HomeMy WebLinkAbout20100604.tiff Lorraine Seger
40245 WCR 31
Ault, CO 80610
March 15, 2010
Weld County Board of Commissioners:
This letter is submitted in protest to the recently passed Weld County ordinance prohibiting prescribed burning,
or, more specifically, the attempt to stop prescribed burning on the Pawnee National Grassland.
I am in support of the controlled burning plans of the U.S.Forest Service. Decades of scientific study have
proven that fire is a necessary component of plains ecosystems. I trust the decisions of our public land
managers to work in the best interest of wildland management,the diverse public that enjoys these lands, and
the surrounding private property owners.
Ranchers that lease these lands do not own and should not control the Pawnee National Grassland. I object to
the political clamor they present to the Weld County Commissioners to pressure the USFS to concede to their
agenda. They are privileged to utilize these lands at very low leasing rates. As a part of the public that enjoy
these public lands for recreation,wildlife and vegetation observation, I appreciate the efforts of the USFS in
managing for overall ecosystem health as well as for specific species'needs. The shortgrass prairie provides
critical habitat for migrating birds as well as other vertebrate and invertebrate species. Intact expanses of
relatively natural prairie ecosystems are becoming threatened. It is important to preserve these—not just for
the sake of it,but for the future of humans.
The US Forest Service has a long history of using fire as a management tool. It is the expert in fire science and
control. It is staffed with fire behavior specialists and wildland fire fighters with the best equipment. I trust
this organization to make good decisions.
Regarding the burning dangers, I would ask what the Commissioners do to address wildfire mitigation in the
county. Ranch and home owners on the prairie should do everything they can to minimize destruction in the
case of an out of control fire,whether naturally ignited or not. Extreme winds can carry fire quickly to new
fuels,including human habitations. Forest home owners are expected to mitigate fire hazards on their
mountain properties. On the plains, old, dry homes and outbuildings, shelterbelts packed with tumbleweeds,
stacks of hay and lumber all pose tremendous fire hazards that could not be controlled if ignited. It is
homeowners'responsibility to mitigate these dangers. It is naive to expect there never to be a danger of fire.
Lastly, I find it very contradictory that"agricultural open burning"is exempt from regulatory oversight,while
"prescribed burning"is prohibited. It is OK for agricultural burners to"torch and go"without looking back,
knowing that they will not be held responsible for damaged property. Would the prairie ranchers dismiss their
losses if their brothers in agriculture started an out of control fire that destroyed their ranch? This disparity in
thinking is ridiculous.
I have worked for the US Forest Service, the Colorado State Forest Service, and other agencies in habitat
evaluation and wildfire hazard evaluations. I also frequent the lands described in the recent ordinance update.
And I do burn ditch weeds, with tools, water and labor at hand to control the operation on days that winds are
calm. -
Respectfully submitted,
rra�r
6t iii! 14/r/17"7 O.-1(I 2010-0604
O'<3/a6-///D
Hello