I would like the USFS bean counters to come up with a dollar value for the resources, assets, burned each year in their WFU program. Then I want them to add in the value of the private assets lost to fire that originated on public lands and burned on to private lands. If we are going to throw around dollar figures in the fire game, we have to have an analysis of damage fire causes as well as the cost of fire suppression.

Until you can show the public a complete financial analysis of fire loss in addition to fire suppression costs, there is little honesty in the arguments presented so far. Insurance companies do this as a matter of due diligence on a daily basis.

Fires are the result of fuel burning. We have an unmanaged forest owned by the public, the unmanaged condition a result of a public policy to rid the nation of the native land managers beginning in 1492. That genocide is ongoing. The forests are burning, and the public is losing the heritage forests that were not clear cut logged. Placing the focus today on private citizens occupying private property is disingenuous and counter productive. The problem is fire from public land leaving its own territory and burning where it is not welcome.

As long as the USFS is pontificating on forest fires, I would like to see the EA or EIS that allows WFU designation across the broadest of landscapes. I have not been able to find any public process that held meetings and public comment periods across the 190 plus National Forests to let the public have a say about whether or not a fire should be allowed to burn unfettered by human suppression efforts. Nor have I been able to find any law Congress passed mandating the USFS to not fight fire at their discression without any public comment. In fact, it would appear that the USFS might be working outside the rule of regulation and law as set up by the Congress.

I feel it is just plain not in the public interest to continue to take private property and private property rights in the interest of furthering a failed USFS management scheme. If 6 trees are growing on the property line, each property owner gets three, equally divided by size and quality, and there is no trespass. I cannot see how a fire can cross the line and not be a trespass. I think a WFU that burns private land and assets is reason to sue the Feds for unlawful trespass and the damages incurred.

It follows: If you have to go thru the process to allow logging then you must go thru the same process to adopt the policy: "LET IT BURN!"

I believe this article was about the increasing cost of structure protection in the urban wildland interface, not about USFS wilderness fire policies....

As one who built in the interface 21 years ago when I was a naive transplant from the green Midwest where forests don't burn so easily, I wish the local government had been more proactive when they issued our building permit.
Missoula County missed an opportunity to inform us to use fire-proof building materials, especially roofing, and to clear trees at least 30 feet away from the house. Our objective was to have the least impact on the land possible, so we only took the 4 trees that were under the house footprint. To remove the dozen or so trees that we now know are too close to the house will require many, many dollars worth of professional tree removal services, since they lean toward the house. We could have dropped them ourselves 21 years ago at no cost - and at no risk to structures - had we been advised (or required) to do so in the building permit process.
The key to reducing the cost of fighting fires in the wildland urban interface is to have all new construction - and new developments (ours was subdivided in the late 60's) - be as firesafe as possible. And to help those who built before such advisories make their properties more firesafe. The grants that helped our neighborhood clear underbrush and ladder fuels were a big help, but there's still lots to do, and we'll never be as safe as if we lived on a city lot.
Our fire insurance is sky high, but mainly because the nearest fire station is far enough away that they expect a total loss by the time the engines arrive at our house to prevent our neighbors' homes from burning down.
Of course, in a wildfire, the engines sit in neighborhoods like mine, defending structures when they could be out protecting the forest.

It's a tough issue to address, since many of the horses are already out of the barn. But if local governments toughen up their permitting process and start requiring sensible materials and appropriate site-clearing (and emergency sprinkler systems too?) for homes built in the interface, as well as getting tough on those who subdivide the woods - perhaps requiring that wooded building sites be pre-cleared BEFORE any lots are sold, when it would be a productive logging operation instead of an expensive tree-surgeon contract - and if insurance companies get on board by rewarding those who follow fire wise procedures, and penalizing those who don't with higher premiums, that could go a long way toward reducing the amount of resources that must be dedicated toward structure protection during wildland fires.
Living in the wildland urban interface is a two-edged sword. You love the setting, but hate the dread you feel until the fire season is finally over.

Why not try a different method? Instead of burning the whole tree?
What about using a lazor torch on the lowest level of the tree, stump level or below and then easily remove the roots by digging a good trench ditch. This would cut off the roots from re growth for many years to come and before a new tree forms from the old roots. They can also use another insect to kill off the pests that are causing harm. Up rooting should be taken into serious consideration before doing it. You would have to know exactly where to sear it in order for it not to return. Not all trees are sick by the roots, only the outside unless there is something in the soil causing the problem. If this is the case then you would have to use the process which is called soil testing and treatment. Pests can be removed after the tree is removed (not by the roots). Once the tree is removed these pests can be removed as well as forms of mold and wood rot and the wood can be cleansed and compacted into blocks (compaction).
Burnining trees is too mid evil to use for today's technology. People have a strange way of thinking. A tree should never be removed if there are creatures nesting their young inside. First, using a safe method of re locating the creatures should be done and a method that doesn't harm them. The wood can still be used for human purposes afterward. I don't like the tree burning. It's asuspicous act and I think it's linked to greed. Focus on the land below. We are not living along the coastal regions, we can still live more inland and closer to civilization. Concentrate on green belts with hills, open space and natural water instead. I think American Forests are just as precious as rainforests and they should be duplicated. How do they even know when and which area of a forest is safe enough to approach considering the wild animals that live and breed there? If it weren't for these forests, the cities would be so much more polluted that we'd all be dead.
California and other cities wouldn't be so easy to reconstruct because of the sprawl but there are a lot of other places to consider first.