Our view: Burns will not stop fires and may actually create more

After fires have scorched much of North County , many of us are asking, "Do we need more prescribed burns?" We can't do much about the Santa Ana winds, but perhaps, the thinking goes, thinning out the vegetation that fuels the fires would limit their destructive scope.

There may be truth in that assumption, but prescribed burns alone aren't a panacea for North County's vulnerability to wildfire.

Proponents of prescribed burns, or fires intentionally set under controlled conditions to reduce undergrowth, tend to believe that poor land management and uncontrolled growth of chaparral have created the conditions for the massive fires we've seen in our county this decade.

To them, fire is natural and necessary for the healthy development of forests. They point to Baja California, where more frequent fires have left a patchwork of differently aged chaparral that resembles a multicolored mosaic as an example for us to follow. They say allowing or causing chaparral to burn more frequently limits the size - and damage - of wildfires.

In contrast, Southern California has large, uniform areas of unburned chaparral carpeting our backcountry, and the consequences were apparent last week.

But many others disagree with those conclusions, arguing that the conventional wisdom gleaned from forest management doesn't apply to chaparral .

Prescribed burns may do more harm than good, at least in chaparral. Frequent burning eventually kills chaparral, opening acres to invasive grasses and weeds more likely to catch fire. Scientists on the scene tell us they already see evidence of such ominous damage in areas burned in both the 2003 Cedar fire and last week's Witch Creek fire.

Catastrophic wildfires are part of the natural heritage of Southern California, driven by extreme weather conditions - wind, drought, heat - with long histories on this land. Each fall brings dry, hot reminders that we live at the end of a wind corridor, an oft-overlooked equivalent of living in a flood plain, hurricane zone or along an earthquake fault. So long as the Santa Anas are blowing, fires sparked in the backcountry will be difficult to contain.

Furthermore, opponents argue that prescribed burns don't work. If they did, a silver lining from the Cedar fire would have been less vulnerability to future fires. Instead, about 68,000 of the acres consumed last week were also burned in 2003. What's more, the vast tracts we've kept from development mean untold acres would need to be subjected to prescribed burns, and there's little evidence they work on such a large scale.

Finally, the accidental fires we too-frequently ignite are effectively mimicking prescribed burns, and as we said, they don't seem to be working.

Even fire officials who consider prescribed burns an important tool in their toolbox admit that cost is a key consideration: It's cheaper to burn brush than clear it. And anyone who suggests Baja as a planning model for San Diego County has had a little too much tequila; that's comparing apples and chilies.

That's not to say that prescribed burns shouldn't be used, only that they should be used strategically. Burning chaparral to create defensible spaces for firefighters to stage their operations makes sense. So does creating a perimeter around highly populated areas with prescribed burns. Still, requiring 100- to 200-foot barriers around homes and fire-resistant construction are even more important prevention measures.

The argument over how to manage our vast acres of brush and scrub will persist. There are still plenty of areas around the county with plenty of fuel to burn (ask not for whom the fire bell tolls, De Luz, Palomar Mountain, Mesa Grande, Warner Springs, Julian, it tolls for thee). Prescribed burns should remain part of our fire prevention efforts, but any thought that they alone would eradicate the threat posed by wildfires ought to go up in smoke.