General Discussion

the Chumash to those in MD where I grew up, was to set fires. Now we call them "controlled burns," but back then they were frequent enough and the population sparse enough that 'uncontrolled' was acceptable.

Controlled burns are unacceptable to many. There's unacceptable risk--which means "there's risk"--of property damage, or environmental concerns that fire is bad.

As one reporter said today, when the winds reversed direction and pushed part of the Mandeville Canyon fire back to an area previously burned, it was a kind of "nature fire break." Which is identical in meaning to "fire brake."

I like the practice that those around in 1500s MD and the centuries prior to spread mast. And set fires. Think "roasted chestnuts" as a mnemonic. I sort of liked Smokey the Bear's cute "only you can prevent forest fires" when I was a kid, and he's not wrong. Doing stupid crap with fire in the forest is bad. Not a control freak, I still think untimed out-of-control isn't a good. But stopping all forest fires? Also bad.

Now differs only in small details from the early-mid '90s when I lived in LA. Drought. Torrential rains. Fast forward to fire seasons. Deal with the ash "snow" that was Malibu, or "had been" Malibu. Then the next step--rains that lead to mass wasting, which is, after a fire like this, mostly just bouncing the rubble. That was Malibu, not Mandeville Canyon. (I used to take time when I lived in the UCLA grad dorm to bike, not an easy ask in LA; but biking up the canyon roads was a joy, and many a time I biked miles up Mandeville Canyon Road. Nice houses, scant traffic good incline, great ride, tired, on the way back. Still, I got a lot of funny looks because I obviously did not belong.)