Good fire, bad fire: the myth of the mega-blaze

Brooks Hays, a reporter with GIMBY, recently wrote an article that should generate some interest here, especially in context of some of the comments related to recent black-backed woodpecker articles.  Below is a snip from the opening lead, which features some quotes from forest ecologist Chad Hanson.  The article also includes perspectives from Richard Hutto, forest ecologist and director of the Avian Science Center at the University of Montana, and from myself.  You can read the entire article here.

Last summer, talk of wildfires filled newspapers and dominated the headlines. Wildfires were “trending,” as they say.

Blazes were burning the western forests in record numbers, announced policy officials and reporters. Every news and science organization from USA Today to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was calling 2012’s fire season one of the worst on record.

“Records maintained by the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) and NASA both indicate that 2012 was an extraordinary year for wildfires in the United States,” NOAA wrote in a year-end review.

Weather Underground co-founder Jeff Masters blamed the growing threat of wildfire on “rising temperatures and earlier snow melt due to climate change” and added that “fire suppression policies which leave more timber to burn may also be a factor.”

In August, as fire season continued to rage in most of the West, National Public Radio ran a five-part series calling mega-fires the “new normal.” This new reality was attributed to excess forest growth — an overly abundant accumulation of combustible materials – all resulting from an overzealous Forest Service that put out too many fires. NPR dubbed it the “Smokey the Bear effect.”

But a growing body of empirical data suggests these superlatives might be more storytelling than science. “Those terms, ‘mega-fire’ and ‘catastrophic fire,’ are not scientific terms,” says forest ecologist Chad Hanson, executive director of the John Muir Project. “And such hyperbolic and extreme terms are not going to lead us to an objective view of the evidence.”

An objective view of the evidence, Hanson argues, reveals that the vast majority of wildlands and forests aren’t burning hotter and faster.  They’re actually starved for high-intensity fires — fires Hanson says are more ecologically valuable than they’re given credit for.

As Hanson argues in his most recent study, The Myth of “Catastrophic” Wildfire, high-intensity fires are the exception in the U.S. today, not the norm. And he finds no correlation between increased fire-suppression activity and high-intensity fire. Hanson says the opposite is true: the longer a forest goes without fire, the more mature it becomes, the higher its canopy grows, and the less susceptible it is to fire damage.

Click here to read the entire article.

21 thoughts on “Good fire, bad fire: the myth of the mega-blaze”

  1. Another example of not wanting to end thinning projects…. merely to control all the parameters of them. The “If only’s” tend to pile up in some people’s forms of “restoration”. For me, it is “if only” we could adjust tree densities to match annual rainfall amounts. “If only” we could restore species compositions, instead of “letting nature decide”. “If only” we could accelerate the creation and growth of new old growth. *sigh* (“new old growth” sounds really funny about now, a few minutes later)

    The “If only’s” of some usually start with the socially impossible stuff first, and then go on from there to scientifically impossible.

    Reply
  2. Interesting article. I didn’t realize “forest restoration expert” was part of your CV Matt. By the way, I thought bikes were prohibited in the wilderness?: “My freezer is full of elk and deer that I hike and bike out of the Wilderness.” http://greengolf.wordpress.com/about/

    Anyway, we probably don’t need to re-hash fire stuff do we? It’s kind of a no-win discussion. Most of Hanson’s work has been systematically refuted by the research station (sorry – internal document only) which only proves my earlier comments about “my science vs. your science”. Folks are going to believe what they want and have assumed their stance.

    I think the questions/concerns being raised in the context of the woodpecker were about the “lack of habitat” in the face of increased fire and the genetic stuff. Not whether fire is good or bad.

    I would have liked to have seen some recognition in the article above about the Agency’s successful fire use program here in R1 where fire is managed and allowed to burn for all the groovy reasons cited in the article, but I’d agree that might have flavored the story differently.

    While we’re at it, let’s not forget to review GW’s treatise on the subject also:

    http://ncfp.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/praise-the-dead-the-ecological-value-of-dead-trees/

    Reply
    • JZ: I never have, and never would, refer to myself as a “forest restoration expert.” I have zero control over the words a reporter chooses to use.

      Yes, JZ, bikes are prohibited in Wilderness. And, by the way JZ, have you ever noticed that 15 mile cheery stem of a road (open to hikers and bikers) that’s surrounded by the Rattlesnake Wilderness area north of Missoula? So, yes, I do, in fact, fill my freezer with deer and elk that I hike and bike out of the Wilderness. Thanks for making me give up one of my hunting spots though…really appreciate that.

      Oh, and thank you very much for highlighting my Green Golf blog…and just in time for Master’s week too yet. Again, just not sure what these little “gotcha games” have to do with the article I posted. Thanks.

      Reply
      • Matt: I truthfully liked the Green Golf link, even though I am not a golfer. One of my favorite associates through the years was Ben Stout, avid forester and golfer, and we had many interesting discussions regarding similarities between managing a golf course landscape and forest management.

        Now, back to the topic at hand — here is the quote that caught my eye: “Richard Hutto, forest ecologist and director of the Avian Science Center at the University of Montana, says our aversion to wildfire may be unavoidable. “It’s a chromosome problem,” he jokes. “We, as human beings, are programmed to fear and hate fire.””

        This tells me exactly why I distrust a number of other statements attributed to Hutto, too. His “joke” is a joke in that it clearly reveals his own perspective — and is clearly 100% off-target. Humans are the only animal that can make fire and control it. We love fire. And with just cause. The evidence is everywhere. Just because people avoid highway accidents doesn’t mean they don’t enjoy driving cars — that would just be stupid, not “funny.” Hutto sounds like a tool. I’d be very careful around his research findings and conclusions, based on the quotes I’ve read here.

        Reply
        • Bob, do you mean that “Hutto sounds like he may go beyond what are strictly scientific questions and move into his personal opinions without carefully telling people that he is doing this?” That would be much more in the nature of this blog that what I think you said…

          Reply
          • I think that is what I was trying to say. My point is that he seems to have a very strong personal bias on issues, and that bias seems to (strongly) color his stated perspective. I am not sure, based on what little I’ve read, if the problem is he “is not carefully telling people” about his bias, so much as that he appears to be unaware of its existence — as if he’s dealing with “facts” and not merely personal opinions. When people have been quoted in this manner in the past I’ve often found that this “blindspot” transfers over to their research findings and conclusions as well. We’ve discussed several such examples on this blog in the past. Hanson has been the poster boy in this regard lately. I’m only guessing on Hutto (“based on what little I’ve read”).

            Reply
            • Despite Sharon’s generous re-write, Dr. Bob did, in fact, say that Dr. Richard Hutto, director of the internationally respected Avian Science Center at U of Montana, sounds like a tool. Now Bob is telling us that he really hasn’t read much about Hutto’s research and findings, but just enough, I suppose, to call him a tool. Once again, some commenters on this site go straight to name-calling and posting unfounded allegations and character assassinations. To continue with the golf analogy…”par for the course.”

              Also, Bob, did you ever consider that these words you wrote about Dr. Hutto, apply quite nicely to yourself?

              he seems to have a very strong personal bias on issues, and that bias seems to (strongly) color his stated perspective.

              Reply
              • Yes I did, Matt. What do you think I meant by that term? And why do you think I used so many qualifying statements, such as “based on what little I’ve read” and “sounds like?” Personally, I’d never heard of the Avian Science Center before now (not my field), whether other nations respect it or not; do you know who Dr. Benjamin Stout was?

                Part 2. Yes, of course it does. I’ve never claimed to be unbiased — just the opposite: I usually make a point of clearly stating my biases. However, that training from my Cultural Anthropology background also tells me (and my readers) when I’ve crossed the line from research findings to personal opinions. That line seems pretty blurry with Hanson’s work, and — based on what little I’ve read — seems to possibly have an adverse effect on Hutto’s work, too. I’d like to be wrong in this regard — it’s a first impressions kind of thing, based on some bold (and apparently misdirected) statements.

                Reply
                • http://avianscience.dbs.umt.edu/aboutus/aboutus.php

                  The Board of Regents of The University of Montana approved the establishment of the Avian Science Center in the spring of 2004. Our mission is to promote ecological awareness and informed decision making through the collection, synthesis, and dissemination of science-based information on western birds. We work in collaboration with numerous partners both within the University and around the region.

                  In support of our mission, we:

                  Promote and conduct high caliber, basic and applied avian research;

                  Disseminate research and monitoring results through traditional publication routes as well as through avenues that are more rapid and effective—a web-based interface, workshops, field demonstrations, and teacher training programs;

                  Provide and enhance educational opportunities related to bird research and monitoring;

                  Use our teaching and communication tools to promote informed land management, wise land stewardship practices, and a sustainable future.

                  ASC Partners

                  Collaboration is an important part of the work we do at the Avian Science Center. We work closely with, and are supported by, a number of agencies, private entities, and researchers at UM and at other institutions. Our funding and in-kind support comes from the Big Hole Watershed Committee, Bureau of Land Management, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Joint Fire Science Program, MT Department of Environmental Quality, Montana Department of Justice, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, National Park Service, Potlatch Corporation , Plum Creek Timber Company, PPL-Montana, Sonoran Joint Venture, The Nature Conservancy, UM Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, US Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

                  Reply
              • I think we should ask Hutto if goshawk territories make better woodpecker habitat, after they burn. And, make sure that he’s talking about throughout the goshawk’s range. It doesn’t matter if there are blackbacked woodpeckers around to move in. If you welcome high intensity wildfire, you also welcome the negative impacts.

                Here is an example of lost habitat that won’t be returning anytime soon. The stretch of US 395, from Topaz Lake to Susanville, in California, parallels the Sierra Crest on the east side. You can see the scars of wildfire after wildfire, eliminating dry eastside pine forests for most of that 200 mile distance above the highway. Now, how can woodpeckers survive when the forests are burned and gone? It sure seems like a hardship for a bird dependent on snags to be without a usable forest for 60 years, doesn’t it?!??

                “If only ………….” isn’t a solution!

                Reply
              • Thank YOU Matt for injecting a little levity!!! I am laughing myself silly on this one…..good post.

                Always interesting to see how these posts escalate, peak and the denouement. I hope there’s some students enjoying the education this place might bring.

                Reply
                • Whoops, My comment above was in reply to Matt’s post above:

                  Despite Sharon’s generous re-write, Dr. Bob did, in fact, say that Dr. Richard Hutto, director of the internationally respected Avian Science Center at U of Montana, sounds like a tool. Now Bob is telling us that he really hasn’t read much about Hutto’s research and findings, but just enough, I suppose, to call him a tool. Once again, some commenters on this site go straight to name-calling and posting unfounded allegations and character assassinations. To continue with the golf analogy…”par for the course.”

                  Also, Bob, did you ever consider that these words you wrote about Dr. Hutto, apply quite nicely to yourself?

                  he seems to have a very strong personal bias on issues, and that bias seems to (strongly) color his stated perspective.

                  Reply
      • Wasn’t trying to “getcha” Matt, just injecting a little levity and my own brand of dry humor. Nothing personal, just roll with it dude. Besides, you’re the english teacher….I’da thought you would have seperated those two thoughts, clauses actions or whatever. The way it reads now seems like an admission of “violating the law”. Sorry to make you disclose you hunting area in your defense. BTW, biking out a critter is pretty noble. Never tried, but I can guarantee it’d be a yardsale.

        Reply
  3. My PhD dissertation at Oregon State University specifically studied the history of catastrophic wildfires in the Oregon Coast Range during the past 500 years. For purposes of my study I defined a “catastrophic wildfire” as one including more than 100,000 acres in an event. This is in line with dictionary definitions that define “catastrophe” as “a violent and sudden change in a feature of the earth.” I can say with some authority that in Hanson’s “most recent study” (2010), he doesn’t know what he is talking about and is trying to distort the language to serve his own agenda.

    These fires are not a “myth.” You can read about them in newspapers and see their results on television and the Internet — while they are taking place. Hansen is trying to make a point, and falls short by distorting facts and language.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Matthew Koehler Cancel reply