Not to start any arguments, but I'll weigh in.
I gotta wonder how nature ever got along without us. Strange thing that she can keep herself so pristine w/o our intervention. True, if we don't thin, fires will burn. Also true, stupid people can start fires. Yet another truth: fire can sometimes be a necessary element to an ecosystem's ecology.
My point is this: Nature is self sufficient. I believe that a policy of non-intervention in nature is best. She's designed to take care of herself. She simply doesn't need our help.
The reasoning behing thinning and preventing fires (correct me if I'm wrong, because I live in a non-fire area) is to prevent property damage, right? Sounds a little like trying to prevent hurricanes. It comes with the territory IMHO. Fires happened before humans came to this earth and they'll probably happen after we're gone.
IMO, if you want to help prevent forest fires, start curbing global warming. It is real. Even if we didn't cause it, millions of tons of CO2 that we put in the atmosphere certainly can't help! Heat = dry. The change in global temps ruins ecosystems.
Fires are a natural phenominon. When I came to Iowa, I just had to accept that there are frequent tornadoes. They destroy homes, sometimes small towns. As I said before, it comes with the territory. I don't believe that allowing new roads to penetrate our pristine wilderness areas can be a good thing.
Let's just stay out of nature's way, and try to deal with what she does. In the end, humans are not very powerful in the face of her fury.
Feel free to respond to this if you want. If you disagree, I'll take no offense. As I said, I don't live in a fire area. If I did, my attitude may be different. I just know that, when I hike in mountainous area, I certainly don't enjoy seeing roads and other people. Sorta defeats the purpose of the outdoors for me.
Good topic fellas. Munk, even if you disagree, do you see my point?
Well, that's my good ole' liberal environmental post. Have fun, everybody!