Elinor Ostrom discussed several types of resource management: open access, commons, private property, and government control. Here, I discuss how fire has been applied or managed within these different systems, specifically, the use of fire to manage fire. A useful distinction is between those who are immersed in nature, immersed in the ecosystems they are managing, and those who are not. Those who are immersed in nature, especially characteristic of commons ownership, tend to manage fire in ways that are based on experience, i.e., flexible, small-scale, and generally speaking successful at reducing the likelihood of catastrophic fire. Open access systems have no management to speak of, yet there is surprisingly little evidence for harmful effects of anthropogenic fire in such systems. Possibly this reflects that the use of fire in such systems also tends to be small-scale, because those engaging in open access do so for only short periods of time and only over part of the territory. In contrast, governments and sometimes private property owners are separated from the resources they attempt to manage. This has tended to lead to policy that is founded upon theory, based on scientific understanding or misunderstanding, with often unfortunate effects. These points are illustrated and elaborated upon with examples from the rich history of fire in California. The recent increase in catastrophic fires in central and northern California reflects the fact that governments and NGO’s that are not immersed in nature, and do not understand fire ecology, are the main drivers of fire policy.
