Feedback on Our Open Letter to the US Senate about Fire Costs

On Feb. 7th we posted An Open Letter to the US Senate Regarding Fire Suppression Costs (here). We have not heard back from the US Senate, but we have received numerous emails from non-senatorial, regular Americans.

We post a digest of some the comments below. First, though, please accept our heartfelt gratitude for your support and concern. Thank you very much. We will not give up the fight.

A Digest of Comments Regarding Federal Fire Suppression Costs

I don’t understand why there is not enough discussion of fire management in the press to educate Oregonians, Washingtonians, etc. on the way forests are being destroyed. Keep up the good work.
——————————————
Great—-your discussion on economic utility is one that OMB and others need to grasp.
——————————————
For whatever reasons, very little of our federal land gets prepared to receive fire. The USFS operates under a one-size-fits-all do-nothing approach.  I would really like to see mass treatments that prepare the forest for fire, provide wood volume to the mills, and help the forest along a trajectory that gets it closer to the objectives of management.
——————————————
You wrote an outstanding letter.  I can’t find anything wrong with your logic or evidence.  It is well written and critically important.
——————————————
Your letter has gone to very powerful people and the feedback, although they are politicians who say you are too direct, also agree with you.  It is hard for political people to see things stated directly, like you and I believe is necessary.  I can tell you that your letter is now being distributed all over the Hill, as well as among many powerful interests.  Be glad you spent the time to write it.  It won’t be ignored.  It may very well help.
——————————————
YOU all need to read this  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
——————————————
 It’s about time the government applies econometric analysis to budget and policy planning. A little empirical analysis would save millions of dollars that are now wasted through failed policy decisions. The burden of that failure falls on every single taxpayer, and has catastrophic impacts on our public lands and on those neighbors whose lose real property.
——————————————
As for the Audit, I waded through it the other night and it just blew me away. I have to marshal my thoughts on this one, but you are right, this one cannot just die. If USFS and USDA OIG are so stupid that they can’t even ask the right fricking questions, then it is time to transfer these lands to respective states.
——————————————
Thank you for the email of your comments. Could you possibly put a little more passion into the presentation…!!!!!!
——————————————
Very impressive and comprehensive, and EDUCATIONAL. I was totally unaware of HOW those decisions have been made.
——————————————
By adding in non-economic value (losses) you come up with what environmentalists argue should be calculated when they oppose forest management. The Forest Service (nationally, anyway) has gone over to species and habitat management as the primary consideration against which all others are weighed, making it very timely to haul them onto the carpet for failing to do the same when they’re apparently trying to minimize consideration of their whole forest management posture.
——————————————
While I do not agree with absolutely every thing you outline in your open letter, I believe you have thoughtfully covered the background and circumstances of use of wildfire quite accurately.  Having served 34 years as a third generation Forest Service career officer, I find your knowledge and candor wonderfully refreshing.  The implications are far reaching.  You might say “If we don’t change our ways, we are going to end up where we are headed.”  Something serious needs to change!!  Thank you for taking the time to responsibly offer counsel to the Congress, Administration and us common folk.
——————————————
I believe your testimony is right on point. I, as a firefighter and private landowner, have issues with the Federal wildfire policy in the Wilderness and other forested lands. The “let it burn” theory has huge direct and indirect costs which have not been accounted for.  I would like to add my support to your testimony, and if I can be of any assistance let me know.
——————————————
Teton County is on the East slopes of The Rocky Mountains and the West end of our county is Federal forest and designated Wilderness. The “Rocky Mountain Front” as it has been called has become a hot bed for the environmentalists for oil & gas exploration as well as forest management. Every fire season since I have been County Fire Warden (2000) I find myself involved in a contingency plan to protect our private lands and residents from the potential of a “Wild fire use fire” i.e. “let it burn” exceeding its boundary. Our County experiences Chinook winds along the Rocky Mountain Front with gusts in excess of 100mph on a regular basis. This fact coupled with the suppression plan relying on air resources to hold the fire within its proposed burn area, makes the possibility of a devastating fire well beyond the federal boundaries a reality.
——————————————
If we are going to burn our resources instead of harvesting or otherwise utilizing them, the taxpayers need to know the real cost of this policy.