ecbuck: I don't know that at all. And neither do you. But I agree, mitigation in the National Forest would have made little if any difference.  Which is why I get so frustrated when we see the FS spend tens/hundreds of millions on such activities.

I don't know if there's any easy way around over a century of no questions fire supression in an environment that had millenia of natural fire taking care of the ecosystem.  I'm OK with controlled burns as mitigation.  They're doing what they can with the personnel and budget that they have.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/plumas/home/?cid=FSEPRD502188

QUINCY, California -- May 19, 2016 -- Plumas National Forest Prescribed Fire Program Management Officer Ryan Bauer is no stranger to fire--he's had 21 seasons of experience fighting it. Sometimes, that means fighting fire with fire.

"People have heard of prescribed burns," said Bauer. "But not everyone knows that the right fire now can prevent the wrong fire later."

Bauer oversees around 20 prescribed burns each year, which are carried out by PNF fire crews.

While prescribed burns tend to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire, prevention isn't the only reason they're used, or even the primary reason.

"Up in the Sierras we live in a fire-adapted ecosystem," said Bauer. "This means that nearly every species of plant and animal we see in the forest was shaped by frequent fire during the history of its development."

Not every species adapted to fire in the same way, said Bauer. Some developed heavy defenses that allow them to survive a moderate intensity fire, while others developed seeds that hide underground and sprout after a fire. Other plants regenerate from their root systems after a blaze.

A common misconception, according to Bauer, is the idea that prescribed burns destroy forests and habitat. In reality, carefully managed fire usually eliminates smaller trees and brush that may compete with larger trees for vital resources, like water and soil nutrients.

"This helps restore the natural fire cycle, which these trees are used to," said Bauer. "The overall effect on the health and resilience of the ecosystem is positive."

Prescribed fire is carefully planned. Often, candidate areas are identified years in advance, and precise tactics are defined ahead of time to account for terrain, weather, and fuels.

"A history of fire suppression has removed fire's vital contributions from the landscape, and prescribed burns are a way to bring it back responsibly," said Bauer.

But it's pretty clear that Trump blurts out stuff without asking for any input from anyone who actually knows what they're talking about.  For him there's always someone else to blame - especially if it can be said in a partisan manner.  You don't remember when he was blaming water policy for the severity of the fires in California?  As if putting out fires with water is primarily how wildfires are fought, and ignoring that firefighting aircraft were dipping into reservoirs with no issues.

His claims are no less accurate than Brown's blaming it on climate change.

ecbuck: His claims are no less accurate than Brown's blaming it on climate change.

That's just ignorant.  While you may or may not agree with the assessment that dry conditions and high winds are a result of human-created climate change, there's no question that the spread of the fires was extremely fast as a result of those conditions.

Trump's claims are demonstrably inaccurate.  As in not subject to opinion.  There's no equivalence in claiming that water policy resulted in lack of water to utilize to fight fires.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/trump-says-wasting-wate...

President Trump says California is wasting water that can be used to fight wildfires ravaging the state, but dousing water onto flames is not even the primary means to fight wildfires. 

"For someone who lives in a city like President Trump, you might think of putting out a fire with a hose, and you can understand why he might think that," said Michael Wara, a research fellow at Stanford Law School focused on climate and energy policy. "It's just not the way wildfires are controlled. When you have 200 square miles with fire, there is just no way you can put it out with water."

 there's no question that the spread of the fires was extremely fast as a result of those conditions.

But there is no evidence that those conditions were caused by climate change.  If the trend in fires is being driven by climate change then the climate is cooling.  The early 1900s had far more fires and far more servere fires (measured in acres burned) than we see today despite the fact the existence of the largest cause of fires -man- has nearly tripled in that time frame.