Though 3 years old, this is a still pertinent and Interesting thread. My folks live in the Wildland Urban Interface in a high risk area and I think about this subject often.
Logging would be insufficient in reducing risk of catastrophic fire. It would be far too costly, difficult, and perhaps most importantly, it is not at all clear that fuels reduction results in a significant reduction in the likelihood of wildland fire occurrence. Weather and topography are the chief influences on wildland fire occurrence in the west.
When it comes to controlled burns, it is again a drop in a bucket. Expensive, difficult, and largely small in scale. Additionally, it is a liability. Some controlled burns that have gotten out of control have been stains on the relationship that some agencies have had with communities. Both figuratively and literally, playing with fire is risky. In some topographies and fuel types, controlled burns are not options.
Management policies aside, there are also psychological explanations that would need to be overcome. Every firefighter knows 1910 wasn't an anomaly and is going to happen, and, due to fuels and climate, could be around the corner in any giveyn year. Since the beginning of time it seems, the claim is always thrown around that firefighters love the woods to burn because fires equal money. Sure they love their money, but more so, firefighting outfits are prideful and hardworking contingents of people. No one wants The next 1910 to start in their district. When it happens, property will burn, heads will roll, fingers will be pointed and chit will roll downhill. Seasonal workers don't make for very good sacrificial lambs.
Also consider that people pay taxes for fire suppression both via their Federal and State taxes, but also through local taxes (Rural Fire Districts). It is very difficult to wade the waters of allowing fires to burn, especially near homes. I absolutely agree about personal responsibility. Nothing is more frustrating than watching firefighters rake needles in people's yards because homeowners refused to create defensible space and maintain fuels on their property.
Region One
met its timber harvest goal for the first time in 14 years last year.There are probably a fair amount of scenarios where fuels reduction via controlled burn and logging would be a good idea, but to increase forest health on the large scale I think we have two likely options:
One would be to drasically increase fire funding, and make a concerted and effective effort at educating the public that those in the
WUI are at risk due to their location of choice, and allow agencies to be liberal in their decision plans on what fires we are going to allow to burn and to what point, recognizing that
property will be lost along the way. Because of the kneejerk reactions to increasing any government funding currently holding sway in many levels of government and the fact that the public will have to deal with some tough facts of western life, I think this is an unlikely scenario.
Or, wait for a bolt of lightning on some ridge in eastern Idaho or western Montana to become the costliest disaster the Northwestern United States has ever seen and deal with aftermath.
Either way forest health will increase. IMO.
