It's more than 2%, but the jest is 100% spot on. Between the Feds and the timber industry you're already at 71% of the forests. IIRC it's 3%, not 2%.
I know it's a dick move, but that's a relative increase of 50%!
My underdtanding of the situation is this, granted this may be dated as it comes from a former park ranger who may have a bias. Forest fires were much less devastating in years past because rangers would perform controlled burns and clear out underbrush. In recent years (like 15 years ago) animal rights and environmentalists pushed against the practice because it harmed the local animal populations. Therefore many of the preventative measures that were in place simply dont happen near as frequently as did before leaving large amounts of fuel for future fires all along the forest floor.
Tldr; control burns and preventative measures are needed rather than just trying to solve a fire after its already started.
Yeah, but when the state only controls 3% of the forests, blaming the state is fucking stupid. Most fires start on private land or in national forests. Make people take care of their shit (preventive measures you suggested + people putting out your campfire and cigarettes) and this shit doesn't happen at this level of intensity.
It's still going to happen, that's just the nature of the terrain.
No. You throw money at people to stop and prevent, as best they can, the trees from burning. I get that the government is full of idiots, but seriously? You're far beyond idiot if you can't see what the fuck they mean.
I know it's a dick move, but that's a relative increase of 50%!
Tldr; control burns and preventative measures are needed rather than just trying to solve a fire after its already started.
It's still going to happen, that's just the nature of the terrain.