As someone living in the Navarro watershed, I can attest to the appearance of increased stress on the redwoods in the Mendocino Redwood Company forest stands. Now, the concern is all the dead tan oak killed through hack and squirt that have been left standing in remote areas if MRC land. It is one thing to worry about sudden oak death syndrome, without having to also contend with the industrial motivation for killing yet more such trees.

I performed an under 3 acre conversion in a third @50-60 yo growth redwood/doug fir/tanoak/bay forrest to establish a 75 foot clearance defensible perimeter on a homesite with outbuildings (1 mile from the coastline) on top of a mountain(moderate marine influence), juxtaposed to a saddle with slope gradients 30-50%. This was performed with an RPF, biologist, F&G, Calfire, etc. and I followed their recommendations. There is a high fuel load due to previous logging, fire suppression (duff up to 3+' at the base) and high sods death rate. I have been challenged by those passionate to save all redwoods (not local or my neighbors) that my clearing of the 50 yo redwoods was unnecessary and I should left the redwoods since they can't transmit wildfire crown to crown and would not have been a hazard. The head of Calfire for our region who visited my property five times said that is a partial truth and that I did not want to chance the experience the part that was not as true and that was part of the prescription for establishing the defensible perimeter at least 75 feet clearance with selective removal from 75-150' as opposed to 150'+ clearance that would have been normally recommended with a severe risk and then additional circumstances that contribute to a very severe risk. I am just having some second thoughts (or else I would not be researching this after the fact) and at the same time feeling guilty second guessing those who helped me (and I feel are my friends) in asking "Did I do the right thing removing the redwoods which I actually do care about". If you cannot respond, please help me by sending me in the right direction to rest my mind.  
 
ps-I want to share my appreciation for all the great work you do and Dr. Metz (who I believe is working under you & I researched a couple days ago), it allows me to be an informed steward of 300 acres on our precious coast and to fulfill my own passions through your scientific endeavors.

Thank you for this wonderful information. It's true that fire can kill our forests there are cases of wild fires everywhere. It says sometimes by human error or sometimes it's just by nature.

The top photo is typical of any redwood park in the north where fires over centuries burned out goose pens, commonly seen.  
 
But I find the articles interesting anyway. Common sense alone suggests that greater fuel from disease in the understory would increase fire intensity.  
 
If the extra info provides the age of redwoods where the studies are being done, that will be a useful bit of insight, whether its old or new growth.  
 
Cheers,  
 
M. D. Vaden / www.mdvaden.com/redwoods.shtml

I am astonished to see no mention of forestry practices (logging and fire suppresion) anywhere in this entire article. Those are far more responsible for the increased fuel loading. P. ramorum is simply an opportunist, thriving in the overcrowded forest created by mismanagement.

Thanks for sharing.