinion) governmented “WUI.” I’ve have not once in 75 years ever heard a single person saying they were heading to, or lived in, the “wildlands” for any reason. Probably a losing battle.

    Next, firefighters don’t need higher pay — they need year-round jobs and local home addresses. That system worked for more than 40 years when roads were kept open, everyone had pickups with chain saws and fire equipment, knew the area well, and were protecting their own families and communities. No large wildfires. Then the USFS started bringing in migrant “low bid” crews to do reforestation contracts in the 1980s before shutting down the forests for “critical habitat” and developing the “firefighting” industry as it now exists today.

    You’re welcome, taxpayers. Now, instead of local jobs and functional forest products manufacturing facilities with people paying in taxes, we have people paying taxes to employ seasonal workers who often send their money to the countries they came from. And if you point out the problems this creates for low income and middle class citizens, you’re called a “racist!”

    Things have changed, and when it comes to wildfire on public forestlands, for the worse. That should be obvious to everyone, even the WUI-speakers. Easy to fix, but seemingly no interest in doing so.

    • Bob, I’m so with you on WUI! We have “ranchland -rural residential interface” and my favorite Farmland Urban Interface, which you as a lover (not) of acronyms would appreciate, pronounced “phoeey”.
      if you look at this https://urbanforestrysouth.org/products/fact-sheets/wildland-urban-interface-fact-sheets/varied-definitions/index_html
      They don’t really mean “wildlands” they mean industrial and small woodlots, farms and pastures, anything that isn’t housing. I think these people are the national experts on WUI mapping.

      Yes, many of us remember “year round jobs and home addresses” and it’s possible to get back to that. Many folks are suggesting that.

    • Terminology over the years always seem to change. I’m even hearing people trying to ditch the term ‘WUI’ as it portends Wildland as the 1st problem when what we are seeing now is ‘urban conflagrations’ in the ‘built’ environment.

      I do take a personal interest in pay and benefits for wildland firefighters. I know we have always had ‘recruiters’ out there lure fed firefighters to higher paying jobs and better work/life balance; namely CalFire but nationally, municipal fire departments know they can recruit our fed firefighters for 2 sometimes 3x’s a fed salary. It’s tough to resist when you are trying to settle down in a community and raise a family. Most 15 year Firefighters can barely get to a GS7 by the time they reach 35. What pains me the most the the lost investment to the American tax payers. We just can’t replace a 15 year firefighter with a first year firefighter and expect a good outcome.

  3. Here’s my take on the Commission’s Report. That is, what I wish it would effectively influence:

    1. We are faced with a National Emergency. That is, horrific damages to property and lives lost due to catastrophic unplanned wildfires. Time is wasting. We know what to do to correct things. Fundamentally, increased fire management requires aggressive forest maintenance. Otherwise, we simply spend more and more money to control wildfires, with no end in sight. And that’s exactly what is happening.

    2. Forest maintenance, especially on the National Forests and other public lands, needs to be significantly enhanced. This is the primary cause of the destructive unplanned wildfires. Our forestlands are clogged up with vegetation. The following quote is quite relevant: “…The current wildfire situation is a national emergency, but may I suggest that the current status of forests decline is also a national emergency for our public federal forests that have been under managed for over 25+ years!” Some are concluding that by 2045, our great western forests will become brush fields.

    3. Unplanned wildfires must be put out as quickly as possible. The concept of “backing off to the next best ridge” or “managed fire” or “beneficial fire” or “let it burn” must be stopped. In a recent note the National Wildfire Institute concluded: “…We urge you not to be fooled by the intellectual argument that unplanned wildfires are helpful to ecosystem health. They may be in the future, but clearly NOT NOW. The current landscape scale conditions, especially in the western part of America, will not allow the “managed fire” concept to work; it’s too dangerous and damaging. For now, using fire to treat excess fuels is foolish.”

    I love the following quote: “…I try to point out the fact that if you’re not out conducting Rx fire [Prescribed Fire] right now, why in the hell do you think you could manage a fire for resource benefit[s].”

    4. Be more aware of the foundational document known as “A Call to Action.” This document, started almost three years ago, now has sixty-nine [69] contributors from professionals in the field of landscape scale conservation. Several have concluded that this document [“A Call to Action”] it is one of the most comprehensive documents about forests and fire that is available today. It is updated continually to ensure contemporary information about forests [forests are more than just trees] is available.

    5. Notable incidents in 2023 included the Maui fire and the Smith River Complex in California. This is not surprising. Again, the lack of forest maintenance is the primary culprit. Please, we must continue to review the concept of “managed wildfire.” Putting all fires out immediately is cost effective; large fires are unimaginably expensive and destructive. On average, total economic losses from “managed wildfires” can range between 15 to 30 times as much as direct suppression costs. Maybe it is time for a renewed, more contemporary “10 AM” policy by the USDA Forest Service. Let us not forget that smoke is also a horrendous killer. So, for now, it is critical to put all wildfires out quickly with an aggressive Initial Attack. America’s forestlands are at risk, let there be no doubt.

    6. Regarding Zybach’s comment on firefighters and pay: Why not hire a legion or three of firefighters to help address the lack of forest maintenance, when they are not fighting fires? This provides full-time employment and could begin to address the fundamental issue that the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission report must address. That is, the lack of forest maintenance is the primary culprit of the horrific destruction caused by so called, “beneficial” or “managed” fire.

    Thanks for allowing me to comment. Very respectfully,

    • 1) There is more forest management, since the Forest Service got extra funds to do more.

      2) There are more forest management projects in the pipeline, but there are hoops to jump through, first.

      3) Fire management must be dependent on site-specific conditions, during the fire. Sometimes, it really IS unsafe to fight these firestorms.

      4) Government Agencies have rules, laws and policies to follow. Congress has to be involved, and we’ve seen Congress ‘in action’, lately.

      5) Yes, during the three summer months, we should not be letting fires burn, for dubious “resource benefits”. Safety is still an important issue.

      6) They did attempt to hire more permanent firefighters, and to pay them more. That did not work out well, and Congress has let the increased pay run out. Forest Service firefighters ARE expected to do other wildfire safety projects when it isn’t fire season.

      Of course, you don’t mention hiring more timber specialists and ‘Ologists’. Just wishing for relaxed rules and ignoring of laws isn’t going to get anything done.

      Yes, we do have science on our side to do more “forest management”, but “Overstory Removal” is NOT what is needed for fire safety.

    • Hi Michael-

      These are all comments worthy of discussion in greater detail and I’m happy to engage in the nuances of these statements. I’m hopeful that we can all keep an open mind to various ideas, values and opinions as there are many. I do my best to listen to all sides but I also believe the people I deliberate with will also provide the same honor and respect when listening to my arguments. We do have common ground in many areas and as along as we can both respect each other opinions in areas where we differ, it will be a valuable discussion for all.

  4. Sharon:

    I would be very interested in participating in a Zoom call for the Commission’s report. I did participate in the official rollout. But I think another call would be beneficial for me. Thanks for the consideration.

    very respectfully,

  5. PODs v. MOGs

    It seems to me they have a lot of similarities and are related and should be considered together (I think we are agreeing). Yes, in a planning context. Both of the ongoing efforts are producing information that a group of specialists think should trigger a certain kind of management. I’m really wary of language like “management has determined” (from the PODs graphic) being used to make land allocation (long-term plan) decisions outside of a public planning process. However, I think this process could require site-specific information that may not lend itself to making plan decisions (as opposed to policy decisions) at a national/regional scale. I think I would rather see individual forests prioritized based on the degree of “emergency” for these issues, and especially where there appears to be conflict between the two. I would hope that a revision process could be managed so that it would not bog down on other non-emergency issues.

  6. Subsidizing utilization of wood waste is fraught for many reasons.
    1) It removes valuable woody material that needs to be retained for complex habitat structure.
    2) It will create incentives that change the way forest work is done in ways that undermine core restoration goals.
    3) It will up limited resources that should go toward ecological restoration. Better to invest in actual restoration, not wood waste utilization.

    • Hi 2ndLaw: I can see why you use a fake name. I’d be embarrassed to use my real name, too, if I was spewing this kind of nonsense.

    • 2nd.. are you from western Oregon? It sounds like you are against or think mechanical fuel treatments are unnecessary?
      It seems to me that we are doing them.. the alternatives are using vs. burning in the open air. But it’s interesting to hear from someone against it..so please continue the discussion.

  7. If only it was as simple as having locals in pickup trucks with chainsaws and fire equipment and going back to out by 10 AM the next morning….

    We are in different times now, the western forests/fuels are drier now and many of the large fires are due to drought conditions and ignition during red flag days in which any fuels ignites. Look at the large fire in OR and N Cal, explosive growth due to hot dry winds, it really didn’t matter what the fuel load was, small burned as much as large loads. Once the dry winds and moisture levels changed then it was just a battle of controlling such a large area fire and limited finite fire suppression capacity. Here in Grants Pass, Oregon I watched as the Slater Fire went 28 miles from Happy Camp, CA to Hyw199 and the Oregon Border over night. After the initial surge and change in weather then it continued to grow but not explosively, just a very large perimeter/area fire to deal with. These types of fire I do not see us managing our way out of any time soon.

    If you look at the recent fire history for Curry, Josephine, Jackson counties in Oregon the driver of the large fires have been dry windy conditions on dry fuels. This includes the Alameda fire that started in an urban area and continued thru an Urban setting and The Bear Creek greenspace. The Chetco Fire stated in a remote location and didn’t take off until the Chetco winds kicked in. Taylor Creek and Klondike fires started small and were aggressively attacked (yes they did not get all the resources fire managers wanted due to all the fire going on in the Western US, we do not have infinite resources) but dry windy condition prevailed. The Rum Creek Fire, same thing – aggressive initial attack with plenty of aerial support with high confidence of containment then the winds kicked in. You would be hard pressed to see the difference on the green side vs the burn side of the final perimeter as far as forest fuel conditions. The difference were boots on the ground and ultimately weather change. My point is that high fuel load is only part of the equation.

    If you look at the Fire in Santa Rosa, CA I would say the same thing. The fuels outside the urban area were very mixed, but long duration drought and Red Flag conditions, fallen powerlines did not bode well. And this is a fire that hit the urban area, jumped a major freeway with frontage roads on both sides hit a major shopping area with lots of hardscape then onto a subdivision. So this wasn’t mismanaged Federal/State lands, not a want for a large fuel break (freeway), or wayward overgrown natural vegetation. Issue with power lines and windy conditions, yes.

    So how to live in this new reality?

    1. Protecting homes and structures. We know what to do: fire harden structures. The Maui fire has a perfect example of a newly fire hardened home surviving the fire while every structure around it burned to the ground. The owners had the forethought of using materials that wouldn’t burn during the remodeling of their home. How do we make that happen and how to pay for it? Legislate it? (I already hear the small government/libertarians screaming “big government”. I know in my home (in a Fire Safe area) I am down to one insurer in my area on the edge of Grants Pass. Had to switch insurance because the old one said it’s underrider decided that SW Oregon was to risky. California just mandated for high fire areas that homes need to be cleared of all flammable material within 5 feet of the structure. (My question is how far into a urban environment would this have to go to save a community like Santa Rosa?)

    We know fire hardening works.

    2. WUI. We know that something has to be done with this zone. Again how to make it happen who pays? And ultimately there has to be prescribed/understory burns – I don’t see a strictly mechanical solution to reduce the fine fuel load. And we seem to have an issue with power lines in windy conditions in WUI areas. PG&E has explored the route of burying power lines, but I don’t see that happening on a large scale due to cost. And shutting down power lines – ask the folks in Crescent City how they liked not having power due to the line from Oregon being de-energized during the Smith River fire this year. No easy solutions here.

    3. Beyond the WUI zone? Too big of an issue for me today 🙂 I’d like us to approach 1 and 2 first and if successful tackle this.

    3. Workforce. I see before my eyes the US Forest Service slowly changing to US Fire Service if for no more reason than the amount of money being spent on fire vs non-fire activity. The FS has taken steps to address the man power issue. We are going away from using temporary seasonal positions to more Permanent Seasonal positions to stabilize the fire work force (only need go thru the hiring process once then just show up every season.) Pay will need to be addressed to retain people. Haven’t seen any good proposals for housing, but it is not a issue that is specific to Federal wildland fighters, available affordable housing is problematic in the US in general. Yes the Federal government has land, but being housing landlords to federal employees is something the federal land agencies do not have the expertise nor the congressional mandate to solve. (If in doubt look at how our military families struggle for housing) And having year round fire fighters, in some areas this may work. But the skill and desire to put out fires and to do landscape fuels treatment are not necessarily the same thing. Burning piles and doing understory burns fall right in line with fire fighting. All the work that needs to be done to prep the landscape for burning is something else. And is some areas this burn window is pretty short. Can’t burn during fire season and can’t burn if the conditions are too wet (or snowed in.) I think it is two components: one is a workforce for fire on the ground either accidental or prescribed, and a second workforce/process for prepping the landscape for fire.

    • The Tubbs Fire started in Calistoga, in the Napa Valley. The strong northeast wind pushed the fire through thick forests of Douglas-fir, oaks and madrones, along with some coast redwoods. The embers made spot fires well in front of the main fire, until it raced downhill towards Santa Rosa. Once it reached the homes, those fires sent out embers to the next one, and then the next one. It really didn’t matter what it was burning through. I’ve also seen where a fire jumped a two-lane County road, a wide river, a pair of railroad tracks, and a 4-lane Interstate, all of them back-to-back-to-back.

      Preserving fuels isn’t a good plan. I do appreciate what you are saying about some of the realities facing our forests today. Ultimately, I blame Congress for not funding more projects, and not passing/amending good forestry laws.

      Moderators Note: You do not have to reveal your name and your e-mail address will remain private. People do have good reasons for remaining anonymous, here, and should not be ‘penalized’ for doing so.

      • And a whole lot of open oak/grass savanna, driver was extremely dry fuels, weather, not amount of fuels.
        I’m not aware of any Federal lands in the Tubbs Fire footprint. State Park at the north end. So a lot of Private lands. What’s your solution to that? Can’t blame congress for that – is it a State problem, county problem….???? It looks like California might be trying to address it maybe.

        • With the winds they had, nothing can stop or slow such a fire. Homes and ‘ranchettes’ were scattered between Calistoga and Santa Rosa. On the western slope, the ‘forest’ is more brushy and scattered. There were some examples of buildings that didn’t burn. I think it was a(nother) sad wake-up call, to the realities of living in the ‘fire zone’. It was similar to the Paradise tragedy.

          The hills on the western Napa County border are quite wet, normally. As a kid, we used to ride our bikes up those backroads, enjoying the ample shade on hot summer days. Eight years ago, before the fires, I hiked in the Archer-Taylor Preserve. Looking at the Google Maps aerial photos, I can see some impacts, but the creek areas didn’t appear to be burned.

        • I would say Tubbs, just like Atlas and Nuns and Camp and Carr and many others in recent years are terrible examples/justification for forest management, they were fires with a human ignition burning under extreme conditions. And show why we really do need to think harder about home construction and resiliency within the WUI and then into the urbanized areas. Regardless of ownership.

          What is frustrating, is that these fires are used and abused by everyone of all agendas over forest management, when there are examples of strongly needed forest management where we went in and spent a century making forests far out of whack and what they should be. It’s a lose-lose approach.

          Home hardening in the WUI and urban area, ecological thinning (that yes can sometimes involve making $$ and turning some 30″ conifers into 2x4s for use) are both needed.

          • Oh, my goodness! I think we can all agree that if someone is suffering such exhaustion and frustration because their own feelings and opinions are so important that they are afraid to reveal their true identity, SmokeyWire should embrace their participation and systematically eliminate those who they (whoever they might be) disagrees with. Very scientific and worth listening to! I can see why you want to be anonymous.

      • Larry: I disagree. SOME people may have a reason to remain anonymous or use a pseudonym, but I’m not too sure why. To use anonymity to attack others is cowardly and should be called out. Personally, I have a difficult time publicly corresponding with apparently self-appointed “experts” who operate from the shadows. Newspapers used to require names and addresses of people posting in public opinion columns. I think that was always a good policy. Nothing like information or opinions from “anonymous sources” to discredit these efforts.

        • Years ago, I had to remain anonymous, because of a previous attempt to get me fired from the Forest Service. If you work for an Agency or a Company, it’s probably better to have, at least, some level of anonymity, for the sake of your career. I tried ‘trusting’ people to fight fair. I ended up having to tell my boss about the incident (nothing ever came of it, from The Chief) It’s better to address the content of someone taking out the time to respond to this forum. If someone is belligerent, there are ways to deal with them.

          • Hi Larry: My thought remains that if a person is required to remain Anonymous in order to keep a job with a company or an agency, then they probably shouldn’t be posting their thoughts in a public forum in the first place. I know that is not the policy of this forum and that some Anonymous postings seem to make positive additions to a discussion, but they also seem to be in the minority and always lose a certain amount of credibility by not being tied to a specific individual with known qualifications (or lack thereof). The several people that use this device to call names, openly question the abilities of known others, or to lecture as if they themselves are an authority, is the problem to my way of thinking. Plus, how many different posters are there that share this designation? Who’s who, and how to tell? At least they should be given numbers to help separate the wheat from the chaff. In my opinion.

  8. Hi Carl: Most of what you are saying is inaccurate. I’d go into more detail, but having no idea who you really are makes it unwise to respond in that manner. I will say I have been studying the Curry and Josephine fires since the 1987 Silver Complex and these fires have been clearly predicted by me and others because of USFS management policies and Wilderness designations and have zero to do with warming climate or drier fuels. Those have been mostly the same for centuries. The problem is fuel management, not climate modeling.How should people have “Fire Safed” Paradise, Phoenix or Maui? Or are you just talking about the “wildlands?”

    • I think it is an interesting issue with Phoenix, Maui and Santa Rosa and Fire Safe-ing a community. Maui fire started along the street on one side a subdivision and the other side abandoned sugarcane fields with invasive grass. The fire progressed downslope/wind jumping over a major road system into housing and then a fire storm. The Fact that here are Fire Safe communities on Maui shows that someone was concerned about the potential of fire coming off rural/non residential lands into urban areas. And no doubt that drought conditions, dry fuels and wind were the driving factors. Should every house on Maui be Fire Safed? Did Coffee Lane Subdivision in Santa Rosa, which is surrounded on 3 side of complete urban structures and farmland on the north side, miss the boat by not being a Fire Safe community? The former Kmart burned to the ground and it was completely surrounded by asphalt and the fire had to jump across Hwy 101. The Alameda Fire started in an empty field of grass next to a subdivision spread into the Bear Creek green space and moved north thru greenspace, fields/agriculture, and urban structures. These are not federal lands mismanagement issues. Fuels management, OK… what does that look like. I’m not sure.

      • Hi Carl: We are in agreement that the key problem is fuels management coupled with weather conditions, and that Fire Safe actions are often ineffective. Weather is not climate, though, and unusual weather has been documented since biblical times. In western Oregon weather patterns have been pretty much the same for centuries and with no documented indication of significant change recently or for the foreseeable future. Modeling predictions are another issue.

        The reason I keep pointing to federal fuels management as a major factor in recent (past 40 years) massive increases in the frequency, severity, and extent of large-scale and catastrophic-scale wildfires in this region is because the vast majority of these fires have predictably — by using accepted scientific methodology — been occurring on, and largely confined to, federal lands.


Leave a Comment