I've got a solution!

@MrBrownstone What kind of infrastructure can be built around all the forests that can stop a campfire from burning out of control?

@SW-User It's called a firebreak. California refuses to build them.

@cultofaction Is that really practical? Can they do that around all the forests? Or, are you all saying that not everyone will be protected but at least some people's homes would be safe?

@SW-User You don't put them in front of people's houses... They divide sections of forest so that fires aren't as likely to spread

@SW-User It’s called a firebreak.

@cultofaction I didn't say that. I said forests. If it's not a perimeter fire break which would be financially prohibitive, how does one determine which sections of the forest to build them in? Doesn't it stand to reason that we can never know where a fire will ignite? What if they spend millions building them in certain sections and Joe Schmuck comes along, builds a campfire in an area that doesn't have a firebreak? I still don't see the practicality in firebreaks as you describe it. They don't guarantee that all the fires still won't spread out of control.

@MrBrownstone Yes, I know. Please see my responses to Overman. I just don't see the practicality in it. The cost would be prohibitive and I can't see how they'll be able to stop the majority of the fires some nimrod starts.

@SW-User Cost would be prohibitive? Billions lost this year alone! Dozens of lives as well!

@cultofaction You're absolutely right about that. But, how does building fire breaks in certain sections keep it from occurring again? I'm not trying to be difficult or argumentative here. I really don't see how that would be the answer to avoiding this problem in the future.