PS - here's some food for thought as you think about how bad these fires are.
Last I read (about 3 days ago), we were at
just under over* a million acres burned this year. It could easily double and reach 2 million, possibly even breaking the 2003 record (2 million acres burned).
That's bad, right? Well, fire ecologists best estimate is that the
average fire year pre-1800 was
4.5 million acres. That is the level of fire that the California ecosystem "expects" each year, barring human intervention. In other words, in our *worst* fire years, we only burn less than half the acreage that the ecosystem has evolved to expect.
*Over 1 million acres burned since July
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-08-22/more-than-a-million-acres-have-burned-in-california-since-july-as-monster-fires-rage-around-bay-area2020 now has the 2, 3, and 9 biggest fires in recorded California history (and 8 of the top ten are from 2012 or later... a bad sign).
https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/5510/top20-acres.pdfWhat is probably quite different from the fires for 300 and 500 years ago is the intensity. 300 years ago the landscape saw frequent fires and, of course, cooler temperatures and more regular rains, so the fires were probably mostly low-intensity. Plus you didn't have 35 million people living in the state.