One thing is clear - it is impossible to stop fire in these areas. So either it happens on a small scale in a semi-controlled fashion, eliminating fuel when it won’t destroy everything and the like, or it happens catastrophically and in a uncontrolled fashion when some random event happens - often destroying everything in it’s path, and sometimes being so intense it sterilizes the soil and destroys everything.

So the point you’re making is kind of besides the point I think?

There is no apparent option where we don’t have fire. Lightning, utility failure, random people smoking, a trailer with a flat tired (that happened), prescribed burns - it’s inevitable it happens at some point.

Just responding to this statement:

> I don't see why climate change would affect the positive aspects of fire.

... since it has a strong effect on the fire and the forest, both pre and post fire. It changes a lot of calculus, including the relative benefit of letting things burn out.

We could have a really long discussion on the best wildlands management practices, and the tradeoffs. Prescribed burns, in recent history, have only covered a very very tiny fraction of land. Scaling that up would be logistical difficult, expensive, and probably politically infeasible. Letting things burn is also problematic, as the species mix is no longer well adapted for fire in many places. Suppressing every fire is equally problematic, kind of like plugging the vent in a pressure cooker. Fire breaks, logging, prescribed burns, and other means of fuel load reduction are all traditional fixes that we can use tactically (around cities, etc), but are only going to go so far. In my opinion, we've backed ourselves into a corner in the US west, and with climate change there isn't necessarily a good option going forward.

(disclaimer: I study wildfires as part of my work in a Climate & Energy R&D group, though by no means an expert)

FYI, I think you meant to respond to the comment I was responding to?