I’ve written about the history and background of the National Wildfire Institute (NWI) in this forum before — a few months ago in regards to all of the towns being burned in USFS wildfires since the creation of spotted owl “critical habitat”: https://forestpolicypub.com/2024/10/02/burned-out-us-forest-service-is-destroying-our-western-towns/
In late November, Lake Tahoe writer Dana Tibbits arranged three videotaped panel discussions with a consortium of more than a dozen NWI wildfire experts for the purpose of declaring a National Wildfire Emergency. These statements totaled 2 1/2 hours of recordings, more than 36 pages of transcription, and have been summarized into a 37-minute video (below). Here is the YouTube Index of the individuals and topics on the video for brief or selective review purposes:
00:10 National Wildfire Institute (NWI) history
00:54 Dana Tibbitts, National Wildfire Emergency introduction
02:32 Bob Zybach, US Forest Service wildfire history
05:44 Joe Reddan, NEPA regulations & DEQ questions
10:04 Wayne Knauf, 1897 Organic Act & local communities
11:43 Ted Stubblefield/Phil Aune, Threatened & Endangered Species
13:41 Chuck Sheley, Wildfire smoke, public health & safety
16:09 Nadine Bailey, Spotted owls, logging & wildfire management
19:07 Court Boice, “Nuclear” wildfires & wildlife mortality
20:02 Tope Knauf, Manufacturing infrastructure & forest economics
22:48 Jim Petersen, Federal lands as a national treasure & Oshkosh
24:32 William Derr, The 10:00 AM Policy & current need
25:50 Phil Aune, NFMA, salvage logging & subsequent wildfires
28:56 James Marsh, NWFP, wildfire risk & environmental litigation
31:24 Roger Jaegel, Managing public forests for future generations
33:44 Frank Carroll, Three reforms needed for US Forest Service
36:33 Dana Tibbitts, Concluding remarks
36:54 NWI Recommendations (four)
37:20 NWI Contact information
Interesting.
Where’s the session on Climate Change and how that overlaps with the time period of post-Spotted Owl management policies that apparently are to blame for the loss of communities in fire-prone landscapes? And what about the changes in zoning and other local regulations that enabled the construction of more homes in the WUI?
Spotted owl management is definitely not in a vacuum; Many, many variables coming together! That’s something that should be understood by folks in the natural resources field but sometimes it’s easier to simplify and just choose one cause for a problem.
As the “A Call to Action” has so clearly stated for the last 5 years, destructive wildfires due primarily to the lack of forest management is a National Emergency. But, “nothing changes if nothing changes.” The “LA Fires” are quite predictable and the destruction is moving eastward. We know this. Yet, the emphasis on forest management (I was calling it forest maintenance, but persons objected) continues to stall. In 2001, I was the USDA author for what is known as the National Fire Plan. Now, 25 years later the only thing of consequence that has changed is the huge increase in fire suppression funding. What a waste. Now, about one-half of the people’s National Forests are dead or dying and so many people have been killed and displaced. Check out the “A Call to Action”, it tells us what to do, starting with “first put out the fire” then emphasize maintenance (sorry). This should be at least a 10-year campaign as we seek to stabilize the landscapes. A person this morning asked me, “why don’t they just put out the fires rather than spending all their time blaming.” Indeed, this is frustrating. Again, we know what to do. Achieving healthy, resilient, sustainable forests is not rocket science. However, until we can collectively decide that “enough is enough”, this completely preventable tragedy will continue. Most of the time when there is an issue of this magnitude, American ingenuity kicks in and solves the problem. I suppose the destruction of landscapes, communities, and loss of all kinds of life is just not that important anymore. It’s our call. We know the solution.
Very respectfully,
If this is an emergency, then one logical response is widespread closures of USFS roads when fire danger exceeds the “moderate” category, with the rationale being that 85% (approximately) of fires are human caused. Such closures should also be considered when high wind events are forecast, given that winds are a crucial component for fanning fires – and of particular significance – for broadcasting burning embers, as has been so dramatically demonstrated in Los Angeles. And new roads constructed for forest management purposes should be closed immediately after the management activity is complete. Obviously this requires personnel, and it reminds me of the days when thousands of college kids would have summer jobs with USFS, who would all be qualified to close and lock a gate, and post a “Road Closed Due to Fire Conditions” sign.
There’s this thing called the fire triangle – Oxygen, Fuel, Ignition. Closing roads removes the ignition source for 85% of fires.
I for one, doubt the degree of effectiveness of clearing forests of trees by logging or thinning for fire prevention. There are myriad recent examples where fires have spread unhindered through “treated” areas. And it’s widely recognized that USFS is using “treatments” as a cover for harvesting.
And then of course is home hardening, thus putting the responsibility of protecting one’s home on the homeowners, who in many cases are choosing to build in locations where they are more vulnerable to fires. There is also the power of zoning, which can keep structures away from the WUI.
Region 5 (California) essentially shut down every single National Forest in late August/September 2020, and again in September 2021, due to resource drawdown, excessive wildfires throughout the western US, and highly intensive burning conditions and drought. It was the right move.
It did not however, stop intense complaints and bitterness from all those affected by the closure, which mainly was smaller businesses reliant on public lands, and some larger business individuals; and the subsequent fallout from those closures was severe from the affected public.
Which is to say, it is a lose-lose situation to close down National Forests – close them down, people get angry, don’t close them, more human ignitions. And probably won’t keep out the idiots who do start fires, and do not obey closure orders, while the USFS/BLM have an abject lack of LE employees to patrol.
Glenn: The fire triangle is weather, fuel, and topography. It needs a source of ignition. Ignition is provided by people, lightning, spontaneous combustion, and volcanoes. People are the only animal that can use fire, and we do so wherever we go, all the time. Human ignitions can come from careless smokers, barbecues, automobiles, or arsonists, but if there is no fuel, there is no fire. “Closing the roads” doesn’t control the fuels or even stop people or weather.
We can’t control the weather, people, or topography, but we can control fuel. That goes for trees, grass, chaparral, batteries, and wooden structures. And, actually, there are not a “myriad recent examples” of fire going through properly “treated” areas. There are several examples of fires going through improperly labeled “treated areas,” though. Probably one of those “misstatement” things on the part of the government would be my best guess.
“The fire triangle is weather, fuel, and topography.” The fire triangle I was taught as a firefighter is fuel, oxygen, and heat. Remove any leg from this fire triangle, and the fire extinguishes. Water removes heat through evaporation. Digging a line to mineral soil removes fuel. Retardant removes oxygen by coating fuel with an impervious barrier. I must have gone to a different firefighting school than Bob. 😬
I never went to firefighting school, Andy, and never fought a wildfire, but you and Glenn are correct — I checked with Wikipedia as the ultimate authority, and it lists three types of fire triangles: 1) yours and Glenn’s, for starting and extinguishing fires; 2) mine, for actively burning fires; and 3) something about climate. So we are all correct, and the door is open for someone else also to be correct with a different combination that also involves climate.
Thanks for the instructional comment:
“…I for one, doubt the degree of effectiveness of clearing forests of trees by logging or thinning for fire prevention. There are myriad recent examples where fires have spread unhindered through “treated” areas. And it’s widely recognized that USFS is using “treatments” as a cover for harvesting (Monahan, 2025).”
It has been my experience over a very long period of time that keeping forests (and forests are more than just trees) in a maintained condition (thinning, Rx Fire, harvesting, fuels management, etc.) really does reduce the intensity of wildfires. I know, there are examples where this has not happened. I am not talking about the far ends of the distribution curve. Most of the time, forests that are not clogged with fuels, have less destructive wildfires. There is a very large body of science that backs this up. Even a kid from Compton, California knows this, respectfully.
I also know that someone is going to call me up short and point to the tragedy of the “LA Fires.” When I point out that the homes became and are the dominant fuel source, I get, “oh.”
Managing traffic during Level 5, 4 and maybe some 3 areas is very sensible. Home hardening and Defensible Space are very effective and largely ignored. The impacts of a changing climate is a fact and we are in the constraints of a past cycle that probably will be with us past our lifetime. Climate change is a contributor to this mess. It is not THE dominant reason.
I have been re-reading many of the past and current strategies as to the best tactics to avoid the levels of destruction that the lands, communities and people are facing. The is absolutely no shortage of really good strategies. We know exactly what to do. We just need to believe and say, “enough is enough.”
For example, with the current land conditions and weather patterns, why would the Forest Service ever deploy a “monitoring” tactic? That is “watch” the wildfire. Almost 27 percent of the acres that burned in 2024 DID NOT HAVE TO BURN. We know that wildfire smoke kills thousands of people each year. So, why extend the wildfire duration and emit more smoke. Why not say in the “Chief’s Annual Letter of Intent for Wildfire”, “we will strive to put out all fires as quickly as possible.” About 80 people with thousands of years of wildfire suppression experience asked this of the current Chief. What we got: “…please go away.” Now, that’s one action (“first, strive to put out the fire”) that is such a reasonable objective at this point in time. Yet, we could not get the once greatest conservation agency in the world — the USDA Forest Service — to budge. Yes, “nothing changes if nothing changes.” There are much better ways to accrue restorative targets than counting burned acres.
You mention personnel. You are right. If we are going to “do what we know is required,” the numbers and skill set of leaders and followers must increase and improve. This is not a time to have a reduction in force for really skilled forest supervisors, District Rangers and forest firefighters, for example.
You know what, nothing I have just said has not been said thousands of times before. What we need is someone with true position power to say these things to those that “decide” and have the wherewithal to deploy a long-term campaign (at least a decade) and stick with it. The first action, “strive to put out all wildfires immediately.” For my lifetime, stop the insanity of “managed” wildfire. It is not “beneficial” and we are not good at managing wild things.
Very respectfully,
Why is critical habitat in quotes?
Hey Doc Zybach, why did you put critical habitat in quotes? Is it because you hate critical habitat?
Hi Larry: No, I don’t hate “critical habitat.” I put it in quotes because it is a legal term and not a biological term in this instance, as many people use it or seem to suppose. I’m quoting from legal sources, so I use quote marks.
A cynical reader might put quotes around historian when referring to you or around expert when referring to Frank Carroll because those modifiers are opinions and not reality.
Court Boice is an
Earth haterRepublican who put quotes around nuclear. Is that a legal term?Hey Larry: Please get a life. Your juvenile badgering is not a good look and just junks up discussion for others.
Hey “Doc:” Please don’t burn it all down just to prove we will burn it all down anyway. The grassland fire danger will be in the high category for much of South Dakota Monday as y’all blame big gubmint for fuel loads driven by the kind of human greed that drives fuel loads.
Do you want to suppress every lightning struck fire, Doc? Do you want to privatize every fire department in the US? Are you confident the workforce is willing or even exists?
Jeez, Larry: Thanks for using your real name, though. Answers: No, not necessarily, and yes. The idea that fuel loads are driven by “human greed” is an interesting perspective that I’ve not heard before. Probably because most people blame biology and other more reasonable viewpoints. Could greedy ranchers or greedy buffalo been used to resolve the grass problem before it developed to this point? Or individuals skilled in prescribed burning?
Jeez, “Doc:” are all blue states with Democratic governors and congressional delegates failures at managing fuels? If the Orange Julius deports a willing workforce are convicts the best hope to fight wildfires? Are insurance companies solvent enough to cover private burn operations?
Hey Sharon, I see “Fix Our Forests Act” passed the House and they think it will pass the Senate this next week, what are you hearing on what this will do?
Thanks for posting this Bob. We are truly in a state of emergency on federal forestlands of the West. The new Administration would be wise to use testimonies like those given on the video to begin to craft realistic solutions to the wildfire crisis that is destroying our western forests. I worked for a natural resource manager/woods-boss a long time back who used to say freqently, “If everything we ever did in the woods in the past was wrong, why is the forest still green?” Those on the video are the very ones who kept it green. What they did was not wrong. Forest management works. Those who spoke represent a wealth of knowledge of what it will take to get forest management back on track. They represent thousands more who don’t like seeing our forests burn to the ground. Let’s get the train moving. Times a’wastin’.
We would like to draw the attention of the participants in the discussion to the recent UAFA statement (quote):
“STATEMENT FROM UNITED AERIAL FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION:
Faster Wildfire Response is Critical for American Communities
[WASHINGTON, D.C. January 14, 2025] – Massive wildfires tearing through California are
a warning of similar disasters to follow unless we change how we combat these fires.
Wildfires, like house-fires, require a response that is fast and all-year-round”.
We certainly share this opinion, but we believe that a faster response to wildfires is crucial not only for American communities, but also for the entire global community living together in our common home on planet Earth.
The impact of wildfires on climate change and vice versa has led the world community to understand that there are no fires of someone else – every out-of-control fire poses a threat to every person living on the planet.
Our proposal for creating the “Global Worldwide Aerospace Wildfire Management System” is addressed to the heads of states, the world community, organizations,
companies, investors – to everyone who is interested in preserving our planet from the destructive fiery element of wildfires. To all those who are ready, putting aside the existing differences in the approach to solving many problems in an increasingly complex and fragmented world, to unite for the sake of solving a clear task – to cope with extreme wildfires.
We believe that this is achievable, but it is possible to achieve this goal only by combining the efforts of the majority of States and peoples.
If we receive an email from those interested in submitting our proposal, we will send you a short presentation for further discussion of the details of the proposal.
Golly gee willikers, I know, let’s do all the things we did to cause the problem, it’s sure to work better with all the hot dry windy weather. Wow, that was a terrible video. Brandolini’s law in action. The fire science folks I know, many of whom are substantively more credible than any of the “experts” on the video, blame the wildfire crisis in our frequent fire adapted forested systems on three primary factors: (1) 100 years of fire suppression, which started with the 10am policy; (2) unmitigated large tree removal, because big trees are much more resilient to fire and it’s not possible to restore a forest without them; and (3) climate change, which increases the length of the fire season and causes there to be more extreme fire weather days. There are so many papers on this it seems silly to have to state it, but alas, here we are, more hopeless than ever. The idea that we’ll log more and put out all fires before they get big is consistent with the definition of insanity.
Well, as an Anonymous poster that claims to know unnamed scientists who know more about wildfire than the experts on this panel, you certainly don’t have much credibility to fall back on. You might want to ask your (imaginary?) associates if they recognize any of these names. Your list of three factors has been strongly challenged by many credible scientists and wildfire experts since they were first invented, about 30 years ago. But no sense in engaging with a pseudonym on a public forum.
Well, thanks to voters like you, “Doc” Americans live in a post-truth world where opinions are far more relevant in addressing the anthropocene than the actions of those of us who are actually working to reverse it.
Hi Bob, You stated, “Your list of three factors has been strongly challenged by many credible scientists and wildfire experts since they were first invented, about 30 years ago.”
I learned about the issues of total fire suppression in forestry school back in the ’70s. Large fire-adapted trees such as ponderosa pine growing in areas with frequent fire return intervals were highly resistant to fire. Fire suppression and grazing allowed for dense stands of young trees to establish creating ladder fuels. Additionally, high-grading of the large trees in many areas created dense forests with only young trees, which are more likely to burn at a high intensity. Climate change has lengthened fire seasons, increased evapotranspiration and reduced fuel moistures.
In my opinion, we need to do more thinning, more prescribed burning (if possible – burn windows are shrinking) and, when appropriate, manage natural caused fires.
Hi Mike: Full agreement. My background was more in Douglas fir than pine, so management options steered more toward clearcuts and broadcast burning, followed by planting. New government smoke management regulations in the 1980s stopped a lot of broadcast burning, with the result of significant fuel loads on subsequent plantations. I attended forestry school in the 1990s as a middle-aged male with 25 years field experience — that’s where I first heard that fire suppression was responsible for fuel build-ups, Global Warming being responsible for the increase in wildfires, and still haven’t come across the idea that big leave trees were critical for forest restoration — the “seed tree” method of failed reforestation methods had largely been disbanded by 1980. There’s a reason some of these “experts” post anonymously.
Good eye. And staying anonymous helps protect you and your family from retribution by the people who deny the human effects on climate change and from those like Mr. Zybach who revere Donald Trump as their savior.
The old school of thought that learned the internet loves to dox emails and IP addresses (proven here), so it is good on public employees to remain anonymous, in the face of angst driven angry politicals with an agenda.
Do you guys realize how silly this sounds? Fear of “angst driven angry politicals with an agenda,” when you are both the two best shining examples of that nonsense on this forum? And ironic that “Anon,” who revels in these types of pronouncements, rationalizes his anonymity for trolling real people w/o consequences by making this ludicrous rationale. That’s where the word “cowardly” keeps coming up. At least Larry has enough spine to use his real name, and most folks going “Anonymous” likely have a good reason for doings so — and not because of fearing counterattacks because of blatant juvenile trolling, but by using the forum to make meaningful contributions and asking reasonable questions — not personal attacks and bizarre political claims. Apparently politely asking you to stop this crap doesn’t work, nor does calling you out for misconduct and hateful fantasies, but I do wish you would stop cluttering these discussion up with name-calling, mind-reading, spurious charges, and other irritating distractions. One can hope.
Cambridge
“troll verb [I or T] (ANNOY)
informal
to leave an insulting or offensive message on the internet in order to upset someone, or to get attention or cause trouble”
I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of those feeling fear of retribution right now. On the other hand, calling someone “cowardly” would likely fit this definition of trolling.
Not when it is an accurate adjective in response to a troll. Certainly it would be if sent anonymously and unsolicited to a real person on a public forum. That would be trolling.
This was probably one of the worst versions of trolling, and an otherwise abject failure to not represent an agenda and worldview (read as: non scientific, non-educated) posts I have ever seen on Smokey Wire in the 14+ years I have read it.
https://forestpolicypub.com/2025/01/14/guest-post-karl-brauneis-review-of-burchfields-2014-the-tinder-box/
Tell it to Karl. He’ll likely be just as impressed as I am by your odd opinions and hidden identity. Maybe you could develop a Top 10 list that also no one would care about. Add some snide remarks and juvenile name calling and you’re in.
There are very real reasons for folks to remain anonymous. Anonymity does not mean that a thoughtful perspective is not valid. Suggesting otherwise is a low IQ debate tactic.
Unfortunately, Bob is the most consistent troll on TSW. He is almost always involved in the not so pleasant behavior in the comment section. He doesn’t always start it, but he’s often involved, which is telling. I try hard to stay out of things he’s involved in, but sometimes it is just too tempting and easy to set a trap for him.
I certainly don’t agree with everything the other contributors have to say on TSW, but they at least provide thought-provoking rationale and science support for their ideas, which is why I come here. Anytime someone says something that questions Bob’s binary view of the world and they remain anonymous he goes on a rant about how being anonymous means your ideas are wrong. But, if someone says something he doesn’t like and they provide their name, he immediately starts name-calling and bringing up things they’ve said in the past.