John Maclean says wildfires will get “worse”

In another discussion string, Gil DeHuff suggested posting this link from the July 2 Missoulian, by writer Kim Briggeman:

http://missoulian.com/news/local/wildfires-going-to-get-worse-says-writer-john-maclean/article_f6c7afa8-e2b3-11e2-9bce-001a4bcf887a.html

Key Maclean quote and text:

“The bigger picture is that these acts of nature have become more frequent and more violent, and it’s not going to stop,” he predicted. “It’s not going to get better. It’s going to get worse, and one of the reasons it’s going to get worse in the Northwest where we are is that there’s too goddamn much timber out there that ought to be cut or burned deliberately.”

Timber sale after timber sale, and prescribed burn after prescribed burn, are being stopped, he said. The woods are full of tinder. Couple that with longer and hotter fire seasons due to a variety of reasons, including climate change, beetle kill and drought and the outlook isn’t rosy.

6 thoughts on “John Maclean says wildfires will get “worse””

  1. I think the writer should have delayed publishing his article. He sounds a little emotional about the issues to clearly present a coherent and accurate point of view. He has some points but, they seem biased. Be sure to read the comments, too. I thought the comments would be the commonplace ignorant rants we are used to seeing, regarding forest management. Then, I got to Matt’s comments. He does call out the author on various points but, I still believe that the GAO report was “crafted” to include an inordinate amount of “fuels projects”, in the form of prescribed fires in the South, to slant the stats. I also believe that litigated salvage projects were excluded because they weren’t seen as “fuels projects” by the GAO. Overall, there seems to be plenty of BS going around there but, I award Matt the victory regarding reasonable debate. He had the most facts that I can personally verify and believe in. I also, however, believe that it is, indeed, going to get MUCH worse.

    In 1987, our small Ranger District had 43 separate wildfires in three days. In 2007, dozens of major wildfires burned for weeks, sending thick smoke from northern California all the way to Yellowstone. When this happens again, maybe this summer, impacts will be even worse. Couple that with all the other issues like Let-Burn, sequestration, scarce airtankers, reduced firefighter expertise, fewer fuels projects, thicker and more flammable forests, increased human ignitions, etc, etc, etc, we have the potential for a “perfect storm”, once again. However, this one has two serious droughts behind it, with forests more overstocked than we have seen in the past. Ditto for dead fuels residing in our forests. The potential is there, and it is still VERY early in the fire season. If the government follows through with its Let-Burn program, we could be looking at 15+ million acres burned this year, with more of it at high intensity!

    Reply
    • Yep, Matthew made some excellent points in his critique — the parts I liked best is when he called his apparently omniscient opponents out for being “anonymous.” Go, Matt!

      Maclean claimed to have given five hours of interviews that day, so that may have been part of his problem. Maybe there is no value in grazing or mowing grasslands and chaparral in many places, but regular herbicide and/or regular prescribed fires are really cheap per acre on a landscape-scale basis; way less expensive than all of the manpower, training, equipment, property damage, etc., that take place during wildfires in lieu of these practices.

      But Maclean is right about the fuel and wildfire risk in Pacific Northwest forests. This isn’t a Global Warming issue, it’s a common sense and basic observation problem.

      Reply
  2. Lots of those fires are burning in places that can hardly be called merchantable timber and candidates for thinning. The Yarnell fire is surely a case in point as was much of the Wallow fire area. Yes, forest cover has increased in density in many places but rather little of that area is treatable with thinning and fuels reduction. I think we should do it but there are real limits.

    I might assume that if many areas had burned recently they might not burn again as readily, or maybe they do.

    We have seen in S CA chaparral that even places burned a few years before can torch hot again in that system.

    Reply
  3. I recall that the place where that crew papa McLean wrote about in Young Men and FIre, killed in the 40s above the Missouri breaks, were on a steep, grassed hillside, not timbered.

    Reply
    • Yes, Greg, you are correct about the Mann Gulch Fire, which overran those smokejumpers, being on step, grassed hillsides above the Missoula River. Here’s a link to a few good pictures.

      And here’s the comment I made on the Missoulian site the other morning:

      In this article Maclean stated: “‘It’s not going to get better. It’s going to get worse, and one of the reasons it’s going to get worse in the Northwest where we are is that there’s too god*&^% much timber out there that ought to be cut or burned deliberately.’ Timber sale after timber sale, and prescribed burn after prescribed burn, are being stopped, he said. The woods are full of tinder. Couple that with longer and hotter fire seasons due to a variety of reasons, including climate change, beetle kill and drought and the outlook isn’t rosy.”

      First off, my thoughts are with the fallen firefighters and their families and community.

      However, some of what Maclean has stated needs to be refuted and corrected.

      For example, according to the official website for the Yarnell Hill Fire (http://www.inciweb.org/incident/3461/) the fire is burning in chaparral and grass. Not in timber. Not in “beetle kill.” And not in an area the Forest Service planned a timber sale. So why in the heck is Maclean going off about “too god*&^% much timber out there that ought to be cut?”

      Also, according to the National Weather Service, the weather in the area since the Yarnell Hill fire started has been high temperatures between 102 to 104 degrees with humidity as low as 9% and wind gusts as high as 40 miles per hour. That type of extreme weather is exactly what is pushing this fire so quickly through the chaparral and grass.

      I don’t know about how other people feel, but I get mighty sick and tired of some people using every annual wildfire season (and the tragic loss of life) as some sort of an excuse to spout out a bunch of false and misleading information about these wildfires, about timber sales and Forest Service management.

      For example, while Maclean states, “Timber sale after timber sale, and prescribed burn after prescribed burn, are being stopped” I’d challenge Maclean to name one single timber sale in the entire state of Arizona that has been stopped or delayed in recent years.

      Nationwide, all the research shows that the vast, vast majority (upwards of 95%) of all fuel reduction projects on Forest Service land go forward without any delays, except perhaps due to some Forest Service budget or staffing issues. The notion that environmentalists top “timber sale after timber sale” is laughable when one actually looks at the facts.

      Furthermore, we’re talking about the Yarnell Hill fire burning in chaparral and grass, but Maclean wants to make this into an issue about national forest timber sales, beetle-killed trees and the “woods full of tinder” and “too god*&^% much timber out there that ought to be cut.”

      Where, exactly, does Maclean get off talking about this in light of the very specific facts surrounding this Yarnell Hill fire tragedy?

      Some frequent commenters on this newspaper site, and in letters to the editor, repeatedly call for the Forest Service and other land management agencies to put out all wildfires. Phrases like “we need to be more aggressive and put these fires out” are common during fire season across the west. Often times some of these same commenters, just like Maclean, claim that more logging will prevent “extreme” wildfires.

      What about the Yarnell Hill Wildfire? Should the Forest Service and Arizona State Forestry Division have been more aggressive with this fire? What would the parents, family members and friends of the fallen fire-fighters say? Is “fuel reduction” work in chaparral and grass even possible? Does the tragic loss of life from a wildfire burning in chaparral and grass on 104 degree days with 9% humidity and 40 mph winds make the case for the type of logging work that some people claim will prevent “extreme” wildfire? If not, will that prevent some people from using this tragedy to call for more logging in our national forests?

      Reply
  4. good comment there Matt, thanks for that. And another issue in timbered terrain is whether it should be considered a catastrophic fire regime, when it burns like upper elevations in Yellowstone, it will burn severely. Not much to do in some upper elevation mixed conifer stands where infrequent fires tend to take most of it out.

    We might understand low severity fire regimes ( although Baker would disagree with lots of data to support his contention that those places did in fact burn hot as hell in CO and central OR.), but the vast middle ground of mixed severity regimes can go either way depending on conditions. I was astonished to see how hot Biscuit burned across almost bare ridge tops with minimal fuel. Although the thinning treatments in the north that burned over under more moderate conditions fared OK, across much of the central portion I don’t think fuels treatments would have made much difference given the hellish conditions.

    Many of us can agree on thinning across much of the gentle P pine zone in Oregon and AZ, some of the easiest terrain to treat, but steeper mixed conifer stands are another can of worms.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to greg Cancel reply