I just read an article titled Protecting native plants helps reduce wildfire risk by Ben Preston.  It's in today's Insight section of the San Francisco Article.

I have a small bone to pick with the author.  Mind you, I'm not saying the article isn't well-informed or well-written.  No, my gripe is with the author's tone.

After discussing the common use of fuel breaks on U.S. Forest Service lands, the author then says:

"...a lot of scientific research shows the value of leaving things just the way they are..."

The author argues, as well as Rick Halsey with the California Chaparral Insitute, that fuel breaks instigate vegetation type conversions.  Rather than spending millions of dollars on prescribed burning and brush removal, we should be concentrating on defensible space and a more immediate response to fire starts.

As a natural resource specialist first, I agree with these statements.  Yes, indeed, leaving that land as we found it is best.  And being more responsible for our own homes is best.  But that would require that all of us either leave the land entirely as our current home locations are anywhere but in a defensible location or go back to living as the Native Americans did - light on the land.  We all know that is not going to happen.

Mr. Preston goes on to say that we need to accept a certain level of risk when it comes to our homes.  I agree!  As do most wildland fire managers and planners.  Most decry the building policies that allow patterns of homes to creep up steep mountain slopes heavily vegetated with native plants.  Believe me, if the homes weren't there, most wildland fire managers would allow the land to just be and would allow wildland fires to run through it.  There is absolutely no reason to manage chaparral except for the fact that it poses a fire hazard to homes.

I suggest that the California Chaparral Institute and journalists like Ben Preston keep in mind that the U.S. Forest Service and all the other large land agencies are dealing with a problem that is socially, politically, and ecologically complex.  They are using tools and strategies that they think will work best.  Rather than blame the U.S. Forest Service for wanton vegetation type conversion, take the time to really look at the root of the problem: over population and the extension of the urban interface into areas that have traditionally been 'wild'.