Re: Make the Forest Service Responsible

As long as we're off on this tangent anyway, I'd like to chime in with two observations. The first is that much of the problem with the ill-advised no burn policy is historic. People just didn't understand that fire was a natural, normal and needed step that is required for a healthy forest. Much like smoking, the danger was, unfortunately, discovered way too late.
The other factor, is the attitude people have tword forests. I have a friend who's family lives in one of the burned out areas of Los Alamos (they were OK). Prior to the fire, they had cut back a lot of the vegitation around their house and wanted to do so in the adjacent unincorporated areas which abutted their property. They had a neighbor who threatened them with an injunction if they cut one lousy tree branch off their property, and wanted to try to stop their on property cutting as well. The reason? Thinning things out would be unnatural and ugly. I don't know what happened to the neighbor, but..... The general attitude many people have tword forests is that they need to be dominated by trees, lots and lots of trees. And there is often a great deal of resistance when the Forest Service shows to try to thing things out.
Don