Not all fire mitigation is created equal

I’m increasingly alarmed by the proposed fire mitigation practices — especially the spot-cutting operations and habitat removal efforts that threaten to permanently damage the ecosystems we aim to protect.

I understand the need for fire safety. But not all fire mitigation is created equal. Numerous studies show that thinning and clearing degrades wildlife habitat, can cause erosion, increase wind and release large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. While it’s true that fires can release even more, we must weigh this against the certainty of ecological harm that comes from unnecessary destruction now. These forests are not just “fuel” — they are alive. And until a fire comes, they are providing us — and wildlife — with immeasurable benefits: shade, habitat, beauty and carbon capture.

Furthermore, humans cause most wildfires — 80-90% are human-related. This points to a different set of solutions. What if some of the funds being used for destructive clearing were instead redirected into:

• Education, especially for youth, in wildfire prevention, ecology and stewardship;

• Community science and local ecological monitoring to better understand our changing forests;

• Public outreach, signage and fire-awareness programs for hikers and campers;

• Seasonal access limitations in high-risk areas to reduce human-caused fire ignition;

• Prescribed burning and low-impact methods that align with Indigenous knowledge and ecological science

I am not anti-mitigation. I am pro-forest, pro-science, and pro-community. If fire mitigation truly seeks to protect life and landscape, it must be planned with local input, transparency and respect for the land and animals — not just clearance contracts and simplified models.

Let’s protect our homes and our forests — together. We invite others in the Nederland and greater Boulder area to speak up, ask questions, and get involved. The more people participate, the more balanced our path forward can be.

— Fran Mandel Sheets, Boulder

There are only two real ways to balance a budget

At the risk of stating the obvious, there are two ways to balance a budget. You can (a) cut spending, or you can (b) increase revenue. Everyone deals with this simple equation all the time. But somehow, the people in Washington are mystified by this concept. Maybe a financial literacy course is in order. Congresspersons could attend at their local high school.

We don’t like taxes, they say. The government is too big, they say. But they also say that they like Medicare, Social Security, the FDA that keeps foods safe, the air traffic controllers that keep the skies safe, public radio and television, a clean and healthy environment, insurance through the Affordable Care Act, education for their children and for themselves, food assistance for poor people and for schools, Medicaid assistance for seniors, children, and people with disabilities, national parks and forests, and a host of other things. And the way to have that is to work both sides of the equation!

Does that seem so difficult to understand?

— Dennis Berry, Boulder

Join the Daily Camera’s Community Editorial Board

The Camera has several positions open on the Community Editorial Board and is inviting local writers to apply.

The CEB members are volunteers who write every other week on topics of local interest that are selected by the Camera Editorial Board.

Applicants may send a resume of writing and/or general educational and work experience, a cover letter about why they are interested in joining the CEB and writing samples.

Writing samples can include letters to the editor or guest opinions that have been published in any paper, or a 300- to 400-word essay on a recent CEB topic or a local issue.

Applicants must live in Boulder and should not be members of groups that are politically active in Boulder or Boulder County.

Applicants should include a telephone number, and finalists will be contacted to take part in brief interviews.

Send your application to openforum@dailycamera.com.