This concept includes ideas regarding the recognition of historic fire regimes and a desirable natural state for public land ecosystems. However, there remains a great deal of debate about how to determine fire regime information, as well an acceptable definition of natural. Finally, most of the responses identified prescribed fire as a tool for achieving management objectives, yet by making prescribed fire a necessary ecosystem function, it becomes a goal in and of itself rather than a tool. The second goal centered on the principle of fuel reduction with protection objectives the idea that prescribed fire should be used to reduce the threat of damage to people, property, and resources. There were differences in responses, however, regarding how these different values should be prioritized and allocated.
Some comments put human safety first, others the condition of the natural resource.
With emerging interest in the U.S. Congress in expending restoration funds on the urban-wildland interface, a coherent pattern of treatments would seem sensible. Several of the respondents identified the need to develop in the goal-setting process an integrated plan for using prescribed fire, tailored to specific situations. Frequently, comments indicated that prescribed fire is not necessarily the best or most appropriate approach to achieving management objectives on public land. The extent and amount of prescribed burning remains controversial. Several respondents mentioned the danger of overuse, criticizing the view that prescribed fire could be viewed as a panacea for solving natural resource problems.