University of Montana Ecologists: Forest Service should use wildfires to thin and restore forests

Following a wildfire in 2003, the Lolo National Forest in Montana prioritized an industrial logging project directly adjacent to the Rattlesnake Wilderness north of Missoula, Montana. The timber sale would have logged forests like this, on both sides of a popular hiking trail with direct access to the Wilderness and more than 15 miles away from the nearest home or structure. Following some public education and media tours to the proposed timber sale units (pictured here) the Forest Service dropped their logging plans in 2004 and this forest directly adjacent to the Wilderness was allowed to restore itself naturally. Photo by Matthew Koehler.

Get the full scoop from the Missoula Current. Below are some snips from the recent article.

As paleo-ecologists, Cathy Whitlock and Philip Higuera study past wildfires to better understand fire behavior. But what they see is that wildfires today are very different because of the Earth’s changing climate….

Higuera said that since the 1980s, the area consumed each year by wildfires is 10 times larger than the area that the Forest Service can log, thin, burn or restore.

“It forces you to recognize that you’re not going to get out of this problem simply by doing more treatment to the landscape,” Higuera said. “It’s unlikely that we would be able to eliminate years like 2017. So we need to expect and plan for more years like 2017.”

Whitlock and Higuera agreed that because wildfires are going to happen with increasing regularity as summers get hotter and drier, the Forest Service should use them as a tool to restore forest health. As long as they don’t threaten lives, wildfires can burn out all the dead wood and excess vegetation, setting the stage for a more healthy ecosystem.

Treatment projects tend to be small due to funding limits. So they should be focused on areas around people’s homes where they can make a difference, Higuera said.

The human factor can be a problem because people expect the Forest Service to put fires out. Also, too many people are building their homes in forested areas – the wildland-urban interface – that are bound to burn. In any given wildfire, firefighters spend an increasing amount of time and effort and risk lives to save homes rather than fighting fire.

Since 1990, 2 million new homes have been built in the wildland-urban interface – mostly in fire-prone low-elevation forests. Already 900,000 homes are in zones of high fire risk. By 2040, it is projected that 40 percent of the WUI will have an increased risk of burning, according to a 2015 University of Colorado study.

“I think that’s where the conversation needs to focus,” Whitlock said.

Education is needed to make people aware of the threats so they don’t build in risk-prone areas, but also so they understand the positive aspects of wildfire. Americans need to accept the inevitability of fire like they accept the inevitability of earthquakes or tornadoes, Higuera said.

“The forests are continually adapting to climate change and one way is by burning. I think what we’re seeing is the forests are equilibrating to climate change. The trouble is the climate is still changing. But these fires really should be thought of as a natural ecological process of adjusting to a new climate,” Whitlock said.

11 thoughts on “University of Montana Ecologists: Forest Service should use wildfires to thin and restore forests”

  1. Good luck convincing people that these wildfires are “natural and beneficial”. You’ll need it. LOTS of it. Yep, let’s have some more human-caused fires, if they are just so very good. Breathe that wonderful smoke! Hug those dead trees! Embrace the erosion! Impact the roads! Welcome the massive costs!

    Can we now completely forget about prescribed fire?

    Reply
    • For whatever it’s worth….when ecologists, scientists and forest protection organizations call for more wildfire on the landscape as a way to naturally thin and restore forests, I’m not sure anyone is saying that we need to let human-caused wildfires play that role. I’d be interested to see any examples of where scientists or forest protection organizations are calling for more wildfires via arson, car accidents, power line accidents and escaped campfires.

      Reply
      • Humans have ‘naturally’ caused wildfires for a very… long… time! How much ‘natural’ do you want?!? The results are often the same, causing human suffering. But, it’s really, really, ‘natural’ suffering, though. *SMIRK*

        Reply
        • Ok, Larry. So, I take that as “No, you don’t have any specific examples of where scientists or forest protection organizations are calling for more wildfires via arson, car accidents, power line accidents and escaped campfires.”

          Despite that fact, in your original comment you claimed “Yep, let’s have some more human-caused fires.”

          Reply
          • I believe the term we’re looking for is “unplanned ignitions”. Yes, some preservationists want to use them for dubious “resource benefits”. Yes, some people want ‘free-range wildfires’. Look in the comments sections of articles about wildfires, published in liberal newspapers.

            Other people will not accept the status quo of fiery habitat destruction and smoky summers. Preserving forests solely to burn just doesn’t sound rational.

            Reply
    • Larry, Well said. The danger of specialization (especially in an esoteric discipline) is the inability to recognize its relationship to the real world. Social-psychology 101 should be a required course for anyone who seeks to influence public policy.

      Reply
  2. Oh, great excuses for burning up our forests. At least they haven’t said it is good for global warming yet.
    And who cares that some have to breathe smoke all summer, or that it destroys our tourist industry.
    (Not to mention what these fires are doing to our forests.)
    The Forest Service is making lots of money, can burn what they want, and don’t even need a NEPA document.
    And they have no problem making sure human cause fires burn till it rains.

    Reply
  3. I keep coming up with the same thought during all these arguments about forest health: How can anyone figure that we as a society, can afford to wast a resource? Just let it burn? If it is hotter and drier how long will it take to grow back, or will it even regenerate? Thinning works. It has been proven by “scientists”. So why do we keep arguing about this . A left leaning ecologist can claim anything he or she wants. Roads can be removed. The benefits to wildlife are well documented and are obvious, even to someone who might not be a biologist. If I thought for a minute that I was harming wildlife or the land, I wouldn’t have done all the projects that I have. That said, industrial logging can come under more scrutiny and criticism than thinning and fuels reduction.

    Reply
    • Pat McKenna: – ” If it is hotter and drier how long will it take to grow back, or will it even regenerate? ”
      ===

      That’s a good question. What’s more, with all the millions upon millions of dead trees during the 4 or 5 years drought, you can bet prior to death, these trees were putting their resources NOT into seed production as much as into survival mode. And if there were cones, were they even mature or have any viable seed in them ? And when you see hectare upon hectare of dead trees, how does regeneration even take place. IF there were some seed to even be lucky enough to germinate, how did they survive an extremely dry hot year in those dead forests. This is an area where nature left alone to it’s own devices is stale and stagnant. I think pretty much down in Southern California you can kiss off as far as forest are never going to be what they once were decades ago. I always have a feeling most conversations here are dealing in still viable timber country, but even that is shrinking.

      Reply
      • I looked at some green trees around my former home and found sawdust coming out of the holes. The trees didn’t even have enough water to make pitch. It looks like tens of millions of trees will stay out there, to fuel the next inevitable wildfires. There is a good chance that fire will be human-caused. There’s not much that is ‘natural’ about today’s wildfires, in the Sierra Nevada.

        Reply
  4. I love this caveat in the article —> “As long as they don’t threaten lives, wildfires can burn out all the dead wood and excess vegetation, setting the stage for a more healthy ecosystem.”

    Considering the risk of blowup and downwind danger to human health for thousands of miles – The caveat would seem to negate the whole article.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Matthew Koehler Cancel reply