You can still manage the risk (e.g. controlled burns in critical areas, cut lines to prevent spread). The goal isn't neccesarily to stop everything from ever burning, just to stop everything from burning at the same time.

I'd suggest the term "fire management" rather than "fire prevention".

No, not every fire can be prevented, but one can:

1. Reduce known and common sources of ignition, reducing their frequency (PG&E should be involved in this)

2. Regularly do controlled burns so that huge fires are rarer

3. Improve standoff room so that when fires do happen, they do less damage to where the people actually are. (This is the town and property owner's responsibility)

Number 3 is really important, because some of the worst hit areas in CA were built way too close to the interface between wilderness and urban areas. Living among the trees might be really nice, but when the fire comes there will be no stopping it at all.

Reducing fire frequency increases fire severity. There’s no escape from that.

One can burn more and reduce the chance of unintentional burns. What you don’t want is random bits of high voltage wire kicking off fires where you aren’t expecting them, which saps resources from proscribed burns.

Unless you manually do the work which fires do of clearing out the brush, dead limbs and damaged trees yourself.

Right, the solution is more fires, not less. Just as controlled burns, not raging infernos.

@jessaustin http://www.propublica.org/article/they-know-how-to-prevent-m...