From the text...'Let me over-simplify (or overstate) my argument to make my point. Foresters have tended to identify only two types of fires: (1) wildfires, which are bad and should be prevented or put out expeditiously, and (2) prescribed fires, which are good and should be used more extensively by progressive silviculturists and forest managers. What this classification system ignores is the variability in resources, values, and uses of the forest. Until we incorporate this resource variability into our fire managemant systems we will not be operating at the proper level of sophistication. We must delineate areas where fire cannot be tolerated (e.g. important recreation sites, excellent timber growing sites, sensitive watersheds, etc.) and on these sites apply the economically optimum level of fire prevention and suppression,. In other areas, where resource values are lower, we might best serve society's needs by utilizing a less expensive form of extensive (rather than intensive) fire protection. In still other areas, where fire may be an important component of the natural ecosystem (e., parts of certain wilderness areas, prime game ranges, etc,), we may wish to indulge in fire prevention and control only to the limited extent of protecting human life and property. Fire specialists must participate in multiple-use planning. They must influence and be influenced by multiple-use plans.'