Because people tend to jump to conclusions, especially when it's something that might offend them, let me say that the people who came to our little corner of the world to fight the Trout Fire did a fantastic job. Very few homes were damaged, and I have not yet heard that any were totally destroyed. However, the damage to our forest will take years if not decades to recover. And it could have been avoided.

Officially the cause of the fire is unknown but initial reports were likely that it was lightning,, but it is irrelevant how the fire started. The fire smoldered for at least two days. It grew to about 25 acres in size before the winds kicked up and it got out of “control.” Personnel were on site to monitor that and another small fire in the same area. At a time when fire danger was described as extreme, at the time when severe restrictions were put on any type of open flame, at the time when we were at the end of one of the driest winters we've seen in recent history. why would a fire of any size be allowed to "smolder?"

Given the recent history of increased catastrophic wildfires in the western U.S., including Prescribed burns in New Mexico that got out of hand due to high winds and dry conditions, why wouldn't assets be available or deployed to put out a relatively small fire? Now almost 50,000 acres of habitat for wildlife and recreation will likely be unavailable for quite a long time.

The opinions on the management of the forest are well known but the lack of grazing, the lack of managed logging and thinning, the practice of leaving slash piled in the forest providing more tender for fire and other decisions have led to an increase in the number of severity of acres burned. This is not just my opinion, this is the opinion of people whose job it is or was to manage the forests. We can look at significant changes in policy for management of our wild lands and see how there is a correlation between those decisions and the increasing number of acres lost to wildfire each year.

I have heard people say the influx of firefighters and contractors has boosted our local economy. I cannot disagree that it is true. But the long-term potential loss of tourism because the forest trails and campgrounds are not available could more than offset that temporary boom.

Teams will be in that area for quite some time to assess the damage both short-term and long-term closing off those areas to recreational users. We saw what happened in the Black Range with the closing of some campgrounds and trails that never reopened.

The other argument I heard is that wildland firefighters are seasonal employees. They do not make much money unless they are on an active fire. As if they wanted a fire so they could make decent money. I don't believe any of them want an active fire. But why not make them permanent employees, paying them a good salary? In the winter months they could conduct activities that would help prevent or control wildfires. This would be a perfect time for change as the current administration is looking for ways to make the government more efficient and effective.

I know I do not have perfect information from which to draw conclusions. But I am not ignorant. Like many of you I have seen the change in what the forest looks like as compared to 40 or 50 years ago when we grew up here. Even in the last 20 years, there's been a significant change in the health of the forest. I also have a number of friends who spent their careers with the Forest Service, and I've talked to them a number of times about how things have changed.

Rather than continue down this path of destruction of our wilderness areas, why aren't we asking the questions of those whose job it is to manage those lands? I know the questions have been asked and often the answers leave much to be desired. It comes down to demanding change from our elected representatives. Allowing field personnel to have more decision-making authority than a bureaucrat sitting 1000 miles away pushing paper and looking at numbers might be the best first step.

So I'm just asking the question that must be asked.