FORESTHILL, Calif. _ It seemed like a good day for a fire _ the kind that could safely thin out an overgrown forest, eliminate combustible underbrush and reduce the risk from an out-of-control wildfire like the ones that have devastated California communities in recent years.
But when a lightning strike ignited a small fire May 10 in the Tahoe National Forest, on a relatively cool day in an area still green from winter rains, federal firefighters did what they almost always do: They raced to snuff it out. The Sugar fire in the foothills east of Sacramento was fully contained within two days, before it could spread beyond 65 acres.
Seven months after the Camp fire killed 85 people and destroyed much of Paradise, and with another potentially catastrophic wildfire season getting underway, a growing number of experts say California is neglecting a major tool in its battle against mega-fires: the practice of fighting fire with fire.
These experts say state and federal firefighting agencies should allow more fires that don't threaten the public to run their natural course. What's more, they say fire agencies should conduct more "prescribed" burns _ fires that are deliberately set, under carefully controlled conditions, to reduce the fuels that can feed a disaster.
"Nothing affects fire like fire," said Timothy Ingalsbee, executive director of Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics & Ecology in Eugene, Ore. "If we don't start applying a lot more fire now, while conditions are still somewhat amenable to fire control, years ahead _ given climate change _ it's just going to be really an untenable situation."
The Sugar fire this month, an unplanned fire that ignited soon after a wet winter, was "doing good ecological work for free," said Ingalsbee, a former firefighter with the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service. "Later on, they'll have to put another fire out at big expense."
In California, the debate over prescribed burns is complicated by a deadly history with wildfires that have grown quickly out of control, the state's stringent environmental regulations, fear of liability lawsuits and infringement on property rights, and the huge swaths of federal forestland with their own management rules and oversight.
Added to the mix is antagonism between California officials and President Donald Trump, who claimed there was "no reason" for costly and deadly wildfires here, "except that forest management is so poor." Trump has repeatedly threatened to cut off federal fire assistance to the state, failing to acknowledge that his own administration manages more than half the forests in California.
Most recently, the Forest Service said it was cutting millions in aid for California fire departments, accusing the state of over-billing the feds under a contract agreement.
For their part, the Tahoe National Forest's managers say they understand the ecological value of allowing fires such as the Sugar to burn when conditions are safe. But while the agency has loosened the rules on letting fires burn on some national forests, managers of the Tahoe are still required to extinguish any fire that ignites in the woods as quickly as possible.
That may soon change. Tahoe forest officials are beginning the process of updating their quarter-century-old management policy to give fire managers, such as Shelly Allen, more discretion to allow fires to burn if there's little risk to people, infrastructure or private property.
Last week, standing in boots on charred pine and fir needles the Sugar fire scorched, Allen said that if the updated policy had been in place the Sugar fire would likely have been allowed to burn a larger area. Although the fire burned near a reservoir that had to be protected, the fire could have burned longer in the opposite direction without doing any harm.
"So it (would do) this natural thinning process that we're trying to do with our prescribed fires," Allen said. "These fires come in and they really clean up our ground fuels, so when a fire comes in here next time, you're going to have less of an impact."
