Hello everyone:
For the first 40 years of my life, we didn’t have a fire season. We had wood heat, field burns, wigwam burners, bonfires, and clearcuts; but from 1952 until the Silver Complex Fire in 1987 there was only one wildfire bigger than 10,000 acres in all of western Oregon: the 1966 Oxbow Fire in Lane County.
The 2002 Biscuit Fire was nearly 500,000 acres in size, the largest wildfire in Oregon history, and the Kalmiopsis Wilderness has now burned four times. Anyone who has lived here a few years has likely experienced the catastrophic Chetco Bar, Taylor Creek, Klondike, South Obenchain, Almeda Drive, Slater, and/or Flat fires — and breathed their smoke.
Anybody less than 40 years of age, or that moved here in the last 35 years, probably thinks major fire seasons are “normal,” or even “natural,” and that breathing wildfire smoke part of the year is mostly unavoidable. But we didn’t used to have fire seasons, and wildfire smoke can be deadly.
The 2020 Labor Day Fires killed 11 people in southwest Oregon and burned more than 4,000 homes. During these fires, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality recorded the worst air quality in the world, including record-setting “Air Quality Index” (AQI) numbers for Portland, Eugene, Bend, Medford and Klamath Falls communities.
AQI numbers for these communities varied from 332 to more than 500. A “Good” AQI number is from 0 to 50; “Unhealthy” numbers are 101 to 200; 200-300 is considered “Very Unhealthy,” and anything 300 and above is considered “Hazardous” — 500 is the highest number that can be measured, and Bend even exceeded that rating.
According to recent National Library of Medicine research, short-term health effects of “wildland smoke,” such as asthma attacks, are well known and recognized, but a study from 2007 to 2020 indicated more than 11,000 US deaths per year from long- term effects of wildfire smoke. Lung cancer and cardiopulmonary diseases were identified as major causes.
A University of California study of smoke-related mortality from 2008 to 2018 estimated 52,000 to 56,000 Californians suffered “premature death” due to wildfire smoke inhalation during those years, or about 5,000 deaths per year.
If major wildfires and their smoke were mostly uncommon during the 35 years from 1952 to 1987, and they have now become an almost annual concern, what changed? And can it be fixed?
According to the US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), West Coast governors and environmentalists, the principal culprits in this deadly development are “climate change” and “wildfire suppression.”
Those are misleading excuses and not supported by facts. First, the climate in western Oregon has been pretty much the same for centuries; and second, the build- up of fuels is almost entirely due to changed federal forest management policies, as documented, and has little to do with fire suppression history of the past 120 years.
What did change, and dramatically, was the reaction of the federal government to anti-logging lawsuits first brought by environmental organizations when spotted owls became an “endangered species” in 1990. Active forest management was mostly stopped as a direct result, fuels built up rather than being harvested or treated, and they subsequently burned, as clearly predicted.
The recent litigation on local BLM projects initiated by Oregon Wild and Cascadia Wildlands is the most current example. BLM wanted to manage hazardous forest fuels and the environmentalists wanted to stop logging and get attention.
Our ancestors on the land showed us how to fix this problem. Stopping these costly lawsuits is key. Restoring active management of our public roads, trails, and forests will mostly end these deadly events, and also provide jobs and income needed to restore our rural schools, industries, communities, and clean, healthy air.
Interesting article, Bob. Just to confirm, is your premise that if environmental lawsuits were eliminated tomorrow, this would greatly reduce wildfires and resulting smoke? How long would this take? Is there sufficient timber industry infrastructure remaining in Oregon/Washington to make this dramatic change? Willing logging alone accomplish this turnaround or will prescribed burning be required as well (as most research has identified)? Won’t prescribed burning at a large scale also create smoke (albeit under a more controlled situation)?
So, the lack of logging (resulting from lawsuits) is the sole reason why there are now bigger and more frequent wildfires? How did things get along in Washington/Oregon prior to industrial logging? Why were these fires not occurring in the 1700/1800’s? It is true that man caused fire back then was much different from today but is that the only explanation?
Correct me if I am wrong here, but I did work on the North Bend Ranger District in the early 90’s. Most of the mills in Western Washington at that time, were still set up for milling large diameter logs. A lot of the logging occurring up to the 80’s in Western Washington/Oregon was logging large diameter trees. These trees are typically are the most fire resistant (old Doug Fir are pretty tough) and were pretty prepared to withstand wildfire. When these stands were cut and there was a flush of new, younger growth, did that not create a situation where the forest was more susceptible to wildfire down the road? Could this have been part of the problem you describe?
You seem to imply that lawsuits only create bad, that nothing good comes out of them. Do you believe that the Federal agencies (FS and BLM) always come up with really good decisions and that they never develop projects that may not be the best for the greater good? They should never be challenged? With the Forest Service now using lots of Categorical Exclusions that are not subject to objection, and actually now even some EA’s and EIS’s have exceptions to objections, lawsuits are the only remaining way for citizens to challenge these agencies. But you are saying they should not be able to do that? Citizens should not be allowed to challenge their government? Do you have that much faith in the Forest Service and BLM? I worked for the Forest Service for 32 years and while I still love the agency and its mission, I do not have that level of faith, for good reason I believe.
Right-on, Dr. Zybach; I left Oregon in 1983, having an intensive “education” in timber and fire in that beautiful State. I haven’t worked but in five Regions of the US Forest Service, but have seen what you have conveyed in every one of them! And, the timing was right in my career to see the changes you have identified. To add onto that, my family started with the forest service in 1929, when my grandpa was appointed a “fire warden”, I still have the letter! My dad also had 40 years in service; the stories he could tell….
I’m somewhat skeptical about the conclusion that’s being presented here that minimizes climate change as a major culprit. I don’t believe it’s a coincidence that the precipitation data over the past century clearly shows a decrease, accompanied by an increase in temperature. The “success” in fire suppression that we had for most of the 20 century may well be largely due to more moisture – remember when we used refer to some of our forests as “asbestos forests”?
Note that recent conflagrations, notably the Paradise Fire, occurred on highly managed forests.
Due to the vastness of our forested acres, data shows that the odds of a fire actually occurring on a managed landscape is very low; we simply don’t have the resources to manage every acre. And what about the massive shrubby regrowth that follows treatment?
As a western US resident who remembers the good old days of clear summer skies, and limitless viewscapes, sure I’m bummed out at the new normal. I don’t enjoy sitting inside on a summer day with the windows closed, and my box fan air filter, to protect my lungs. And I don’t have a solution, especially with the lackluster pace of real climate change strategies. I don’t think widespread fuel reduction is an affordable or logistically possible goal, although it’s a good strategy to implement on a local level to protect communities.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Mr. Zybach and Healthy Forests and Healthy Communities are doing us all a great disservice by writing such a trash take. I can expect this from Mr. Zybach who is affiliated with the climate-change denying ‘think tank’ – the Heartland Institute. I guess I should be grateful that someone associated with Heartland is finally acknowledging the health effects of smoke, because they sure seemed to love tobacco companies and smoke back in the 80s. But HFHC should do better if they want to be taken seriously about their balanced approach to forest management.
Six years ago this week, a young man by the name of John Colin Eagle Skoda lit a burn pile with accelerant just south of the town of Hornbook in far Northern California. That burn pile was picked up by a fierce wind and blew north into the town, where a long time elderly volunteer of our organization was killed by the flames and smoke while trying to escape his home. The area that burned first and through Hornbook was all private land, and I’m not aware of a single lawsuit by environmentalists that led to the death of our beloved volunteer, John Bermel.
In September 2020, just five blocks from my house in Ashland, OR, an errant spark landed on the ground near our dog park (from a source unknown to this day) and the Almeda Fire was born. Two other arsons occurred that same day within 5 miles. A transient was killed while sleeping nearby and three others perished trying to escape their homes in the neighboring towns of Phoenix and Talent. Not a single acre of federal timberland burned in the Almeda Fire, but 2,800 houses burned down. What environmental lawsuit led to those fatalities and tragedy?
These two instances close to me pale in comparison to the death and destruction that came from larger fires like Paradise in 2018 where 80 perished, and the recent Maui Fire of 2023 where 102 perished. What environmental lawsuits led to causing those disasters and death?
As a litigation advocate that recently won against the BLM, I can see the nuance in our argument that certain types of active management can actually make fire hazard worse, and things like plantation thinning and prescribed fire are things we can get behind. What is the author of this terrible op-ed really trying to say?
You’ve already classified “us” vs “them”; I don’t think the concept of climate change can be denied, but the rate associated with anthropogenic stresses make for an outstanding excuse to blame our shortcomings.
One issue not mentioned is the business of fire. Back before 1990, and even after that, fire was aggressively fought to extinguish. Every employee of the FS was either fire qualified or support. True firefighters (position descriptions) were few and far between. IMT’s were comprised of fire folks and PUFF’s for grunts, on large fires. We worked all day and all night; more direct attack occurred at night – chainsaws included.
Fires were swarmed with firefighters with the only goal in mind to extinguish the flame. Nowadays, fire is a 2 – 3 billion dollar annual industry, not much incentive to contain as small as possible. Too many times, “Fire for beneficial use”, or “managed fire” is the norm, adding time and more smoke to the event. And, ya can’t forget the WFSA, or a WFIT for wasting time on the front end of a start.
I also remember putting out ABC fires with whomever (FS) happened to be in the vicinity. I would think this still happens.
Ha! I don’t think so, in most cases in the West anyway. I’ve seen FMO’s absolutely go ballistic for someone (FS employee) coming along and putting out a small fire! It’s funny though, if they still say this, wood permits have a list of conditions a permittee agrees to, including taking action on a fire. Timber sale contracts and timber permits also had them the last I heard.
I and many other timber beasts have put out many an ABC fire, with a pine top…. The fire organization, unfortunately, is so stove piped it is hardly recognizable to us old fogey’s….