Forest and rangeland managers in Western North America have called for expanding the use of prescribed fire as an ecologically appropriate tool to reduce flammable fuels and risk of catastrophic wildfire. Achieving this goal has been difficult, in large part because of anticipated public opposition. Survey research on perceptions of prescribed fire among residents of wildfire-prone areas reveals that large majorities believe it is acceptable to use in carefully chosen settings. However, there is less support for burning everywhere. Managers believe burning would be beneficial, driven largely by levels of confidence, that government agency managers can use it safely and effectively. In the evaluation of whether to employ prescribed fire or mechanical removal for diminishing fuel hazards on public lands, decision-makers must carefully consider various tradeoffs. These include assessing the risks and costs to property owners stemming from both wildfire and prescribed fire, as well as the pertinent costs associated with fuel-reduction options. Furthermore, decision-makers must consider the potential smoke impacts, particularly on vulnerable individuals, and the associated costs and benefits for wildlife and ecosystems. Additionally, they should factor in the public’s awareness of these tradeoffs. Traditional cost-benefit analyses may not be sufficient for such an evaluation. Instead, risk assessment frameworks used in natural disaster planning may prove valuable in conjunction with a public outreach strategy that includes general information on prescribed fire risks and benefits, regular communication about agency activities, and project-specific information aimed at helping people reduce negative impacts.