The fire's now up to more than 7,500 acres, but doesn't seem to be threatening any structures.
With that in mind, let me tell you what I think...
Let 'er burn. Backfire a perimeter a ways out, monitor it, and let it go. At this point, we're using up valuable resources and putting more than 500 firefighters, helicopters and an air tanker at risk trying to get it under control. After four days of burning, they still have less than 5% containment. I feel like backburning a perimeter is more of a proactive than reactive approach and in the long-run will cost less. And you can't tell me that the flame retardant they're dropping isn't bad for our lungs (I know I totally sounded like a tree-hugger right there, you'll have to forgive me).
We know that fires can be good, otherwise we would not use controlled or prescribed burns. We regularly ride in areas that were "devastated" by fire and the regeneration is astounding. And...other than a long, cold, deep freeze, it's the only way to control the damn beetles that are killing our trees right and left. The beetle kill, along with the dry winter, has set up some prime fire areas.
Letting the fire burn isn't all moonlight and roses though, the downside is the air quality pretty much sucks right now. I feel for people with respiratory issues or allergies.
What do you think? Let 'er burn or douse her?