Why isn’t California using more prescribed burns to reduce fire risk?

His anecdotal take (which is not mentioned in the article) was that in the 90s and early 2000s, prescribed burns were very common (even as a kid i remember this). However, as more and more individuals started moving into the County from other areas, the number of complaints about the smoke from prescribed burns rose and the permit issuing process became more fraught with environmental reviews (air quality impact specifically) & red-tape.

I am 100% convinced that the lack of prescribed burns is the issue up here in Nor-Cal - they are rare compared to what I remember as a kid (several per month).

I spend an ungodly amount on weed abatement at my farm. We could also use goats for weed eating.

Just because we have a lot of surface land doesn’t mean it can be inhabited ..ca is building indiscriminately. Human settlements next to wild areas with fire hazard is the dumbest thing.

With a clueless young voting population, a state agenda to hound more and more and a desire to get rid of CEQA makes people forget that land doesn’t not always mean dwelling. Dwelling also includes environment and its limitations.

We are building homes ..and at high density..where land and forests should be allowed to be wild and untamed. There is a delicate balance. Forest fires are cyclical and periodical. This happens everywhere (think Scotland and heather burns) and controlled fires are essential. You can’t do that if there are real estate developments everywhere. There is such a thing as ecosphere and we must remember that we are part of it.