The idiots at the national forest agency and the bureau of land management are all about mismanagement.

This is primarily a budget issue. The per hour cost of big aircraft is pretty high. There's also a safety factor involved, as the air above a fire is very turbulent, and a big aircraft crashing with a sizable fuel load could create a big fire source.

There's also a tactical factor involved, as smaller aircraft can be more precise in where they drop their loads, getting into difficult terrain that would challenge a big aircraft. The Forest Service has noted this, with experience over the years using the big Martin Mars seaplanes (only two left flying). If the terrain is very hilly, they'd rather use a mix of helicopters and dedicated smaller aircraft like the CL-412, especially designed for firefighting.

Then there's the retardant dispersal issue. What seems like low altitude for the big aircraft (much higher than a small aircraft can achieve) can result in a wider spread of retardant, reducing the effective concentration levels. There's more to the issue than just gross payload.

It reminds me of a girl I once dated who worked for the BLM (SORRY, won't do that again) and the excuse she gave for destruction of the land on the Arizona Strip. I asked her about a number of new short roads that I saw that went nowhere, were the ranchers doing it? Were they trying to develop water? No, she replied, it was the BLM trying to use up money in their fund so they could get more next year. I was incredulous. So I queried, a rancher who wants to develop a water source has to fill out forms, spend money and time, sometimes years while the BLM determines what kind of environmental impact a rancher might have while the BLM does not worry about impact, it just tears up the land for no reason except to spend money? Yes, was the reply, in the long run the environment will be better served!
Why limit the use of retardant or water to control a fire to 5000 gallons? This limits more than just the largest aircraft, there are those that drop 8000 and 11000 gallons. What I learned in sales is to find out what the motivation is and meet those needs. The motivation isn't to save expenditures, homes, property, forest or lives. The motivation is to spend money and fighting the fire slowly consumes more money than fighting it quickly with larger aircraft. The only determining factor should be the requirement of putting out the fire, not how big is the plane!!??
Ultimately the first argument should be considered, should the federal government control any more than the 10 square miles ceded to it for its operation? No. None! Let people be free to choose at any given moment what is best for their situation and then do it.

If a forest fire puts property at risk, then aiding in stopping it is a legitimate function of the government. Doing it in the most cost efficient and swiftest way is, of course, the desired way to do it. So, what's the problem? Simple. The Forest Service is a government entity, and as such can be relied upon to do it the least efficient way even though a better alternative is available. In any case, private firefighters would do a better job. If government gave up taxing for the service, private firefighting companies would spring up .like grubs on a dead cat.

Let’s see here. Forest management has been successfully denied by the greens, even private forests to a great degree. Forest fires have gotten worse due to lack of management and the government debates the use of larger aircraft to fight the larger fires. Who would expect anything else?

Here's an interview by Lars Larson in the PDX market with John Wheeler. Worth a listen...

https://soundcloud.com/the-lars-larso...

I'd be checking the financial situation of the politicians and companies involved...not to mention, somewhere down the road the BLM outlawing settlements in these "Forest Fire" zones and that land now under the control of the Fed. gov.
Anyone look into Sustainable Development or project 2030?...maybe that's been the plan all along.

More gov't red tape and bungling.

The only relevant concern I can see is that smaller planes can operate out of a wider variety of locations. Those jumbo jets require looooong runways for takeoff (and landing), limiting their effective operating areas - especially in the remote forests of the west. Since that wasn't mentioned, I don't think it's the problem. My fear is that this has become one more area for graft.

Having just returned from Colorado (driven there and back using two different routes) I can honestly say I am appalled by quantity of dead tall pines along side live vibrant ones. The landscape was such that easily there were 2-3 dead standing trees to every live one. I can only assume that the eco-wackos have won the day and would rather sweat out a seasonal storm that will burn many hundreds of acres than responsibly allow a logging company come in to clear out the more than ample kindling.

I took pictures of this, if I could I would post them here.

Debating the jumbo bombers is idiotic. We have horrendous fires from time to time in Northern Arizona, these planes would save lives.

Large airplanes don't vote. Government employees do. Any questions?

So, what's the solution?