Apologies for how long this is.. but what was so obvious to me as I read this AP story while breathing Aspen Acres fire smoke.. is that part of the reason for disagreeing and partisanship is that we get “arguments that sound vaguely plausible from carefully chosen sources” over “trying to understand why people think what they think, and how we think differently.” Ironically, while I was trying to find this story, I had a banner across the screen asking me for support for AP calling it “news without an agenda.”
Let’s start with this wildfire season, here’s what AP says about their reporting..sure it’s a marketing hype thing, but still…
Reporters Martha Bellisle and Matthew Brown combined their expertise on changes to federal land agencies since U.S President Donald Trump retook office with their deep knowledge of the west and wildfires to deliver an accountability story examining how the new Wildland Fire Agency was promoting a widely discredited policy. The pair had been reporting out the story when three wildland firefighters died last week.
Through aggressive reporting and beat expertise, they quickly pivoted the story’s focus to explain the impact of the administration’s shift to an old, discredited firefighting policy, which says all fires must be extinguished in the first 24 hours – a policy many experts believed was dangerous for firefighters, communities and public lands.
I get that this is marketing, but full suppression is not the 10 AM policy. It’s just not .. true.. does that matter? Perhaps ironically, while I was trying to find this story, I had a banner across the screen asking me for support for AP calling it “news without an agenda.”
My understanding is that the people interviewed for the story did not realize that their observations would be tied to firefighter deaths. We actually have processes to figure out what goes wrong on wildfires- and we can wait to find out. It’s at least mildly creepy to me that the reporters chose to make that link, but I’ll leave moral judgments on that to others. The AP story was run in the Denver Post and around the nation, so many who read this article don’t get the impacted community’s side of the story.
Martha Bellisle is actually “global investigative reporter” and you can get an idea of her areas of expertise (she is in Washington State) Matthew Brown (from Billings MT). He has a strong background in environmental journalism, but now has a broader scope according to this link at AP.
The headline of the story is:
Trump administration seeks to stomp out all fires quickly, reviving policy that has been discredited
At first it sounds like the 10AM policy, but here’s what the story actually says:
And the administration’s focus on “full suppression” of new fires marks a sharp reversal from a decades-long trend toward embracing flames as a tool — to burn off old vegetation and growth that acts like fuel and lessen the risk of catastrophic blazes being stoked by a warming planet.
Let’s look at what the USWFS and the FS said in their documents. Here’s what the FS said:
The safety of firefighters and the public is always first. Every unplanned ignition on National Forest System lands is managed under a full suppression strategy, and we will use best management practices for smoke. Guided by our safety principles and our risk assessment process, we will use direct tactics when conditions allow and indirect tactics when necessary. Our tactics may change with circumstances on the ground, but the goal to protect people, communities and important resources never does.
Here’s what USWFS said:
Given the Department of the Interior’s responsibilities to safeguard communities, landscapes, habitat and critical infrastructure, we will enter this season with the presumption of a full suppression strategy applied to every wildfire under DOI management.
Suppression actions must be prompt, decisive and based on values at risk—balanced with firefighter safety and a clear assessment of probability of success. Until conditions permit, all unplanned ignitions will receive a suppression response, using direct or indirect strategies as conditions dictate.
While indirect approaches may occasionally be warranted, direct suppression should remain the default. DOI firefighters are empowered to assess and mitigate risk while responding to wildfires and have the full support of Department leadership in carrying out this mission.
What is a “full suppression strategy”? Here’s what Google AI says (and I hope people will correct it if it’s wrong)
A “full suppression strategy” (or full perimeter containment) is a wildland fire management response aimed at extinguishing a fire as efficiently as possible, stopping all spread. It relies heavily on constructing direct and indirect firelines to halt the fire’s advance and cooling hot spots to protect human life, property, and resources. [1, 2, 3]Alternative fire management strategies—collectively known as Strategies Other Than Full Suppression (OTFS)—allow fire managers to manage the fire in a way that minimizes firefighter exposure while achieving ecological benefits. These are defined by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the National Wildfire Coordinating Group: [1]
-
- Monitor: Involves continual assessment of the fire’s progression, weather conditions, and fire behavior without taking direct physical suppression actions, allowing the fire to run its natural course under favorable conditions. [1]
I would argue almost everyone in this currently impacted part of Colorado is not really interested in point protection, confining or monitoring right now- June in a very dry year. Not the many evacuated people. Not the many people at risk of losing their homes. “Stomping out” or even better “having previously stomped out” actually sounds terrific.
*******************
So let’s look deeper into the arguments in the story..
The consolidation of thousands of personnel into the fire service has sown confusion among some firefighters about who their bosses are and what their responsibilities should be, according to former government officials.
I thought the ICS was fairly straightforward and time-tested. What “former government officials” exactly? If they’re “former” they must not be afraid of blowback, so why not let us be the judge of sources?
And the administration’s focus on “full suppression” of new fires marks a sharp reversal from a decades-long trend toward embracing flames as a tool — to burn off old vegetation and growth that acts like fuel and lessen the risk of catastrophic blazes being stoked by a warming planet.
The ever-helpful Google AI pointed me to this open JFor paper..
Changes to US wildfire policy in 2009 blurred the distinction between fires managed for resource benefits and fires with primarily suppression objectives, making management strategies difficult to track. Here, qualitative text is coded from a sample of 282 Wildland Fire Decision Support System Relative Risk Assessments completed on wildfires between 2010 and 2017 to examine the prevalence of different strategies and their associations with risk. Suppression is used most, associated with high risk. Managers discuss intent to suppress even when it is untenable. Monitoring, confine, or point protection are used much less commonly and when risk is low.
It kind of sounds like the “decades-long trend” was more conceptual than in practice.
The changes benefit private fire aviation companies that are key to hitting blazes fast.
Again that sounds like it might be true, but I live in a county where aggressive initial attack is the thing (think grass and high winds) and I’m not sure I care if the helicopter is owned by the county or a contractor. Of course, this might be a jab at Sheehy and Bridger, but I think they probably have plenty of work. If I don’t know that this is true (about aviation), how can the reporters just make a blanket statement?
“The question is, why were they attacking that fire in the first place?” asked Timothy Ingalsbee, a former federal firefighter and cofounder of the advocacy group Firefighters United For Safety, Ethics and Ecology. “What was actually at risk? If it was a bunch of shrubs on remote mountaintops, what was the real risk that justified putting those firefighters at risk?”
What Ingalsbee seems to be saying is that firefighter safety (albeit #1 in both agency’s policy) was compromised in this case, because of the full suppression strategy. But would this have been a fire that would have lent itself to other strategies? In June, in a notoriously dry year? How does he know that?
It’s kind of second-guessing the judgement calls of the IC s to strategy and tactics around that fire, based on the change in policy. Which are the same folks we would be trusting to pick another a non-suppression strategy instead. And firefighter safety is still the #1 policy, so..
But critics say the administration is trying to fix something that isn’t broken: The four agencies the firefighters were drawn from — the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs and National Park Service — have a record of extinguishing 98% of the fires they handle.
That’s lovely, but how many watersheds, communities, wildlife and forests are damaged in the process (and from ensuing floods and so on)? And why are we funding suppression at all then, since winter, according to this metric would do better (at 100%) for free. It did make wonder about the FS, though.
Under Trump, federal officials have been bringing in aircraft more quickly once fires ignite, said Austin Moeller, an aerospace analyst for the investment firm Canaccord Genuity.
“Anyone that has an air tanker benefits from this more aggressive contracting activity,” Moeller said.
So we don’t want to put fires out before they become unmanageable because… aircraft? Because a Republican Montanan got elected who had a wildfire aviation firm?
Bridger describes itself as one of the nation’s leading aerial firefighting companies. CEO Sam Davis has said the company’s fleet of Super Scooper aircraft, its surveillance aircraft and its fire observation technology make it “uniquely positioned” to respond to the renewed emphasis on attacking fires to put them out.
Of course, Bridger’s marketing uses that term, similarly to how the AP marketing says “deep knowledge of the west and wildfires.”
The aircraft will help the administration’s new full suppression policy, which harkens back to a 1935 policy known as the 10 a.m. rule because it required agencies to put out new fires by 10 a.m. the following day.
Using a full suppression strategy is not the 10AM rule.. that should be obvious to everyone. “Harkens back to ” is carrying a lot of weight. All it is is NOT point protection, confine or monitor.
Scientists who study wildfires say trying to stop all fires is unrealistic since some of the most destructive blazes in recent years have evaded efforts to put them out. Some fires simply grow too fast, are too remote, or result from multiple ignitions that makes them impossible to stop.
If we switch this to the definition of full suppression, we’d get “scientists argue that monitoring, confining and point protection are better strategies.” But that’s not what many scientists are saying- I wonder what scientists the reporters spoke with who said this, that they are “impossible to stop”. Sure, that happens sometimes for days or weeks. And yet, there are thousands of folks in North America today doing exactly that, and we can see their activities and the results on Inciweb and Watch Duty.
“The narrative that if we just try harder, we’re gonna make these fires go away isn’t true,” said former Forest Service wildfire researcher David Calkin. “The fire paradox is not beatable: The more you make fire go away, the more fuel accumulates. The more fuel accumulates, the harder it is to make fires go away.”
On the Aspen Acres fire, we currently have 100,000 acres burned with a full suppression strategy. So there’s that. Then there’s prescribed fire, and mechanical fuel treatment that also reduce fuels. It seems like the way this is said implies that wildfire is the only way to reduce fuels. Then why do the States and Feds spend so many bucks on PF and MT if only wildfires “work”? To be fair, though, this could be a misquote or an out-of-context quote.
If all this wasn’t depressing enough, the comments suggest that (some) people believe the story and agree firefighting doesn’t work, and it’s only done for private profit. It all reminds me of Miles’s Law- “where you stand depends on where you sit” or the evacuees sit in your house or the smoke you’re inhaling..
The next post will address some questions that arose in my mind from observations and reading some of these articles.
Well, seems the story is pure hogwash! You are right on, Sharon, with your inclinations, as to the legitimacy of who these hawkers talked to. Your understanding of “full suppression vs 10:00 is spot on!
I sit here on my deck, watching the Willow Fire interior slowly burn itself out . Still not fully contained; it’s in Mt. Massive Wilderness, creeping through upper elevation to treeline. The rest of the containment boundaries (mostly non-Wilderness) are growing every day. When this thing took off, it was a legitimate crown fire, running about three miles in one afternoon. Folks in town surely did not care who owned those aircraft and helicopters!
Of course human caused, most likely campfire on the Colorado/CDT Trail…..
Maybe if they want this to be more clear to the public, they should change the term from “full suppression” to something else if they don’t mean full suppression.
I appreciated this article from the AP, while some details may not be fully correct, I believe they captured the sentiment of some of the fire community surrounding this incident well.
Focusing on the semantics of 10am policy v. full suppression and nitpicking statements throughout misses the point of the article in my opinion. So no, it doesn’t really matter (re: ‘It’s just not .. true.. does that matter?’). What were they doing on that specific fire at that specific time and why?
The policy of firefighter safety as the number one priority remains ridiculous. The policy exists only as far as your supervision is willing to push back on and is fully dependent on political pressure. Sometimes this pressure is local and sometimes it is national. The more pressure, the more risks firefighters are told to take on. And some days it just isn’t worth pushing back on a stupid decision and you hope you’ll stay lucky.
It isn’t really that difficult to follow why there is a perception that Sheehy and Bridger are trying to profit off a rapid initial attack response. Bridger is a company that exists to make money, it isn’t a charity. And Sheehy, the founder/former CEO, still holds stock in the company. Sheehy founded United Aerial Firefighters Association has served to lobby congress to reduce oversight and inspections for aviation (easily read as things that cost money/time). Sheehy has also introduced (sometimes bipartisan) bills to establish things like the 30-minute wildfire response. Don’t be so incredulous about making money off disasters, this is America after all.
Unfortunately, these firefighters died under some of the worst circumstances possible. According to available information, they were working a fire with limited values at risk that was consumed by another recent start. And this subsequent fire burned itself out a day after that big push. So what did they die for?
If we’re creating hypotheticals, maybe you wouldn’t be breathing the Aspen Acres smoke so much if there were 5 additional fire fighters available for initial attack on 6/29 because they didn’t staff a fire at the head of the downwind canyon on 6/28.
So yeah, this is at least partially on the ‘First, put the fire out’ crowd. To be clear I’m not advocating that we stop putting most fires out, just that in some places we pause and think about it if it is the right thing to do. I wonder if the IC, the DO, and anyone else involved in staffing this fire wish they could have the decision back.
Nicely said – better than what I was thinking – that this unfortunately reminded me of elsewhere in this Administration: ICE quotas – with that kind of pressure from the boss, people can die.
Kind of some brash statements there, anon, if it were only that simple. Your impression as a ground pounder has certainly evolved since my time on the line. It would do, however, if you spent a bit of time realizing what was entailed to develop the 10:00 AM Policy; the times in this country, the newness of the Agency, the shortage of men that was World War II.
Leadership in the fire world does not necessarily compartmentalize the idea of hind sight. They are all different; every single fire has its risks, some are even evident!
As for me, 25 years in the Forest Service, out of 50 years of practice, all across this country tells me the 10:00 AM Policy is a good one!
Jim Z, I’m not quite sure what you think I said is simple. The simple thing is to put out every fire as fast as possible, without accounting for risk or exposure or values.
I’m also not quite sure what you’re getting at regarding the development of the 10am policy. I’m aware that the policy was in force in the mid 1930’s (before the manpower shortage of the early 1940’s), the Agency had already found much footing in fire suppression after the fires of 1910 (Weeks Act), and that, yes, the Great Depression was ongoing. I’m also aware that, at least for my area, much of trail network was constructed by the CCC for the sole purpose of rapid fire response and suppression. There were also voices in the mid 1930s within the Forest Service that pushed back on the 10am policy in favor of a limited approach in some backcountry areas.
I want to reiterate that I agree that most wildfires should be rapidly suppressed and aggressively fought. However, there are landscapes that can be preidentified as not needing suppression. And there are additional factors to consider within these landscapes like previous fire history, drought, forecast, seasonality, local/national PL level, values at risk, risk/exposure to responders.
A blanket 10am policy is appropriate for most places I’ve been to as well, but not all. I would prefer to have some discretion at the forest level.
“However, there are landscapes that can be preidentified as not needing suppression. “. I’ve never seen such landscapes; maybe Alaska? If we lived in a perfect world of fire, no downstream effects would ever be felt, that’s not reality, sorry.
The values at risk argument has tended more for firefighter safety – a good thing! However, civilian deaths are beginning to pile up because of poor decisions – on everyone’s part. Some of these “managed” fire decisions need to have those decision makers liable for damages!
Risk is part of the job; risk never goes away, it is transferred to something/someone else. Retardant is great, but each hour in the hour is one more hour closer to an incident! You ever played the marble in the bag game? Think about the Line Officers who deal with these decisions, I can tell you it gets real pretty quick.
Sorry if I misunderstood your support (mostly) to suppress all wildfires, that’s the correct thinking….
Re: ” I’ve never seen such landscapes; maybe Alaska?”
At a minimum, I would include the large Wildernesses of the lower 48 (Gila/Aldo Leopold, Frank Church River of No Return/Bitterroot Selway, Bob Marshall). And then other large (100k acres plus) uninhabited tracks of FS are possibilities later in the season. There is still room for suppression in these landscapes based on adjacent values at risk.
I’m fine with decision makers being held liable. Managers of the Bob Marshall have conducted Rx fire in the Wilderness to prevent managed fires from burning out of the Wilderness and onto private land. But of course, other downstream effects may be felt, just the reality of land management.
And I definitely agree risk/exposure is tricky. Often we are faced with only undesirable options.
Sharon, need to get logic sorted out. There are only two categories of fire eg prescribed and wildfire. Prescribed fire is pre-planned so measures/ triggers are established. Wildfires are created by lightning & humans (accidential or deliberate arson). Drop managed fire term completely
Thanks for being here, Darrel! What I call “managed fire” is the same thing as “wildfire managed for resource benefits”or “wildland fire use”, the problem is that it is a thing, by that I mean, the FS does it and reports that it does it.. whatever you call it. Maybe fire folks have arrived at a permanent name for whatever it is by now and that would be fine!
There might be another class of wildfire. If a fire is (currently) too unsafe to fight, it burns unhindered. Then again, some people think that every wildfire has “resource benefits”.