Your statement: > It may help your understanding a whole lot to realize that, in fact, the REAL problem REALLY IS the buildup of burnable stuff because of past

Your statement: > It may help your understanding a whole lot to realize that, in fact, the REAL problem REALLY IS the buildup of burnable stuff because of past wildfire policy. My direct response: > Perhaps you missed the part where it's infeasible to do controlled burns on the scale that people around here are armchairing around because there are many of human structures within these wildlands. That is the reason why these fires are suppressed, because if they aren't they will kill humans or destroy structures. I even gave you a helpful analogy: > Put another way, if you want to pull your car out of your drive way, but you can't because there is a child standing behind you. The problem is not that you didn't pull you car out, it's the child standing behind you. If you can't see how this isn't responsive to your comment, then we really don't have anything else to dicuss. Also, > With proper preparation and regulations, controlled burns can be safely done in lightly populated areas. You actually aren't a genius with an idea that the fire fighting agencies of California couldn't think of. California does many controlled burns but there is a limit to their effectiveness, safety and scale, and they absolutely will not solve the wildfire crisis in California. It's a bit odd that use Australia as an example (of effectively managing wildfires I presume, your example was not really fleshed out), in that they have had some of the worse wildfires in their country's history in the last few years, and again, California does do prescribed burns as well when/where in it safe.