Firing Off a Point

Adam Z. Horvath did a creditable job in keeping the issue of fire hazard reduction smoldering in the face of cooling public concern, but that he misunderstood some of my statements is apparent in the paraphrasing of my statements in the last two paragraphs of his article (“Fuel Was Ready and Waiting for Inferno,” Aug. 7.)

I did not say that “ . . . the best way to prevent large canyon fires from reaching houses on the rim is to plant foliage that will provide most of the fuel at the bottom of the canyon.” I did say that it might be better, depending on local circumstances, to reduce and separate chaparral fuels for a greater distance from structures, tapering off the amount of fuel reduction as the reduction zone gets farther away from structures.

I do not “advocate” the planting of any “foliage,” native or otherwise, in chaparral areas, even though my business is concerned with the restoration and management of self-sufficient vegetation.

The point that I was trying to make in a rather hurried telephone conversation is that the level of hazard should be properly assessed in each situation, and that limited fuel reduction resources (money and/or effort) should be applied in a way that will do the most good for the longest period.

The effect of such a strategy should result in the hottest part of the burn occurring about mid-slope, rather than on the canyon rim, where the houses, pets and people are.

This would allow our firefighters to deal with a “cooler” fire at the canyon rim, allowing them to allocate their resources to less controllable factors such as ember-ingitions on shake roofs.

With such a fire hazard reduction program in place, the fire would burn down (a fuel density gradient) rather than up, and our fully adequate fire suppression forces would be able to do their job.

WAYNE TYSON

San Diego