How a fire starts is irrelavant. It poses the same danger regardless.
Hey MarkHeyman, while we may have alienated some, our feeling is that there will always be people who are unreasonable, have an agenda, simply do not care, selfish, etc. Again, we are not trying to get you on our side, we are focused on the neighbors, locals and elected officials. If a few outside people get involved or engage us in some constructive dialog that helps us focus and hone our message so be it. But we can and enjoy sparring with the idiots as well. Again you get the dialog you deserve. If you treat us with respect we will reciprocate. If you turn it into a flame fest we can hang in that medium as well.
So back on topic. Fire is not part of the Northeast for the following reasons
1.lightning strikes account for less than 3% of all fires.
2. Lightning usually occurs during rain when the forest cannot burn
3. Most lightning in the northeast is not cloud to ground lightning it's cloud to cloud.
4. Take a look at our mountains and show me one area that has burned due to lightning in the past 100 years. If our forests depended on fire it would happen much more frequently.
3 people died and 29 houses were destroyed in Colorado this past march due to a prescribed burn that started out as a 50 ac burn. The same size as the duck pond burn.
We should note that the mention of "natural" fires is irrelevant. The risk that home owners are exposed to is uncontrolled forest fire. It makes no difference whether a fire that burns their home was started naturally or unnaturally. It might well be that more fires are started by careless humans, but it simply doesn't make a difference in their overall risk.
Reducing the fuel load in a forest by prescribed burns in a forest can significantly reduces the overall risk, not increase it. Some home insurance companies offer discounts for meeting standard fire prevention guidelines which can include prescribed burns to this effect.