Don’t Pet the Burning Dog

This is one of the most important columns of the year.
Thank you!
Without agriculture we cannot survive. But we can survive without more development, especially in dangerous areas. Landowners, politicians, and developers have to be nudged into the greater community's needs. Politicians and managers have to come up with a new paradigm if their ultimate rationale for development is expanding the tax base. Landowners have to be given other incentives to conserve. The old way doesn't work.
If those ranches turn into condos, expect a fire far worse than the Gap fire. That doesn't do anyone including developers any good in the long run.

Thanks poodle for the research, but I'm puzzled. Which lesson do we follow? Did Zaca burn because of a lack of agricultural development or a lack of firefighters? Remember that agriculture and development provides access roads into otherwise inaccessible wilderness. Zaca, and now the Gap fire was stopped only where vehicles could access. The National Forest's policy of no vehicles in the wilderness stymied all firefighting efforts until the Zaca fire burned to the roads (Paradise Rd. above us, 133 to the East, and 166 to the North.) Similar "ecological" policies contributed to last year's disaster at Lake Arrowhead and elsewhere. It's time to re-think policies of leaving wilderness areas "untouched and unspoiled." Managed development supported by (gasp) profit driven companies would have made the Zaca fire a footnote, not headlines. The alternative: ashy clearcutting far, far worse than what any rancher or farmer would do. For the record, how many protected oak trees were consumed, and just what was the carbon footprint of these fires? I find vocal opposition to the small harm of managed development (ignoring the benefits) while shrugging off the vast damage of wildfires both hypocritical and ignorant of the forces of nature.

We can use this fire threat to promote our points of view on development from many different angles. I think of Bishop Ranch and it's relatively easy defensible grasslands, really a firebreak. Still the promoters of development on this parcel can tweak it's proposal to still get substantial development approved. I'd like to see the community buy this parcel and keep it as open space.

We have a much serious threat in the presumed safer and already developed urban areas. The threat is highly flameable Eucalyptus. Many urban tracts are tinder boxes. We act emotionally when these fires occur but cannot seem to act pro-actively. Other than to have a suburban Mission Canyon evacuation plan, urbanites are probably at a much greater risk. Since the 1990 Paint fire that roared down from the foothills we have much more urban fuel including larger stands of Eucalyptus.

It was the cessation of offshore winds and the return of onshore winds that stopped the 1990 fire's advance rather firefighting efforts. Had the naturally occurring onshore winds not halted the fire the rural and urban Modoc Road adjacent Hidden Valley, Campnil Hill, Bel Air Knolls, Westside and finally the Mesa were next in the 1990 fire's path.

We need to do much more to create large urban fire breaks. We can probably do this by strategically removing large stands of Eucalyptus and by carefully maintaining our surviving stands of native urban Oaks and Sycamores. My observations from this GAP fire is that while firefighting efforts were beneficial, it was the lack of offshore winds that kept us from becoming yet another one of many infernos that frequent this larger south coast.

If the Fox News honchos manage to damage Obama enough so that McCain limps through and becomes POTUS, we're all doomed. What it all comes down to is taxes. We all hate them, but want the services that we refuse to pay for so we can all buy theater-sized TVs and Porsches.

Hi Jonathon Smith; I totally agree with you that the fickle winds play a huge role on how fires intrude into urban areas. The only certainty is that the winds occur with regularity and always pose intense fire hazards. Improved building regs (fireproof roofs for one) play a very important role in protecting houses. Urban firebreaks sounds great, but remember the Paint fire roared across Hwy 101/Calle Real; about 200 feet of concrete firebreak. Despite tons of education, pleas, and common sense, many of the rural home owners refuse to clear their own property of inflammable brush. Be mindful that public ownership of formally private property sounds real great too, but removes the revenue (taxes) while adding expense (maintenance and liability) to government. Every purchase of land for yet another "greenspace" strains the governemnt budget and reduces funds for everything else. If you look at a detailed map of SB County, you will see that about 90% is already public land, most of which is scarcely utilized.

You’ve really captured the fire situation, and your support of the FLAME Act is well-deserved. Budgeting for fire suppression has increasingly drained funding from other deserving programs in our public forestlands.

The House just passed the act yesterday, and though it’s not perfect, it’s a step in the right direction. Truly emergency fires have consumed the lion’s share of the firefighting budget, so the new Flame Fund will provide a welcome relief – as long as it’s fully funded. That bill now moves to the Senate, where it will require even more vocal support from Californians who hold a vested interest in supporting the most efficient and effective fire management polices.

Another bit of legislation also deserves our support. Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s Fire-Safe Communities Act, which encourages responsible development, community planning, and fire management practices deserves Californians’ support.

And at home, Californians should not ignore the value of creating defensible space to reduce the risk of further spreading the flames. Together, we can provide the best management for our forestlands and the best defense against fire’s impacts on our communities.

Rich Fairbanks
Wildfire Program, The Wilderness Society

Just a clarification, many of the details in this Poodle column originated from an article in Monterey Herald last week:

http://www.montereyherald.com/search/ci_...

Still, great to put it all in context, especially for how the zone of orchards between surburbia and High Chaparral are an excellent buffer.

and a BIG CLARIFICATION for johnathansmith above:
No one would have to pay off the Bishop Ranch landowners to preserve that property as open space and agriculture unless the Goleta City Council majority changed the zoning in the first place a few months from now!!

Flames never got anywhere near the Bishop Ranch (south of Cathedral Oaks) this time... if anything this fire emphasized the vast amount of open space up the mountains behind Goleta that is completely unutilized for hiking, etc, unlike the space behind Montecito.

Nick nails the importance of the avocado and lemon groves... too bad Santa Barbara and Montecito don't have those. Yet, as far as I can tell, there has been substantial building close to and in the mountains behind Santa Barbara and Montecito in the last 10 years.

Not a peep from the Indy or others about all that development in the mountains... guess those homeowners are political donors.

That development is far more dangerous than the Bishop Ranch proposal.

benjamachine makes a good point. I worked in fire managment for many years for the FS. The most effective fire prevention tool is often a controlled burn conducted in winter/spring. Look at the top of Alamo Mt on the Mt Pinos District. It was underburned two years before the Day fire. When the Day fire hit the stands of jeffrey pine that had been previously controlled burned, it went from 100% mortality to a nice low severity underburn. The top of Alamo is still green with big healthy jeffrey pine because of the controlled burn.