Why We Disagree About Fuel Treatments: VII. Framing Again: the Watershed Projects

We have already talked about the Forests to Faucets partnership effort in Colorado here and here. I raised the question at the time (2012) and I think it’s still relevant.. why do watershed projects seem to have fewer critics? As I said then: I wonder why this water partnerships like this are a New Mexico/Colorado …

Continue reading ‘Why We Disagree About Fuel Treatments: VII. Framing Again: the Watershed Projects’ »

When the locals pay for national forest fuel reduction …

Everybody wins? “So were Flagstaff officials prescient when they proposed what, at the time, was one of the first municipal partnerships with a national forest to have lands outside city boundaries thinned at city expense?” “Hindsight is 20-20, but it sure looks that way to us. Armed with a $10 million budget, the Forest Service …

Continue reading ‘When the locals pay for national forest fuel reduction …’ »

Reflections on the Biomass Monitor Debate 8/16/17 on Fuel Treatments

I found this discussion to be very interesting, and I think the Biomass Monitor is going to post a recording on their website here. It seems like everyone agrees that “more fire is needed” in dry western landscapes, as we discussed before. It also seems like (some) fire ecologists think that it is important to …

Continue reading ‘Reflections on the Biomass Monitor Debate 8/16/17 on Fuel Treatments’ »

Why We Disagree About Fuel Treatment: VI. Stewardship and Fireshed Assessments

Sometimes when I hear that “science says that fuel treatments don’t work” I wonder why the views of scientists who work on fuel treatments don’t seem to count as “science”. IMHO, there is altogether too much ready acceptance of (generally scientists) framing issues as “science” issues, and then claiming one discipline is key to the …

Continue reading ‘Why We Disagree About Fuel Treatment: VI. Stewardship and Fireshed Assessments’ »

“I understand firefighter safety, but you have to put people on the fire.”

  This from a resident near the Lolo Peak Fire – a fire that had recently killed one firefighter.  He added, “I’m tired of the smoke and I’m tired of the fire. I think there needs to be more accountability.” I’m appalled by the sense of entitlement to protection of private property that this statement …

Continue reading ‘“I understand firefighter safety, but you have to put people on the fire.”’ »

Agreement Check-In: More Fire on the Landscape?

Good explanation of a current WFU here in the Journal (Cortez, Dolores, Mancos, Colorado). There was only one comment on yesterday’s post (thanks Forester 353!), so I want to run these questions again to see where people are. There seems to be a broad agreement among different people that we “need to put fire back …

Continue reading ‘Agreement Check-In: More Fire on the Landscape?’ »

Some red meat for the anti-litigation crowd

Here’s a story about an enjoined timber sale that might be burning up right now.  It will no doubt become Exhibit A for arguing why we should not allow the public to sue the government over its land management decisions. “Both the Park Creek and Arrastra Fires on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest were …

Continue reading ‘Some red meat for the anti-litigation crowd’ »

Why We Disagree About Fuel Treatments: V. Getting Fire Back on the Landscape- PB, WFU and WPFC

There are different reasons that different groups of people, including scientists, want more fire on the landscape. Fuels specialists want to reduce fuels and make problem fires safer to fight. Ecologists want to have various good ecological kinds of things happen. At the same time, there are bad things that fires can do, to people, …

Continue reading ‘Why We Disagree About Fuel Treatments: V. Getting Fire Back on the Landscape- PB, WFU and WPFC’ »

New York Times on Fire: “Science” Without Fire Science

Thanks to readers who shared this NY Times article. The subheading is A “scientific debate is intensifying over whether too much money and too many lives are lost fighting forest fires”. The article says that the black=backed woodpecker is “a symbol of a huge scientific and political debate over the future of fire in American …

Continue reading ‘New York Times on Fire: “Science” Without Fire Science’ »

Why We Disagree About Fuel Treatments: IV. Framing the Issue: Living with Fire on the Landscape

Before we move on to “how have SPLATS worked in practice?,” we probably need to go back to the fundamental beliefs underlying our policy preferences. In political science or policy studies, this is known as the way the problem is “framed.” See this description, if you’re not familiar with the term. I think it’s important …

Continue reading ‘Why We Disagree About Fuel Treatments: IV. Framing the Issue: Living with Fire on the Landscape’ »