A century-long policy of knocking down all fires has created fuel-filled forests that burn hotter and faster than ever.
The NYT is now totally estranged from the truth. They should have written:
The anti-logging anti-road policies of the environmental fringe supported by the democrats in congress have created fuel-filled forests that burn hotter and faster than ever
We just visited several national parks in the SW (Ziion, Bryce, Grand Canyon) and attended a ranger talk about fires. For decades, the policy has been to have "prescribed fires" when underbrush piles up and conditions are very dry. While we were there we saw many prescribed fires occurring (from a distance). It was explained that not only is this practice a good prevention for fires getting out of control and threatening settled areas, it's also much healthier for the plants and animals to experience this process of regeneration. There are some cones (certain types of pine, e.g.) that do not release seeds unless under very high heat.
Fact is, the NPS and BLM catch a lot of "heat" for even these prescribed fires. Remember the one in NM last year that got out of control.
The conditions out west are very, very dry. Reservoirs are down 50 or more feet. And they're heading into the dry season.
The "century long problem" has been a succession of errors, ALL for the benefit of the Eastern Establishment. Whether is was 19th century clearcutting, or 20th century fire suppression, plantation tree-spacing, and restricted grazing of the understory that is the cause of this type of fuel load doesn't matter. It's a mess and "let it burn" won't fix it. In every case, the problems stem from government-owned land operated for the benefit of those who dominate Congress.
Who is going to fix it and how will it be paid for? Is government competent to supply efficient, creative, committed, and detailed management of every acre? Isn't that a touch too complex? Will we have the money if we "preserve" it all? I say it can't be done that way.