No, we can’t — and shouldn’t — stop forest fires: Hanson and Garrity 2017

Oregon Dept. of Forestry
Air tanker retardant drops helped slow spread of Fir Mountain Fire south of Hood River.

This is a WaPo op-ed from 2017. IMHO it has not weathered (or should I say climated?) well over time. It’s also an example of View 1 from my post here. But if we look at news coverage of fires today, the dominant narrative is catastrophe by climate change. This sentence is probably the least apt for today (although it never was true).

We can no more suppress forest fires during extreme fire weather than we can stand on a ridgetop and fight the wind. It is hubris and folly to even try. Fires slow and stop when the weather changes.

Chad Hanson is a research ecologist with the John Muir Project and is co-editor and co-author of “The Ecological Importance of Mixed-Severity Fires: Nature’s Phoenix.” Mike Garrity is executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.

The American West is burning, Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) tells us in his recent Post op-ed. He and officials in the Trump administration have described Western forest fires as catastrophes, promoting congressional action ostensibly to save our National Forests from fire by allowing widespread commercial logging on public lands. This, they claim, will reduce forest density and the fuel for wildfires.

But this position is out of step with current science and is based on several myths promoted by commercial interests.

The first myth is the notion that fire destroys our forests and that we currently have an unnatural excess of fire. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a broad consensus among scientists that we have considerably less fire of all intensities in our Western U.S. forests compared with natural, historical levels, when lightning-caused fires burned without humans trying to put them out.

There is an equally strong consensus among scientists that fire is essential to maintain ecologically healthy forests and native biodiversity. This includes large fires and patches of intense fire, which create an abundance of biologically essential standing dead trees (known as snags) and naturally stimulate regeneration of vigorous new stands of forest. These areas of “snag forest habitat” are ecological treasures, not catastrophes, and many native wildlife species, such as the rare black-backed woodpecker, depend on this habitat to survive.

Fire or drought kills trees, which attracts native beetle species that depend on dead or dying trees. Woodpeckers eat the larvae of the beetles and then create nest cavities in the dead trees, because snags are softer than live trees. The male woodpecker creates two or three nest cavities each year, and the female picks the one she likes the best, which creates homes for dozens of other forest wildlife species that need cavities to survive but cannot create their own, such as bluebirds, chickadees, chipmunks, flying squirrels and many others.

More than 260 scientists wrote to Congress in 2015 opposing legislative proposals that would weaken environmental laws and increase logging on National Forests under the guise of curbing wildfires, noting that snag forests are “quite simply some of the best wildlife habitat in forests.”

That brings us to myth No. 2: that eliminating or weakening environmental laws — and increasing logging — will somehow curb or halt forest fires. In 2016, in the largest analysis ever on this question, scientists found that forests with the fewest environmental protections and the most logging had the highest — not the lowest — levels of fire intensity. Logging removes relatively noncombustible tree trunks and leaves behind flammable “slash debris,” consisting of kindling-like branches and treetops.

This is closely related to myth No. 3: that dead trees, usually removed during logging projects, increase fire intensity in our forests. A comprehensive study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences thoroughly debunked this notion by showing that outbreaks of pine beetles, which can create patches of snag forest habitat, didn’t lead to more intense fires in the area. A more recent study found that forests with high levels of snags actually burn less intensely. This is because flames spread primarily through pine needles and small twigs, which fall to the ground and soon decay into soil shortly after trees die.

Finally, myth No. 4: that we can stop weather-driven forest fires. We can no more suppress forest fires during extreme fire weather than we can stand on a ridgetop and fight the wind. It is hubris and folly to even try. Fires slow and stop when the weather changes. It makes far more sense to focus our resources on protecting rural homes and other structures from fire by creating “defensible space” of about 100 feet between houses and forests. This allows fire to serve its essential ecological role while keeping it away from our communities.

Lawmakers in Congress are promoting legislation based on the mythology of catastrophic wildfires that would largely eliminate environmental analysis and public participation for logging projects in our National Forests. This would include removing all or most trees in both mature forests and in ecologically vital post-wildfire habitats — all of which is cynically packaged as “fuel reduction” measures.

The logging industry’s political allies have fully embraced the deceptive “catastrophic wildfire” narrative to promote this giveaway of our National Forests to timber corporations. But this narrative is a scientifically bankrupt smoke screen for rampant commercial logging on our public lands. The American people should not fall for it.

9 thoughts on “No, we can’t — and shouldn’t — stop forest fires: Hanson and Garrity 2017”

  1. Hanson’s ‘solution’ was to have “larger and more intense wildfires”.

    Additionally, many of these fires cannot be described as “wind-driven”. For several days after lightning ignited so many fires, the winds were ‘normal’ outside of the fire zones. In fact, an aerial picture of the Creek Fire shows a perfectly vertical column of smoke, reaching 30,000 feet. My bet is on yet another “Column Collapse”, causing the extreme fire behavior on the Sierra NF. You cannot point at fire-generated winds as a cause for the fires to get so big. There are other reasons for these fires to get so big. Wind was not one of them until the typical fall weather pattern brought moderate northeasterly breezes, several days after the fires got so big.

    Reply
  2. Nice try, Sharon. I’m pretty sure that most forest ecologists worth their salt would say that this piece has, in fact, stood the test of time. Meanwhile, the U.S. Forest Service and timber industry’s militarized fire suppression/exclusion strategy over the past 100 years? Not so much.

    Also, when you attempted this bit of ‘gotcha’ highlighted below are you really expecting any of us to believe that it’s possible to effectively suppress wildfires during 50 mph winds, record mega-drought, record high temperatures and single-digit humidities? You honestly think it “never was true” that wildfires can’t be suppressed during extreme fire weather like 50 mph winds, record drought, record high temperatures, record low fuel moisture, single-digit humidities? I’d love to see the science and research about that. The fire weather event in WA, OR and CA this weekend was called historical by dozens of experienced meteorologists.

    This sentence is probably the least apt for today (although it never was true).

    We can no more suppress forest fires during extreme fire weather than we can stand on a ridgetop and fight the wind. It is hubris and folly to even try. Fires slow and stop when the weather changes.

    Reply
  3. I’m sure we could have a discussion about what “effectively suppress” means. So.. what are all those thousands of people doing who are working in fire suppression right now, risking their lives and so on? Should they all just give up and go home? Are they “ineffectively” suppressing?

    Is everyone in fire suppression engaged in “hubris and folly”? Or only if the fire weather becomes “extreme”?

    It’s kind of ironic because in my experience the fire biz is highly accountable (lessons learned, after action reviews and so on). But what you call a “gotcha” could be seen by others as “accountability.” Accountability for what you do (fire) or what you say (op-ed writers) seems more or less the same to me.

    Reply
  4. “We can no more suppress forest fires during extreme fire weather than we can stand on a ridgetop and fight the wind. It is hubris and folly to even try. Fires slow and stop when the weather changes.”

    I think the point is that under extreme weather conditions, many of the management and suppression strategies that work under moderate conditions, are ineffective. As to the 2nd part, I have heard fire managers say “this fire will burn until the snow files”.

    Reply
    • I agree with both those things.
      1. Strategies and tactics change based on a variety of things (availability of resources, weather and fuel conditions and so on).
      2. I have heard folks say that too, mostly about fires burning in the backcountry. That is not to say there aren’t suppression folks watching, and suppression resources on call if it blows up and/or turns toward town.

      But.. those folks (suppression people) are out there doing their thing, either changing strategies and tactics or watching with suppression as a backup. Neither, in my opinion, is “folly” or “hubris.” I live pretty close to a few burned over areas, and the view of the people here is nothing but appreciation for suppression folks.

      Reply
    • If we are going to be blaming weather, then that blame has to go to the current weather patterns outside of the firelines. Fire-generated winds are a constant for ALL fires, after ignition. It’s a moot point, after the fire starts. Sure, if it was windy, hot and dry BEFORE ignition, then blaming the weather is appropriate. Similarly, the normal summertime weather for California is hot and dry. Regular summertime fuel moistures are ALWAYS low, during this time of year. Another moot point. Dry easterly breezes are also ‘normal’ occurrences in September, through December.

      Reply
  5. SOooooooo:

    In the same manner as Hanson & Garrity let’s do a variant of the same philosophy: ‘We can no more suppress climate change than we can stand on a ridgetop and whizz into the wind without getting soaked. It is hubris and folly to even try. EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE when the weather changes.’

    Extrapolating further on their foolishness and incorporating some other recent posts:

    Overpopulation is killing nature:
    – Lots of good catastrophic fires could kill lots of people and maybe even wipe out a few cities.
    – Close down all Dr’s offices, hospitals, make no more medicines and etc..
    – Everybody Dies eventually – Why bother to postpone it? Nature will be better for it.
    – Don’t risk lives to save lives – let the silly people who have accidents or live near potential catastrophes suffer and die!
    – Human recreational needs are destroying the Nat’l forests – it is hubris to think we can stop it?
    – Poop is good fertilizer – more is better for soil nutrition!
    – Maybe the poop will run enough fair weathered, uninformed, poorly trained, inconsiderate and pansy recreation participants off and thereby improve the ecosystem.
    – Anarchy and unrestrained crime in the streets kills lots of people – That is a good thing for the ecosystem – I mean the only thing that counts is nature and mankind isn’t part of nature.

    Excuse me, I have to go and barf in the toilet after trying to outdo these farcical (an empty or patently ridiculous act, proceeding, or situation) one size fits all, take the easy way, get my name in print, while walking in the woods, statistically confounded, nature can’t be improved upon “scientists”.

    So concludes my farce (a light dramatic composition marked by broadly satirical comedy and improbable plot).

    Reply
  6. If we believe Hanson and Garrison, 2017 the firefighters now battling California’s 37? major fires should lay down their tools, go home, open a bottle of beer, and enjoy the orange skies.

    Reply
  7. “I’m sure we could have a discussion about what “effectively suppress” means. So.. what are all those thousands of people doing who are working in fire suppression right now”

    https://gacc.nifc.gov/swcc/management_admin/Agency_Administrator/AA_Guidelines/pdf_files/ch2.pdf:
    suppression – A management action intended to extinguish a fire or alter its direction of
    spread.
    confine – Use of tactical actions to manage a fire within a predetermined area or
    perimeter, usually defined by geographic features.
    contain – A tactical point at which a fire’s spread is stopped by and within specific
    features, constructed or natural; also, the result of stopping a fire’s spread so that no
    further spread is expected under foreseeable conditions. For reporting purposes, the time
    and date of containment.
    control – To construct fireline, or use natural features to surround a fire and any spot
    fires therefrom and reduce its burning potential to a point that it no longer threatens
    further spread or resource damage under foreseeable conditions. For reporting purposes,
    the time and date of control.

    So with a more nuanced definition of suppression, it doesn’t mean they are literally trying to put the fire out, and probably a lot of what is happening on these megafires would qualify as suppression activities, and some might even be “effective” at a small scale. However, there’s probably also a lot of structure protection and evacuation going on in lieu of suppression. And they’re standing by for the weather to change so they can be more effective.

    Reply

Leave a Comment