OK, I’m procrastinating. Who wouldn’t want to read an EIS? But several interesting things have come across my desk.
It’s always interesting to hear ideas for improving/increasing public support for the use of managed fire. Today by Jim Petersen of Evergreen Magazine.
There needs to be an internal review process that establishes unambiguous and clearly stated guidelines for determining when, where, why and how a wildland fire can be safely managed for resource benefit.
There is only one person in the U.S. Forest Service who should make the decision to manage a wildfire for resource benefit: The Chief. His or her decision should be made in writing – one for each of the agency’s nine regions – in early spring before wildfire season begins in earnest.
The decision should stand until the Chief sees a good reason to modify the order based on deteriorating or improving conditions in a particular region or regions.
The documentation that accompanies this decision should be available for public inspection. There is no other way to quiet critics and skeptics who believe – with some justification – that the decision to manage a wildfire is an impulsive choice made by an Incident Commander or inexperienced line officer.
No matter the decision the Chief makes, there will be wildfires that get away from fire fighting crews. Do we take managed wildfire out of the toolbox because the attempt failed? Or do we bear down on training and execution?
I’d opt for the latter because training and execution are critical components in every wildfire fighting effort, including full suppression. This is why post-fire internal reviews and unambiguous guidelines from the Chief are essential.
Every decision to manage a wildfire must be accompanied by a Chief’s level review that answers these questions:
. Was it the right decision?
· Was everything possible done to protect lives, homes and communities?
· What additional training is needed to improve execution?
I’m still more of a fan of public pre-planning but I think Jim’s ideas are of interest.
2. Manchin Barasso Permitting Bill
Apparently the Sierra Club aren’t fans. Neither is CBD. Most of the verbiage is about “bad oil and gas” pad the pockets of fossil fuel executives under the guise of reducing emissions.” Hmm. And making things easier for renewables is not “padding the pockets of executives?” including by reducing fees as the DOI did this spring?
Fortunately, I’m in touch with some of the permitting wonks so I’m going to wait to post about it until people have more time to ruminate on it and have thoughtful opinions. One thing I discovered about the Loper decision was that it took awhile for the better quality analyses to percolate out.
Here’s the one pager. As to the Judicial Review provisions, they actually might help with vegetation management projects, but the bill only applies to energy projects.
3. Working Dogs Added to List of Things Wolves Can Be Killed For During Active Attacks in Colorado
Months after the release of 10 wolves in the state, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission voted unanimously Friday, July 19, to update state regulations to reflect the 10(j) rule’s language regarding “working dogs.”
Language allowing wolves caught “in the act of attacking” livestock or working dogs to be killed was included in the 10(j) rule but the words “or working dogs” were “inadvertently” left out of the state regulations, commission chair Dallas May said Friday.
The rule only applies to working dogs, like guard dogs or herding dogs used in livestock production. Pet owners can find information on how to protect their animals from wolves on the Colorado Parks and Wildlife website.
But prior to reintroduction, there were two confirmed wolf depredations from wolves that had wandered into Colorado from Wyoming that involved dogs. In January 2022, a Jackson County ranch reported a dog carcass and another injured dog, both border collies, whose wounds were attributed to wolves.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife also reported that a wolf killed a dog in Jackson County in March 2023, prior to reintroduction.
Under the federal Endangered Species Act, the 10(j) rule considers wolves as “nonessential, experimental” species in Colorado, allowing for the species to be killed in certain instances, including during active attacks on livestock or working dogs. It also allows for the state to issue permits to ranchers to kill wolves responsible for chronic depredation, although no such permits have yet been issued.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife assistant director for aquatic, terrestrial and natural resources Reid DeWalt also gave a brief update on the state’s wolves Friday. Parks and Wildlife confirmed the first wolf pup from a breeding pair last month in Grand County, DeWalt said, adding that there are likely more wolf pups that have yet to be confirmed.
DeWalt said wolf killings of livestock have continued this summer but are more spread out than the string of depredations that occurred this spring in Grand County, when four cattle and two calves were confirmed to have been killed by wolves in April.
“We continue to have a few sporadic depredations but nothing like we had seen this spring,” DeWalt said. “Things have calmed down somewhat. But we do see more widespread depredations but more sporadic in nature.”
Info about current status of reintroduction effort. Interesting items, including:
Gittleson and his son, Lee, demonstrated some of those non-lethal methods, including fladry (pink flags tied to fence posts, which get eaten by cattle and wildlife); and “cracker” shells — a shotgun shell that shoots off a firework similar to an M-80, and which Gittleson won’t use during the summer because of wildfire risk, as well as not wanting to hit his livestock.
…………
He noted the difference between the wolves in North Park (Jackson) versus those in Middle Park. The wolves attacking and killing his livestock show fear of people. He’s never seen one any closer than 300 yards away, and they run when he sees them.
That’s not the case in Grand County’s Middle Park. Those wolves have come within 30 yards of ranchers and their herds.
………..
“Those wolves are not afraid of people,” Gittleson said, adding that’s not a good sign for ranchers, cattle or the wolves.
Once again, Jim Petersen of Evergreen Magazine produces another excellent piece on the notion of “managed” wildfire and what is the correct wildfire suppression tactic: First, Put Out the Fire! Also, if one desires, please go to Appendix A.24 in “A Call to Action” [rev. 17.9]. You will see a discussion on “managed” wildfire and some important words about an “Intellectual Argument.”
Here’s the deal. My beloved USDA Forest Service believes that “managed”, or “beneficial”, or “move to the next best ridge” or “let it burn” wildfire is a grand way to restore ecosystems through the use of wildfire. Well, NOW it is not. It is interesting to note that an extremely well-respected former Forest Supervisor for the Forest Service stated: “…If I were Chief, I would never allow managed wildfires; not this year, not EVER.” There is this myth that “…100 years to fire suppression” has reduced the public forestlands to mere skeletons of their prior conditions. Thus, when a wildfire happens, by some random miracle it is decided that the landscape in question deserves to be “monitored” for forest restoration purposes, notwithstanding the horrific consequences if the wildfire escapes.
We know better. The primary culprit of today’s public forestland condition is the lack of forest maintenance for the last 30+ years. Our group — the “National Wildfire Institute and Others” is simply saying, let’s be wise; please be better. About one-half of the public forestland conditions are not healthy, resilient or sustainable — especially in the West. And these forests are not receptive to letting a wildfire burn; they [the wildfires] are far too volatile and the intensity is so destructive.
There is only one true planned fire for forests. And that is Prescribed Fire, sometimes illustrated as Rx Fire. Managed or beneficial fire are not planned and all too often cannot be “managed.” Right now, they simply represent a high-risk gamble. Rx Fire is pre-planned and approved with pre-placement of control forces and lines and done by well qualified personnel at the right time and the right place and right conditions that allow for a more optimal method of using fire to remove hazardous fuel buildups. If nothing changes and we keep doing exactly what we are doing in wildfire suppression tactics, the great western forests will become brush fields by 2045. So, for the foreseeable future, the only viable firefighting strategy is—First, Put Out the Fire!
Allow me to repeat and be supportive of Jim Petersen’s Evergreen article. We must strive to put out wildfires immediately, no exceptions. Then we can return to the site and decide the specific future restorative actions using Rx Fire and mechanical treatments. That’s it! Yet, the Forest Service seems unwilling to budge. My heart breaks. Witness the wildfire conflagrations that are happening right now. How could anyone reasonably question the tactic of “First, Put Out the Fire”? Knowing this, I would hope the USDA Forest Service will recall the 2024 Chief’s Letter of Intent for Wildfires and send very clear direction to the entire organization that for the remainder of the 2024 wildfire season, the agency shall “First, Put Out the Fire.”
Very respectfully,