The boundary ahead,
in age,
unknown.
Regret, tomorrow,
its poisoned breath,
monsters of the abyss,
and pieces of eight,
unformed yet,
from the wreckage
of days ahead.
But, this morning,
this sand,
this wave,
the wind,
the scratchy, wet leg of Levi’s and sand against his skin:
nothing else.
“You’re out too far!”
a mother’s and sister’s laughing pleas,
drowned by the sea.
Just him,
the boy,
the cold, salty air,
the joy.
Just the joy.

Despite the negative impact it can have on our hearts, it is prudent to be aware that a growing anthropocentric mind-set is posing increasing challenges to, as John Muir wrote, our fellow mortals.
During the late 1960s and 1970s, the respect for Nature and the desire to protect her reached a new zenith. Biocentric thinking became the norm across the country. Regionally, by 2015, chaparral was finally recognized as a valued habitat, for humans as well as for the species who live there. The US Forest Service officially recognized the chaparral’s fragility and importance. The old notions that chaparral should be burned frequently and that large, high-intensity wildfires were abnormal were finally rejected by the scientific community.

Old-growth mixed chaparral, south of I-8 near the Viejas Overlook, San Diego County, California.
But the tide began to turn in the mid-2000 teens. Anthropocentrism regained a new foothold. The belief that Nature was something to be either feared or exploited, infected the public’s mindset. In part, this shift was fueled by wildfire, specifically the 2017 wildfires in northern California.
Reflecting the long time cultural schism between northern and southern California, Sacramento had politically ignored the 2003 and 2007 wildfire storms that devastated many communities in the southern part of the state. However, once the fires began hitting in the north, specifically after the 2017 Tubbs Fire in Santa Rosa, Sacramento finally took notice. Nature, now called “fuel,” became an enemy that needed to be controlled.
Fire-related legislature proliferated, fire agency budgets expanded, and the clearance of habitat became the new crusade. Seeing public oversight and environmental review as a drag on their designs, Cal Fire created a plan that dispensed with the safeguards of public oversight and objective science – the Vegetation Treatment Program, or VTP – targeting millions of acres of native habitat for elimination.
Clowns to the Left of Me, Jokers to the Right
This growing self-centered, human-centric thinking has been embraced effectively by each side of the political divide.
The right has been emboldened to apply its already traditional view that wild Nature is something to exploit for profit. The use of categorical exclusions, which prevent proper environmental analysis and public involvement, to permit logging, habitat clearance, and other environmentally damaging projects on federal land, began to increase significantly over the past decade.
The new regime in Washington, D.C. is making a sincere effort to expand this approach. The current “Fix Our Forests Act,” pushed by the Republican Congress in response to the recent urban fires in Los Angeles (forests had nothing to do with them), is designed to accelerate logging and eliminate native habitat, forest or otherwise. When we discussed the matter with a Congressional staff member recently and told him the Act would do nothing to save lives and property in the wildfires that kill the most people and burn the most homes, he ignored the fact and justified the focus on trees by repeating logging industry talking points.
On the left, the preservation of wild Nature began to be increasingly dismissed as a colonial construct. Wild Nature was never wild, the claim goes, it has always been managed by humans, to serve humans, since time immemorial. Without human intervention, Nature becomes decadent and sick. Nature cannot survive on its own. The theme can be found in nearly every new land management plan and is used in part by California Governor Newsom’s administration to justify their VTP habitat clearance plan, doubling down on the same approach that has failed for more than a century. Meanwhile, increasing numbers of lives and homes are lost in wildfires not because of surrounding, native habitat, but because communities are flammable, being ignited by embers blown miles ahead of the fire front.
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
– Alcoholics Anonymous
Threats to the environment by developers and resource exploitation are nothing new, but the growing anthropocentrism by previous advocates of Nature presents a difficult challenge.
As George Wuerthner discusses, Wilderness is now mischaracterized as a “white man’s” idea that discriminates against marginalized communities. New public land preservation efforts, like California’s 30 x 30 Initiative (conserving 30% of California’s lands and coastal waters by 2030), are being compromised by demands that funds be used for urban development instead, not to protect Nature. New management plans concerning public lands are increasingly involving partnerships with tribal interests that are not subject to public oversight, interests that have often proven to be as environmentally exploitive as any other group of humans. Such conflicts increasingly involve identity politics and revisionist history about past environmental icons like John Muir. The conflicts are crippling the effectiveness of environmental groups such as the Sierra Club.
Back to the Dark Ages
Fire and resource agencies, environmental groups like the Nature Conservancy, and research institutions like the College of Natural Resources at the University of California, Berkeley, have justified the clearance of habitat through logging, fire, and herbicide by not only hyping fear over understanding, but by invoking the name of Native Americans.
Despite the complete lack of scientific evidence, these entities claim natural, dense habitat across the West is an anomaly, existing only because European settlers and the government stopped Indigenous Peoples from burning the broad landscape. Indigenous Peoples did indeed use fire, but on a local level, not on the broad landscape to “manage” all of Nature. The notion that Nature cannot survive on its own and requires human intervention has weaved itself into nearly every governmental and private institution involved in land management. It has become dogma.
The social pressure to not question anything being offered in support of using Indigenous stories to develop modern fire policy, even if complete nonsense, is so strong that it can transform large groups of normally rational, inquisitive people into a compliant sea of nodding heads. Expressing skepticism within such an environment, an essential component of the scientific method, a scientist now risks being accused of racism. This anti-scientific approach to wildfire has even been codified by the Association for Fire Ecology in its official policy statement that Indigenous memories and stories about fire ecology are science.
Unquestionable dogma is not science, a principle that required centuries of inspired work by thousands of inquisitive minds like Galileo to establish. As Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana warned in 1905, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
The force of the new dogma has directly impacted our work. A large, national environmental group resolved it would no longer sign on to the Chaparral Institute’s comment letters regarding habitat clearance plans because we challenged the claim that chaparral was regularly burned every 10 years or less by Indigenous Peoples, a frequency that would burn the shrublands out of existence. An environmental legal firm that advised us that our lawsuit against Cal Fire’s habitat clearance plan (VTP) would not have much merit, later helped draft California’s prescribed fire plan that depends heavily on Indigenous fire dogma. In an email response to a letter we wrote to the Los Angeles Times challenging the plan, one of the partners of the firm accused us of using racist language and demanded a retraction.
Unquestionable dogma is not science, a principle that required centuries of inspired work by thousands of inquisitive minds like Galileo.
With the billions of dollars now available to log and clear habitat (facilitated by Proposition 4 on California’s ballot last election), non-profit land conservancies have been seduced into compromising native life forms in exchange for funding their bureaucracies. Having been deceived by the notion that dense habitat is sick via the Fire Suppression Fallacy, local conservancies are obtaining grants to clear naturally successional, post-fire habitat of ceanothus, manzanita, and other native plants, all in the pursuit of creating “healthy” habitat. Both the California Coastal Commission and the Sierra Nevada Conservancy have given the green light to massive habitat clearance operations.
Nature’s Voice Will be Heard
Yet despite it all, those of us who believe in the value of wild Nature will persist as will our ability to be inspired by Nature’s beauty and complexity. While wildfire propaganda, group think, ego, money, and fear of reprisal have frightened away many who once championed Nature, we will continue the fight and find solace in the natural wonders we experience every day.
Because of support from our members, the Endangered Habitats League, and who we are, our lawsuit against Cal Fire will be fought to its conclusion. We are now in the California Appellate Court. If we do not prevail there, we shall seek a hearing before the California Supreme Court.
As thoughtful people, we know right does not always triumph. We can only control what we do, how we feel, and how we react. Regardless of what happens in the courtroom, we are secure in the knowledge that our commitment to champion the voice of Nature, to fight for what is right, will never waiver.
Why are we so determined? We have embraced the innate connection with the wild that we have felt since childhood. It is a connection that Novocained functionaries, with souls atrophied within the artificial confines of enclosed spaces and electronic screens, have lost. To them, Nature is only fuel or something to exploit. To us, champions of the Wrentit, the manzanita, the horned lizard, the bobcat, Nature is life. We can feel her power every time we smell the sage, hear the Spotted Towhee, see the green of winter’s spring, and feel the crystalline surface of an ancient granitic boulder. We think and feel differently than the rest, we lovers of wildness. And for that, we shall always be kindred spirits with, and guardians of, our fellow mortals.

To our friends in the Los Angeles area who have suffered from the recent wildfires. We are so sorry for the devastation and sadness you are facing.
To those of you who want to actively seek change, we humbly offer our advice. After more than 20 years fighting to help Californian’s adapt to wildfire, having our hearts broken from loss more times than we can count, we have learned that success in trying to prevent another devastating wildfire in Los Angeles will not come easily.
To effectively battle the system, one must not waste precious time thinking the system will listen. It won’t. You’re competing with billions of dollars of power and influence. Facts and logic will not matter. Prepare to be ignored and personally attacked. Or perhaps worst, into believing that you are being listened to. So, speaking at hearings, writing letters, etc., should only be seen as a strategic path to establish legal standing to, as attorney Victor J. Yannacone famously said, sue the bastards. Understanding this helps prevent discouragement and burn out. We wrote a brief essay on this kind of thing when confronting the California Coastal Commission: What’s Public Testimony Worth?
Educating and supporting intelligent candidates for office who know you also have the votes to kick them out can be another effective path to take.
Unfortunately, the misinformation and the purposefully anxiety/fear-driven news and social media machines about the wildfires will make the job difficult, much more so than during previous wildfire events. Understand that the messages you are hearing from the left (“it’s about climate change”) and the right (“its about lack of prescribed burns and DEI at the LA Fire Department”) are absurd. Both positions deflect the focus away from immediate solutions that can save lives and communities (see below).
Large, high-intensity wildfires have been a natural part of the southern California landscape for thousands of years (and have increased dramatically due to human-caused ignitions). Like earthquakes, it is a fool’s errand to think we can stop them. Yes, climate change is drying the California environment. Drier environments are more flammable. But it is not possible to determine what role, if any, climate change played in the Los Angeles fires. More importantly, blaming climate change ignores the primary variables responsible for loss of life and property, variables that can be resolved now. Increased prescribed burning will only result in the spread of invasive weeds and grasses, making the environment even more flammable. And that, in 2025, bigots are able to publicly ridicule Los Angeles Fire Chief Kristin Crowley solely because she is a woman is a disgrace to what our country stands for.

Large, high-intensity wildfires have been a regular, unstoppable phenomena in the Los Angeles Basin, long before climate change and the culture wars. Senator Richard Nixon on roof during the November, 1961, Bel Air Fire in Los Angeles. Photo by Allan Grant, Life Magazine
What to Remember When Seeking Change
First, in whatever change action you plan, the key thing to remember is that there are entrenched interests that have no interest in change. From the federal level down, including research institutions like the University of California, Berkeley, fire bureaucracies, and fire-safe councils, it is mostly about supporting the fire suppression apparatus and the habitat clearance paradigm.
The fact that homes can be made nearly completely fire safe through retrofits/exterior sprinklers, and community-based fire suppression groups, is minimized or rejected because both take away dollars and power from the current system. It is an old story, as many of you have likely experienced in your own lives and careers: “It is useless to argue with a man whose opinion is based upon a personal or pecuniary interest.”
– William Jennings Bryan
Proper defensible space is important, but meaningless in the wind-driven fires that do all the damage or in areas like Pacific Palisades where dwellings are only a few yards apart. Local communities must take more responsibility because there will never been enough firefighters and engines to defend every community, every home, during a wind-driven firestorm.
Most wildfire home losses are preventable. Our booklet, From the House Outward, will help explain why and how to keep your home safe.
Second, we are battling a convergence of forces that make it even more difficult to solve the wildfire problem: the growing rejection of rational thought, the proliferation of false information, and the exploitation of fear about fire/lack of ecological knowledge by the current system. Beyond partisan sources, once trusted purveyors of local information like the Los Angeles Times now habitually embellish and exaggerate disasters to attain readership attention. Triple check your sources. Question authority.
Third, the solution has been fully described after the 2003 and 2007 Firestorms. Most of what you are hearing now is just a rehash of what happened during those fires, plus the 2005 Topanga Fire, 2009 Station Fire, 2018 Woolsey Fire, and the 2020 Bobcat Fire. What has happened in the neighborhoods of Pacific Palisades this time is a repeat of what happened to Coffey Park in Santa Rosa during the 2017 Tubbs Fire. The disaster reveals the horrible price paid for the myopic focus on defensible space and habitat clearance.
The primary job of government is to protect its citizens, and plan accordingly. This has yet to be accomplished when it comes to wildfire. After Coffey Park, every fire prone community with a similar geographic condition, like Pacific Palisades, should have been identified and disaster plans formulated. Pacific Palisades was lost in part because this was not accomplished. Similarly, every area that is prone to post-fire mass flooding, like Montecito, should plan for the same. To our knowledge, authorities have not done so for Mission Canyon in Santa Barbara. A full set of recommendations can be found in our 2019 letter to Governor Newsom, which his administration ignored.
Demand that we learn from the past.
Finally, understand that it is impossible to prepare and predict for every contingency during full-blown disasters. Systems collapse. Plans fail. Firefighters do the best they can with the training and equipment they have. Reject snap judgements. Search for solutions.
The summarized points and supporting research papers providing solutions are available on our website pages:
1. How to protect lives and property.
2. How devastating wildfires actually work.
3. Why the current approach (clearing habitat) through mechanical and prescribed fire continually fails.
4. Why the current belief about “dense” vegetation is false.
5. Most people do not understand that the chaparral fires in Los Angeles are radically different, with different solutions, than forest fires.
Prepare for the long haul. Pace yourself. Realize most decisions at government hearings are made long before you testify. Get a good attorney. Celebrate the friendships you gain, strengthen the ones you have, and enjoy the satisfaction you experience knowing you are fighting for truth.

A fire in Rancho Peñasquitos, San Diego, California, August 27, 1995. From R.W. Halsey (2008). Fire and Survival in Southern California.