dragnet2 to me in Post #55: No...There are many hundreds of square miles of rugged terrain where controlled burns are just not practical due to the inaccessibility etc etc. That's why you always hear about an area that hasn't burned in *years*...Many are just too remote, and inaccessible, not to mention, if you did a controlled burn in these type of areas, and it gets out of control, you can't get the resources in to fight it.
Thus painting a picture of vast areas where controlled burns would be no big deal if it weren't for bureaucrats waving "clean air" regulations, never mind non-point TMDLs.
dragnet2 to you in Post #88:
There are homes and small towns scattered all over thousands of square miles, filled with brush, that when hit with fire, can travel at 50 miles per hour, throwing hot embers miles ahead of the actual fire,
The two cases supporting the same excuses are obviously very different. He says he wished it could be managed, but from what I can tell he knows little about actually doing it. You and I both know vegetation can be managed through combinations of grazing, vegetation modification (even among native plants), and controlled burning. Houses could be better (especially roof venting and heat-reflective glass with some form of fire shutters for impinging debris) but without doing something about the fuel there will still be unacceptable losses. What it takes to fix it is merely the will to do so. Both wildlife habitat and people would be better off for having a more intimate connection with the land by assuming responsibility for its health. Spreading people out to take care of the land may not be so good for corporate cookie-cutter housing and strip mall developers, but who cares about them? Basque shepherds make better stewards.
Please keep pinging me on this at for a while. I am convinced that there are too many who love their own opinion far more than caring for the environment, let alone giving two thoughts about threats to human life.