Fire Suppression - Good or Bad?

[BRI]

I've been involved in the fire game for 24 years now. Some fires should be managed and some fires shouldn't. What I disagree with is when a fire is managed for "Resource Benefit" and hundreds of resources are assigned and millions of dollars are spent to babysit it.

 

[Selkirk]

Like the game animals we love to pursue, fire also needs to be managed. To me this means let burn or suppress depending on the situation, much of which I think comes down to common sense. Personally, I'd like to see more left to burn, especially in wilderness and remote areas.

 

[MontanaSlim]

The number one factor that people forget when dealing with western forest ecosystems is that they are not static, or do NOT stay the same. If we could only convince the general public that "change" or disturbance is not a bad thing then it would be a lot easier to get things done in the forest. Be it mechanical thinning, prescribed burns, or others. Forests were burning long before Lewis and Clark came here, and will therefore continue long after we are here. Reaching a common ground in how these forests are managed will never be easy, especially dealing with a dying agency like the Forest Service. Maybe some will not agree with these statements, but people need to become educated in these issues before they become so vocal, be it legally speaking or in casual conversation.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Fires need suppressed in areas of cheatgrass and sagebrush but most conifer fires and all juniper fires should be left to burn plan and simple.

 

[lbirch]

Big Fin, that was well put and I totally agree. Currently we have two fires burning close by. I feel bad seeing it go up in flames but I think down the road that it is for the best. Who can't agree that 2 year old burns in the cedars are some of the greenest places around. Big mule deer bucks love it, that is a fact.

 

[1_pointer]

Fires need suppressed in areas of cheatgrass and sagebrush but most conifer fires and all juniper fires should be left to burn plan and simple.

I almost agree. Areas with thick juniper can be very suseptible to conversion to cheatgrass, just depends on what's in the understory. Many places now with lots of juniper were sagebrush 100yrs ago...

 

[Jwill]

Saw this article today: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48707586/ns/us_news-environment/#.UDJ96aPLnit

 

[IdahoHombre]

Timely, Fin. And I agree whole-heartedly. There is another screw to throw into the gears, and that is the fact that state wildlife agencies have to manage the wildlife. They are often put in reactionary positions when federal policies directly affect the wildlife. Of course, the introduction of wolves is an obvious example of this. But the fire issue is every bit as big, and bigger, in my mind.

Smoky the Bear has been very effective with his message, and anti-wildfires of any stripe is the default position of the average individual. Most people don't even consider that letting the fires go might be a good thing. That's just how the conventional wisdom has gone.

Virtually all of North Idaho burnt to the ground about 100 years ago. Every drainage in the Lolo, and on up through the Panhandle was leveled. In its wake some of the West's best and largest elk herds developed. What was it like before that? Going back all the way to Lewis & Clark, the area was not suitable for elk. At that time it was one big canopied forest, setting itself up for massive fires that exceed what we're seeing today.

 

[1_pointer]

Smoky the Bear has been very effective with his message

FYI, it's Smokey Bear, his middle name is not The....

 

[ELKCHSR]

A few here have known me for years...
I've been fighting fires since early 2000 on the ground as a foot soldier...
I don't feel a lot of remorse for burned structures or devastated property...
I blame all these big fires directly on the environmentalists who think nature is like a big picture that can be dusted off once in awhile...
It is a dynamic place and a lot going on to those who watch...
I've seen the effects of 80 years of quick suppression and removing logging (the only two ways to mitigate fire danger is fire and/or timber extraction)...
Every where this side the Mississippi is supposed to burn, many places as often as every 5 years...
All the beetle kill is a direct reflection of allowing trees to grow in many places they don't belong, then when something like a drought happens, beetles attack stressed trees...
When I see fire, I see cleansing and new life, even in all the destruction...
While its nice to have people out there counting and measuring, we would be better spending our energies letting many of these fires grow to the size they really need to, doing minimal structure protection and letting the rest go including cheat grass and such or logging/thinning...
Only in this way will we begin to bring balance back to all these lands...
If you want to keep your house and you live out here...
Take a few precautions...
I was on many fires this year, one was by Hamilton MT, the last one was down by Riggins ID...

 

[dan.kirkpatrick]

put well big fin,,,out here on oregons westside virtually all logging is almost all private timberlands.Most of our national forest areas havnt had a sick pulled out of them since the 80's and early 90's.there is a lot of very nice timber up in mt hood nat forest, but givin time,,a dry year like this year,itll probly go up in flames instead of having a timber sale and responsibly logging it for revinue money that makes sense.deer and elk habitat is vastly inproved with logging in my opinion.

 

[ccc23454]

when the government (state or national) takes on mother nature costs will only rise, you can fight her and win a few battles but she will ultimately win the war!!!

 

[Nameless Range]

Though 3 years old, this is a still pertinent and Interesting thread. My folks live in the Wildland Urban Interface in a high risk area and I think about this subject often.

Logging would be insufficient in reducing risk of catastrophic fire. It would be far too costly, difficult, and perhaps most importantly, it is not at all clear that fuels reduction results in a significant reduction in the likelihood of wildland fire occurrence. Weather and topography are the chief influences on wildland fire occurrence in the west.

When it comes to controlled burns, it is again a drop in a bucket. Expensive, difficult, and largely small in scale. Additionally, it is a liability. Some controlled burns that have gotten out of control have been stains on the relationship that some agencies have had with communities. Both figuratively and literally, playing with fire is risky. In some topographies and fuel types, controlled burns are not options.

Management policies aside, there are also psychological explanations that would need to be overcome. Every firefighter knows 1910 wasn't an anomaly and is going to happen, and, due to fuels and climate, could be around the corner in any giveyn year. Since the beginning of time it seems, the claim is always thrown around that firefighters love the woods to burn because fires equal money. Sure they love their money, but more so, firefighting outfits are prideful and hardworking contingents of people. No one wants The next 1910 to start in their district. When it happens, property will burn, heads will roll, fingers will be pointed and chit will roll downhill. Seasonal workers don't make for very good sacrificial lambs.

Also consider that people pay taxes for fire suppression both via their Federal and State taxes, but also through local taxes (Rural Fire Districts). It is very difficult to wade the waters of allowing fires to burn, especially near homes. I absolutely agree about personal responsibility. Nothing is more frustrating than watching firefighters rake needles in people's yards because homeowners refused to create defensible space and maintain fuels on their property.

Region One met its timber harvest goal for the first time in 14 years last year.There are probably a fair amount of scenarios where fuels reduction via controlled burn and logging would be a good idea, but to increase forest health on the large scale I think we have two likely options:

One would be to drasically increase fire funding, and make a concerted and effective effort at educating the public that those in the WUI are at risk due to their location of choice, and allow agencies to be liberal in their decision plans on what fires we are going to allow to burn and to what point, recognizing that property will be lost along the way. Because of the kneejerk reactions to increasing any government funding currently holding sway in many levels of government and the fact that the public will have to deal with some tough facts of western life, I think this is an unlikely scenario.

Or, wait for a bolt of lightning on some ridge in eastern Idaho or western Montana to become the costliest disaster the Northwestern United States has ever seen and deal with aftermath.

Either way forest health will increase. IMO.