The key in that piece is that if you noticed, all the burned homes were in dense forest, the guy that created a fuel break around his place made it.
The people complaining about lack of fire suppression are the same ones that moved to the woods, then stopped the FS from logging, essentially protecting the forest to death.
The decision to pull back the first night was not as simple as they portray. Resources were limited, as there was a half million acres on fire just to the north that burned down several towns. If the incident commander threw everything at it at night, then what would he have available for the day shift the next day? Fighting fire at night can be effective, but there is no air power at night. Hand crews need to be supported with air tankers and helicopter buckets.
What I am saying is that there are many moving parts to fire suppression, and of course the guys that lost their homes are pissed, but they failed to take any responsibility for the dense growth on their OWN property (except for one guy). If you build your home in a dense forest that is naturally fire prone, shit happens, and not good shit. Finally, insurance companies are helping curtail the practice, as they won't even insure homes in fire trap areas any more. 60 minutes found some pissed off people and let them vent, but there was no counter arguments made.
They protected their scenery from disturbance as most pilgrims seem to think that forests are somehow static, fixed in place, but they are dynamic and ever changing and accumulating fuels. The forest type there evolved with frequent light fires, every 4 to 7 years that favored fire resistant trees. Several missed cycles and the accumulation usually burns so hot that suppression means back way off and build a black line. The trouble with the frequent light fires is that they are easy to put out, so we do, just delaying the inevitable stand-replacing fire.
