Read on Twitter
Hey prescribed fire twitter, I want to talk about risk and liability for a minute. Clearly we need to address these so we can keep boasting a great track record of safety... But... 
A major obstacle to Rx fire is not so much risk as the PERCEPTION of risk (among private landowners/the public in particular). Major work is needed to educate people about the real risks, which are way less than most imagine them to be. So my question is: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1550742418301283
Do we focus too much on risk rather the real problem -- PERCEPTION of risk? We can keep reducing risk and liability, but if people still *think* Rx fire is risky, they won't want to adopt it. So just dealing with risk and liability won't mean people will start burning.
In fact, I wonder if overemphasizing risk and liability mitigation increases peoples' fears. Think about how we deter smokers: put big warnings on cigarette packets. Are we doing this to Rx fire?
Example: requiring Nomex and fire packs/shelters for private land burns would arguably increase safety, but does it also increase the perception of risk by reinforcing the sense that Rx fire is something that needs to be done by experts in uniforms rather than ordinary people?
Prescribed Burn Associations have featured regular people in jeans and flannel shirts; this has been a powerful image casting Rx fire as something comfortable and accessible rather than intimidating and scary, drawing more people to the practice. https://calcattlemen.org/pba
We need to face the real risks while giving people confidence they can do this. My thoughts: the way to build a profire culture is to build experience and comfort with Rx fire; safety will flow from this rather than from overemphasizing risk and scaring people away.
