If there's one thing we can agree on, I reckon misanthropy is it.
I let the Finnish forest raking thing go over my head, never heard of it, I'll have to look into it. Sounds like it could be a pretty sweet gig...
And I addressed your point. Modern fires (in America) are typically fought with incredible vigor. Most folks back in the day had the good sense to get clear of the fire and stay that way. A Boeing 747, converted to a slurry tanker, bombing firelines with thousands of gallons of (certianly not carcinogenic) red fire retardant, can't possibly contribute to smaller fires.
In 1933 as an example, there simply wasn't the massive wildland fire fighting system than could be brought to bear against those fires. Today, literally thousands of men, bulldozers, tank trucks, slurry bombing airplanes, water dropping helicopters, etc., can be deployed in a matter of hours, or at most, days.
Today, 101 years later, a few men with chainsaws and a Catapillar D9 can do in hours what would have taken dozens of men days of backbreaking work.
Too bad some folks with the best of intentions have caused "Enviromental Preservation Concerns" to become so bloated as to dissalow large, effective fire brakes to be cut, even as the fires race towards such beloved trees as the Black Mountain Beauty. Without looking into it at all, I'd say from your description, that the tree was likely scorched bybthe intense heat of the surrounding blaze, despite being in the middle of a "lawn" as you put it. Had the fire been cut off well before then, the tree wouldn't be a topic of such discussion.
Personally, I'm not a grey area, middle ground kinda guy on this topic, either fight the forest fires, no holds barred, or let em burn.
sequoiaquest.com
