From the Nevada Globe:
As the wildfire crisis in the American West reaches a tipping point, it’s time for a candid conversation about the role of federal agencies in managing forests and fighting this plague of devastating fires.
LAKE TAHOE, NV. As the American West grapples with an unprecedented wildfire crisis, a sobering reality emerges: our approach to forest management is not just flawed, but potentially catastrophic. The concept of using fire to fight fire, once hailed as innovative, now stands as a testament to our hubris in the face of nature’s raw power.
August 14, 2024, marked the third anniversary of the Caldor Fire, a devastating blaze that serves as a grim reminder of our misguided policies. This inferno, which destroyed over 1,000 homes in mere hours, is not an isolated incident but a symptom of a larger, systemic problem in forest management strategies.
The Caldor Fire’s destructive path echoes a similar tragedy from a century earlier. In August 1923, another fire in the same area devastated the California Door Company’s lumber operation. This eerie repetition of history underscores a crucial point: our failure to learn from past mistakes has dire consequences.
But the 2021 Caldor Fire didn’t occur in a vacuum. It followed closely on the heels of the “Agreement for Shared Stewardship of California’s Forests and Rangelands,” signed in August 2020. This agreement, lauded as a landmark achievement, gave federal and state agencies a virtual “license to burn” under the guise of forest health and resilience. The result? A trifecta of devastating fires—Tamarack, Dixie, and Caldor—that scorched over 1.2 million acres and caused billions of dollars in damages.
And this is just a microcosm of the larger fire picture across the West.
With 2024 fire risk fixed at peak level 5, the National Interagency Fire Center reports that wildfires have already burned over 5.3 million acres YTD across the nation, primarily in the West. This figure surpasses the 10-year average by more than a million acres.
The hard truth is, we’re facing an unnatural disaster of our own making. With over 100 million acres of national forests dead or dying, we’re sitting on a powder keg. The USFS’s current policies and practices are not just failing to address this crisis—they’re actively contributing to new cycles of catastrophic fire.
Contrary to popular narratives, this crisis isn’t primarily the result of climate change or a century of fire suppression. Instead, it’s the consequence of decades of misguided forest management policies and irresponsible stewardship. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and other federal agencies have allowed fuel loads to accumulate to dangerous levels, creating tinderbox conditions across vast swathes of public and private lands.
Rather than address this fundamental issue, these agencies have resorted to a strategy of “monitor, manage, and let fires burn.” They cloak this approach in a series of catchy slogans designed to shape public opinion: “Fire Has No Season,” “Learning to Live with Fire,” “Fire Adapted Communities.” These phrases may sound benign, even progressive, but they mask a dangerous reality.
Perhaps most troubling is the redefinition of terms like “full suppression.” Once an unambiguous call to extinguish fires, the Department of the Interior now includes provisions for “managing fire when it provides benefits such as vegetation reduction or improved wildlife habitat.” This semantic sleight-of-hand confuses the public and undermines trust in our institutions.
Meanwhile, the Biden-Harris administration calls for another 60 million acres to burn over 10 years, pressing for increased reliance on costly “innovative technologies” including drones, UAS unmanned aircraft, and high-power satellites. To be clear, these tools are not just being used to forecast, detect and monitor fire, but more disturbingly, to ignite, augment and direct pre-planned, prescribed fire in designated “restoration” zones across many states.
The public must demand a prohibition against the use and weaponization of wildfire “technologies” on the very lands and people they are meant to protect. We must reject the notion that “fire knows no season” and stop using nonsensical jargon to justify allowing precious natural resources to burn unchecked.
Instead, we need a strategy that emphasizes rapid fire suppression followed by responsibly controlled burns and other strategies to mitigate fuel overload. We need to put fires out first and ask questions later.
The wildfire crisis in the American West is indeed complex, but the solution doesn’t lie in letting our forests burn indiscriminately. It’s time for citizens, policymakers and land management experts to unite and forge a new path forward. We need an approach that truly prioritizes the health and safety of our forests, our communities, and our nation as a whole.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. To continue down this perilous path of using wildfires as our predominant “management” tool is to risk losing not only our forests, but our homes, our livelihoods, and our very way of life. We must say it loud and clear: using wildfires to thin trees isn’t just misguided—it’s reckless and potentially catastrophic.
In Greek mythology, Prometheus stole fire from the gods to benefit humanity. Today, we face the irony of needing to protect ourselves from the very fire we thought we could control. It’s time to reassess our relationship with government agencies that have become dangerously reliant on using fire to fight fire and advocate for more responsible and sustainable forest management practices. The future of our forests, our communities, and our nation depends on it.
Very well said Sharon! Currently on the Deschutes National Forest near Crescent Lake, OR. We’ve been on a Level 1 evacuation notice for a month. As the Red Fire slowly burns a mere 1-5 miles away from homes and cabins. The entire Crescent Lake area has been completely closed just as long. Including 6 campgrounds, 4 day use areas, all roads and trails around the lake and inside the Diamond Peak Wilderness.
Currently, not one fire crew has been actually on this now 700 acres fire since it was started on July 17th. The smokejumpers and local RD fire crews were pulled as it was deemed too dangerous. The southern and northern tips of tge fire are approaching trails. Have they been used as fire breaks? Of course not. When the fire broke out the nation was on a Level 5 preparedness level. And resources were scarce. We are now on a Level 4 preparedness level with no sign of a change in tactics. It’s not rugged ground. The USFS claims ingress and egress are to difficult and the danger of snags and “root rot” contribute to the danger.
The last week has seen very little smoke from this fire, as it has only increased by 24 acres in size.
Meanwhile, well over $15 million has been spent on “full supression efforts” to corral this fire within a little more that a month. Big Box plans along with shaded fuel breaks have failed catastrophically. Recently during the Cedar Creek Fire that blew through shaded fuel breaks when humidity levels and winds pushed that “creeping ground fire” into a 127,000 acre disaster that forced the evacuation of Oakridge 15-20 miles away from the fires origin.
I’ve been in touch with our US Congressman and his staff this past week. Congressman Bentz serves as a ranking member of the Natural Resouce Committee.
Frankly, we are sick of this USFS cruel and arrogant version of Russian Roulette with our community. We don’t want to be added to the growing list of destroyed communities such as Greenville, CA, Blue River and Detroit, Oregon.
The weather will soon heat up and we are hoping and praying while opportunities for direct attack will soon be in our rearview mirrors.
Rob DeHarpport
Crescent Lake, OR
Or … let’s build a freaking arsenal of firefighting aircraft. With the money we send to Israel EACH YEAR we could purchase 100 Sikorsky SkyCranes, outfitted to assault fires. Stationed strategically around the west, fires could be suppressed with a large scale assault. The next year, the $3.8 billion would purchase a fleet of aerial tankers to add to the arsenal. We are fighting fires with ground crews using caveman techniques in an era of amazing technology, and yet we still think that “fire camps” are the solution. I reject the premise that we can log our way out of this climate driven crisis, but I do believe that modern aviation technology technology is the answer.
Uh, no; no amount of aircraft will ever best the boots on the ground. When it’s really bad, due to smoke or wind, aircraft are grounded. So……. That vast of array of air superiority sits idly by, as Nero fiddles. Every drop of retardant dropped on a fire has the potential to have fire move through every inch of slurry.
Come on, the OP is spot on; I would have only one word to summarize the prose: Bravo!!!
As you say, winds bad, fire spreads rapidly, no air support.. not a good combination. See Marshall Fire.
Boots on the ground during big winds only puts firefighters at risk except for working the back and possibly the sides of fire, and even then it can be dicey due to falling trees. Air support has saved many lives over the years and allows firefighters to be more effective on the ground.
That’s the scenario now, unless it’s volunteer FDs, this folks are fearless! We used to fight fire aggressively but provided for a margin of safety – where have I heard that….. And yes, there are times when nothing works and fleeing is the best offense – sometimes. Many, many times though, the boots are what stops a fire, air support is just that – support.
Part of the new fire tactics are not as aggressive as we used to be, pure and simple! Factor that into residual fuels, fire regimes and a changing climate, then, the real conversation can begin….
Glenn, the military industrial complex is on this..but they are likely to soak up a lot of federal and state bucks before the technology is tested in the real world. I’d be happy with them focusing their energies on aggressive initial attack.
This op-ed was written by media relations specialist Dana Tibbitts.
What Andy said. The link says writer/author/speaker.
Is that a good or bad thing? Content and recommendations are key. Having a “media relations specialist” accurately present that information would seem a positive development.
Thanks Bob. That ‘media relations specialist,’ now independent author/journalist and regular citizen, has the distinct privilege of working with some of the best in the fire leadership community to tell the truth about wildfire, without getting my head blown off 😉
Absolutely beautiful. Accurate, timely, and perfectly stated. I sure hope the USDA AND USDOI read this.
After having done years of forest management within the Caldor Fire footprint, you cannot say that one more project or even more forest management (including SPI’s continuing clearcut program) would have made a difference. I did work on a thinning project just outside of Grizzly Flats. The fire went through all sorts of forest types around, including thinned forests, plantations, deep canyons and high density steep slopes. We did 4 years of bark beetle salvage on the Placerville RD, which amounted to 300 million board feet of dead and dying timber.
I’ve seen examples of where the fire didn’t burn really hot, from the portion of new Google aerial photos out now. I’m sure there are some heartbreaking examples of where the fire nuked large acreages. I do think it should be important to look into these examples, and learn from them, instead of pushing generalities about how to “stop wildfires, through active forest management”.
We need to be realistic, in the face of post-fire facts. When the external winds (non-fire generated) are strong, managed forest can burn hot. When there is a “column collapse”, the devastation is spread far and wide, regardless of forest type.
“Active forest management” should still be practiced, with more emphasis on the many silvicultural benefits, including resilience. We should be planning for the inevitable ignitions, with post-fire conditions in mind.
Hi Larry: I don’t think anyone is (or should be) saying: “stop wildfires, through active forest management.” Rather, this is a proven way to mitigate such fires through income, job training, and fuel management. Having good access and trained local personnel to address wildfires as they take place, and to salvage dead trees and implement good reforestation strategies following wildfire are positive key values of “active management.”
Reduce the damage, extent, and severity of wildfires when they occur; and salvage materials, prepare sites, and maintain reforested landscapes following these events should be what active management is about. Also, needed taxpaying year-around local jobs as opposed to tax-funded emergency personnel from other countries and states to watch the forests burn.
“stop wildfires, through active forest management.”
I see lots of people in Facebook groups who say exactly that. They also say things like “the environmentalists have shutdown all logging since 1990”.
Managed lands still burn. The Caldor Fire showed that. The key concept is: How well did that managed land survive the wildfire? Even though we may never really know the cumulative results, we should look for lessons learned.
Unfortunately, we have agenda driven, knee-jerk, GIS statistical work like this
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/3/373
and
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/7/995
Competing in the public sphere/narrative and media with well done, objective, technical science like this:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s42408-023-00241-z
and
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alan-Taylor-4/publication/361454159_Severity_patterns_of_the_2021_Dixie_Fire_exemplify_the_need_to_increase_low-severity_fire_treatments_in_California%27s_forests/links/62b3548e6ec05339cc9a9f83/Severity-patterns-of-the-2021-Dixie-Fire-exemplify-the-need-to-increase-low-severity-fire-treatments-in-Californias-forests.pdf
“Instead, we need a strategy that emphasizes rapid fire suppression followed by responsibly controlled burns and other strategies to mitigate fuel overload. We need to put fires out first and ask questions later.”
Yes, yes, yes, let’s go back to using the tactics that got us into this mess. Thinning and prescribed burning is great, but they both are typically done near roads, and prescribed burning windows keep shrinking. Plus, we have seen what can happen when a forest is too aggressive with prescribed burning.
“The public must demand a prohibition against the use and weaponization of wildfire “technologies” on the very lands and people they are meant to protect. We must reject the notion that “fire knows no season” and stop using nonsensical jargon to justify allowing precious natural resources to burn unchecked.”
Why on earth would we refrain from using new technologies? And the “fire knows no season” statement is tied to the lengthening of fire seasons. It resonates with people. It is very understandable and appropriate.
Maybe what is needed is more stringent guidelines for both prescribed burning and managed fires. In my opinion, there is a time and place for managed fire; going backwards is not the answer.
This spin (by a professional spinner?) goes around in circles.
“The hard truth is, we’re facing an unnatural disaster of our own making…
Contrary to popular narratives, this crisis isn’t primarily the result of climate change or a century of fire suppression. Instead, it’s the consequence of decades of misguided forest management policies and irresponsible stewardship. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and other federal agencies have allowed fuel loads to accumulate to dangerous levels…”
Apparently this person thinks active vegetation management is “natural.” I agree that unnatural fuel accumulation is resulting in an “unnatural disaster,” but of course the causes are human-caused fire suppression and climate change. What we do about this depends on recognizing those causes, as well as understanding the effectiveness of possible mitigation.
There is plenty of evidence that more fire suppression efforts aren’t always effective, and if it does work it just exacerbates the cause of the problem. Her strategy of letting things get worse while we try to figure out what to do isn’t a great option here. Part 2 of her solution is “responsible and sustainable forest management practices.” I think the Forest Service must believe that proper use of wildfire would qualify.
To me, the disagreement seems to come down to what is “proper.” With today’s knowledge and technology, I’m a little surprised that the decision-making process for managing fire seems to result in so many failures.
Once again, I think that the semantics of the extremes are being pushed on to those of us in the middle. They want us to have a one-size-fits-all policy that supports their narrow agendas. There are many facts that those extremes choose to ignore. Americans want to “Do Something” about these problems, hopefully avoiding the political rhetoric which seeks to control current policy. Both extremes want to limit the things that the broad middle wants done. The extremes, ultimately, want less “discretion” for the Forest Service.
If the “semantics of extremes” are being pushed on those on the middle, Larry, I think it’s fair to say that the double talk-semantics and one-size-fits-all burn policy coming out of USFS are driving extreme fire operations across the West (more than 5.5 million acres YTD) under false claims of “full suppression,” the very strategy blamed for creating the fuels overload we have today.
Somebody said “For every complex problem there is a simple solution — and it’s WRONG”
I agree. It’s naive to think aggressive suppression tactics will solve our current problem. The way things are going with climate trends this is an empty promise AND it ignores everything we’ve learned about the benefits and necessity of fire on the landscape. Do I think greater success in managing ignitions is urgent and possible? Yes. Do I support greater use of managing ignitions under benign conditions? Yes.
An anecdote: frequent contributor Dave Mertz mentioned losing a Rx burn on Kaibab 20 some yrs ago when they didn’t button up active fire before wind got things out of hand. They lost a lot of acres before helpful WEATHER intervened. Hugely embarrassing mea culpa with district ranger. He returned a couple yrs ago to find “the largest stand of aspen in AZ”. The area probably needed diversity, and this is how nature works. Fire doesn’t really “destroy things” but it does CHANGE things.
As I read all the comments from very skilled practitioners in landscape scale conservation, I am a bit discouraged. It seems apparent that we “conservationists” cannot find a common ground. I hate to use the word “environmentalist”, in this note, because I considered myself a person very concerned about our environment. So, indulge me just a bit. When it comes to wildfires, “environmentalists” seem to have a cohesive, simple message. That is, “let the wildfire burn, it’s part of nature’s answer.” And the Research and Development Mission Area in the USDA Forest Service seems to be cohesive, as well. That is, one hundred years of fire suppression has caused this mess so let’s “manage” [let them burn] these wildfires because they are “beneficial” to the ecosystems and “restoration accomplishments” can be claimed at the send of the year.
I am a fan of the use of wildfire as a forest maintenance tool. Yes, I am, but NOT NOW. Under the current forest conditions, especially in the west, there should be only one dominant tactic when a wildfire starts. That is, “first, put out the fire.” Then, later, come back and determine the best additional maintenance tactics so just maybe one day wildfire can indeed be used as a tactic for better forest health, resiliency and sustainability. As I see it right NOW, only Rx Fire and mechanical treatment to removed excess fuels, will work without horrific consequences.
Each year, the Forest Service puts out a very critical direction called, “…the Chief’s Letter of Intent [LOI] for Wildfires.” I always thought this letter was one of the most important communications from the National Office to the agency. This year [2024], a group of about 80 individuals including some of the most skilled wildfire managers in the world, asked the Chief to include some recommendations. One was, “first, put out the fire.” That recommendation was ignored for “managed” fire. Oh my gosh! I was both disappointed and ashamed. When I was talking to my eight-grade science class, I asked them, “what should we do if a wildfire breaks out?” They looked at me incredulously and said, “put it out!” Just maybe, we are making this far too complicated. Perhaps we are over thinking the National Emergency we find ourselves within. Or, as a few have said, “…don’t get too cute by half, be realistic.” So far this fire season, we have a lot more acres burned than last year at the same time — with less fires. Perhaps the data is telling us something about the current wildfire burn policy. That is, the policy is not very contemporary. For NOW, it’s best to “first, put out the fire.”
I just re-read the 2024 LOI by the Forest Service. In our group, the “National Wildfire Institute [NWI] and Others”, I am clearly not the wildfire expert. But I may know more than, say, a typical eight-grade student in a science class about wildfires. I still cannot understand this year’s LOI after several readings. If the design was to confuse, it’s working. I can only imagine what a powerful message it would have sent to our people if the LOI clearly and simply would have said, “…for now, the USDA Forest Service will first put out every wildfire immediately.” I know, most of our citizenry would be saying, “thank you.” And, if our forests could talk, they would for sure be saying the same thing. If we keep going ahead with the same approach to wildfire suppression and the LACK of forest maintenance [it’s not mismanagement], the great western forests as we know them, will be brush fields by 2045. What a shame that would be. It’s a legacy the USDA Forest Service cannot have, please.
So, my wish is to say, let us be sensitive to these changing times. There are a lot more people living next to and within the forests than 100 years ago. And yes, we must be aware of the impacts of a changing climate. We cannot forget the horrific loss of life contributed by smoke. Not to overstate the obvious, but the more we “manage” a wildfire, the more smoke we help produce. Knowing what we know, that’s just unconscionable. Finally, I do not think we are very skilled at “managing” wild things. So, let’s stop the foolishness, at least for NOW, and “first, put out the fire” as we attempt to slow and then halt this National Emergency of destructive wildfires due to the lack of forest maintenance across America.
There is a document entitled, “America’s Forests in the Balance, A National Emergency: A Call to Action” that has been produced, and continually revised, by the “NWI and Others.” If you want a copy, just let me know at [email protected]. I will send you a 2-pqge summary with lots of links [smile]. I think you will find the information very informative. And remember, let’s “first, put out the fire.”
Very respectfully,
Year in and year out, 98% of national forest ignitions do not exceed 300 acres in size. What should the Forest Service do differently to reduce the percent of ignitions that exceed 300 acres?
Andy,
What is the source for this data? Curious to see it, and see how many ignitions stays below 100, 50, 20, 5, 3, or even 0.25 acres. Also, does it come with ignition source data?
Thanks!
The 98% initial attack success rate is a Forest Service catechism. In 2007, Undersecretary of Agriculture Mark Rey testified to Congress: “We are pleased, that even in the face of the largest fire season on record, we achieved nearly 98% initial attack success, a rate comparable to less severe years.”
https://www.doi.gov/ocl/hearings/110/WildlandFireSuppression
In 2023, Chief Moore’s Letter of Intent mimicked Rey: “Increased wildfire activity continues to challenge us. We will continue safe and effective initial attack to protect communities, critical infrastructure and natural resources, as reflected in our initial attack success rate of 98% to contain new fire starts within 24 hours.”
https://www.fs.usda.gov/inside-fs/leadership/wildfire-letter-intent-2023
Here’s the dirty little secret. For most of these ignitions, no or only nominal suppression action is ever taken. When a burning cigarette butt hits the ground, it’s a wildfire ignition. Most of the time, the cigarette burns itself out and goes undiscovered and, thus, uncounted. But for a small fraction of discarded burning cigarettes, a Forest Service employee finds the butt before it dies out and douses it with a bucket of water. That’s the quintessential successful initial attack. In other words, most successful initial attack puts out an ignition that would have gone out on its own had the Forest Service taken no action.
Most ignitions occur east of the Mississippi, primarily caused by people. In the east, when it’s hot, it’s humid. So most eastern ignitions are easy to extinguish; in fact, most wouldn’t amount to anything at all because the vegetation is too wet to carry a flame. In the west, when it’s hot, it’s dry. Under those conditions, ignitions are harder to extinguish.
The initial attack success rate of eastern national forests is > 99% and often 100%. The rate for California national forests is in the 80%-90% range. Averaged together, and accounting for more eastern than western ignitions, yields 98% as the perennial number. It’s a number that doesn’t change more than 1% or 2% in any year, regardless of how much money the Forest Service spends, what the climate is doing, what past forest management has wrought upon the landscape, or the heroic efforts of firefighters.
You won’t find any of these data on any Forest Service website, as the agency is loathe to release it. I got the data through FOIA and in discovery associated with one of our successful fire retardant lawsuits.
Thanks Andy. That is disappointing. I was hoping for a database to mine.
I suppose that is why almost all (?) peer reviewed literature on ignition source/acres burned has come from California/Region 5, since to my knowledge, that’s the only public database of such information. A shame, really.
I was curious in part, as I have seen 100-300 acre fires (that is still a big area for the majority of the population, when they see it) that the USFS put a prompt stop to, and then salvaged intensively. Some were done well, others were abject disasters due to poor administration and operators. Regardless, due to the fire size, they flew under the radar, both in terms of positive and negative management outcomes.
My anecdotal observation-data is that all the incidents I observed were roadside, and likely from a cigarette or vehicle (gosh, wouldn’t all that information/data be nice to have?).
A- I wonder why the Wildfire Commission didn’t address the need for human-caused ignition info. How can we expect to “follow the best science” if scientists can’t study things because information is not collected? I understand someone would have to develop a database from all kinds of fire institutions, but that doesn’t seem insurmountable. We do it for public health.
I think someone would have to have recorded that information to begin with, on Federal lands. Has that ever happened?
Creating a database is easy if the data is there. If it’s not…well, better hope some analogue to it exists, otherwise you start fresh. I honestly have no clue how accurate the CAL FIRE/Region 5 data is for ignition starts. It’s great for area burned and GIS perimeter. Used to even include prescribed fire/managed wildfire.
Of course, hindsight is 20/20. A Federal database on ignition start, fire size, and fire severity is pie in the sky dreaming.
I thought this was relevant, Calfire goal – came across my X feed.
“Meet the C-130H airtanker. The first of seven of these aircraft goes into service today at McClellan Airtanker Base in Sacramento. Previously part of the United States Coast Guard fleet, these aircraft are being transformed to enhance our already powerful aerial response to wildland fires; protecting communities and natural resources throughout California. Capable of delivering 4,000 gallons of retardant in a single flight, these airtankers will add to our capabilities in pursuit of keeping 95% of fires to ten acres or less. ” https://x.com/CAL_FIRE/status/1828088319294726419
CAL FIRE is the epitome is efforts to protect private property from wildfire. It is a very different mission from public lands. And, they do push forward use of Rx fire. They also approach forestry very differently, as they have their own forestry rules that combines with private property rights.
Worth investigating the difference between BAER and what California does as a state.
Boys and their toys. It’s refreshing to see that CalFire is not claiming that its “powerful” flying toy will save homes or prevent the next Paradise tragedy, as there is no evidence to support such fanciful claims. On the other hand, keeping 95% of ignitions for which CalFire is responsible small is easy peasy. These boy toys won’t move that 95% needle whatsoever, but they do make for great video on CNN.
During multiple fires in the 2024 season, *when* smoke is not an issue, the state air show has been effective. In part because it has bolstered the boots on the ground. That part has been made very clear.
Is the “Hercules” the silver bullet? No.
“On the other hand, keeping 95% of ignitions for which CalFire is responsible small is easy peasy”.
There is big difference across the state of California in vegetation type and setting. Grass, brush? Easy, with no wind. Timber? Less easy, but often easy ground. Steep ground and timber? CDF has a decent record there, until the terrain gets steep. CDF != USFS , which sadly many do not understand and use to push agendas about USFS suppression work. I don’t think the new state ‘boy toy’ should be discounted as a show, just like how the night-flight capable helicopters have proven to be highly effective (when they can be). Fire is natural, but it is 2024, and fire is not welcome/acceptable everywhere, IMO.
Very well written article that clearly identifies the predicament we are in. Managed fire will only work in actively managed forests. It is time to for basic forestry to return to the woods on a grand scale. Balancing quantified growth and removals is the only way to do that. That means giving incentives for the building sawmills and biomass plants to handle the removals. Allowing fires to burn in forests that have the extreme fuel loadings we have today is not a solution. Its insanity. The regulatory morass that has created the situation we are in has become a serious public menace. There are solutions. We need to re-empower them. Our national forests were in tremendously better shape 40 years ago with active timber management programs than they are today. To continue down this path of mindless destruction will soon become a shameful legacy for those who have been promoting it . Kudos to Dana Tibbitts on a timely article.
Thank you, Chris. A lot a good discussion on this thread, but a troubling lack of consensus and clarity about the fundamentals. Hopefully everyone has their eyes opened before its too late.
Chris, how does the USFS actively manage remote roadless and designated wilderness areas?
I live near the Gila NF. They do NOT – knee-jerk – “First, put out the fire”. This area is characterized by active fire history, dry weather Apr-June, and pretty reliable monsoon rains July-Sept, all of which allows them to very successfully “manage fire” WHEN and WHERE APPROPRIATE. I do not agree with Rains monolithic understanding that for enviros, their …cohesive, simple message… is “let the wildfire burn, it’s part of nature’s answer.” Not only untrue, but an inaccurate generalization. Gila NF THINKS, then acts. Often this means aggressive suppression, often careful observation; maybe even some “burning out” to anchored roads and trails. I’m simply saying one size fits all is inappropriate, unwise. Call the Quemado Dist Rgr, Randall Chavez to LEARN more…
“One size fits all is inappropriate, unwise”
Agree. Fire Is Local.
Aggressive top down based decision making is what caused the wildfire crisis.
It seems kind of funny for the FS to be leaning into the “one-size-fits-all” approach that they always fight when it would limit commodity production.
It seems more like Congress is the one who wants the “one-size-fits-all” approach. In the timber-producing red States, their Congressmen demand “more active management”, with management being assessed as “commercial logging”. In some States, thinning projects do not boost the economy the way that “Overstory Removal” projects do. Some people (wrongly) consider “Overstory Removal” to fit under the umbrella of “thinning”.
Mike, that’s a good question. The current management restrictions for those areas limit what can be done on those acres regardless, but it is time to get with it on the remainder at the very least. The biggest impediment to effective management geared to managing today’s out-of-control forest growth is a regulatory framework that has been proven to not work. It’s time to pin the tail on the donkey in this area. The “protections” lobbied for by the so-called “environmental community” 30-40 years ago that were meant to severely limit timber management have proven to be, instead of protections, the very cause of the massive environmental damage we are seeing in our forests today. It’s time to deal with reality. This adventure into make-believe in dealing with forest growth has failed miserably. There are solutions. Let’s get them back into the woods. Mechanical equipment today is capable of doing great things for our forests. Fire can’t be safely re-introduced on a grand scale without it.
I know people have remarked before but…. how did forests possibly survive without humans??
In some cases, they were under glaciers. (or at least the land was) Some people continue to want to have pre-human ecosystems, in a human-dominated world. IMHO, that is clearly impossible.
Impossible, I agree. But the methods and outcomes of forest mgmt need to reflect a greater respect for naturalness. I drive thru western OR pvt forest lands and still can’t quite believe what I see in 2024. Clearcutting, short rotations, herbicides – there are ways to make money in forestry without these extremes.
Hi Jim: This comes down to what people think defines “naturalness.” Some people think it is only “natural” to allow forests to grow and die without human influence and occupation, and that seems to be a prevailing sentiment among those that have created the current mess of wildfires, polluted air, dead wildlife and economically devastated rural communities. Which seems to be Chris’ point.
Others, myself included, think it is only “natural” for humans to occupy and influence vegetation in forested areas. I would argue that’s been the case for thousands of years wherever people and forests coexist. Some pre-human forests, as Larry describes, are now underwater or under ice — even some post-human forests just offshore from the Siuslaw meet that description, and forested areas in the Cascades, too. Others used to have entirely different tree species and dinosaurs. Elephants created grasslands in other locations. People have evolved with forests, and my perspective is that a healthy forest includes a safe and healthy human population.
http://lpfw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2018_Zald-and-Dunn_Fire-weather-and-intensive-management-drive-fire-severity.pdf
Worth a read.
For those who won’t at least read the abstract: “Our findings suggest intensive plantation forestry characterized by young forests and spatially homogenized fuels, rather than pre-fire biomass, were significant drivers of wildfire severity.” My take – the type of fuels is more important than the amount of fuels.
However, you must take into account that some portion of those plantations were due to wildfires, and not clearcutting. I think we are ‘stuck’ with having some plantations on the land, far into the future. There aren’t that many National Forests that still practice “intensive plantation forestry”.
Here’s what else the abstract says — and remember, these folks were only looking at a single fire: “Using Random Forest ensemble machine learning, we found daily fire weather was the most important predictor of fire severity, followed by stand age and ownership, followed by topographic features. Estimates of pre-fire forest biomass were not an important predictor of fire severity.”
I have no idea how accurate “Random Forest ensemble machine learning” was in analyzing this single case study, but I do agree with these general findings, based on my own personal research and documentation of more than six dozen major Pacific Northwest forest fires that have taken place since the late 1700s. Grass burns hotter and faster than trees, yet has less “forest biomass.”
Industrial-style plantations are a potential wildfire risk because of contiguous canopy closure, but they are more of a problem of aesthetics and inhibiting or even reducing wildlife biodiversity. If the proponents of “critical habitat” were serious, they’d start by clearcutting all of these plantations and replacing them with vegetation patterns more closely approximating their pre-plantation configurations, or at least those patterns the computers tell them are important.
I would expect lots of agreement with your suggestion, but I don’t understand, “If the proponents of “critical habitat” were serious ….” People don’t create critical habitat. If you are thinking about “recovery” of listed species, there may be recovery plans that say something like this, but they would carry no weight on private lands, and probably not much on federal lands (there’s no requirement to implement recovery plans and it would have to compete for funding). On the other hand, if you could sell this idea as a priority for reducing fire risk it might get some traction (with support from a lot of places) .
Jon: People actually do create “critical habitat.” The process usually involves university and agency “ecologists” working with environmental lawyers and GIS technicians to create polygons on maps with acronyms. Followed by lawsuits, occasional wildfires, and all documented.
On the other hand, I’m a terrible salesman and also have a few decades of documentation as proof. My “solutions” for mitigating these predictable wildfires have been completely ignored for many years in lots of places. But I appreciate the encouragement.
I think your quotes should have been around “create.” Critical habitat under ESA is what it is:
(i)the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 1533 of this title, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and
(ii)specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 1533 of this title, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
Jon: People “created” this definition. Check your dictionary.