Threats to Forests - Thinking About Fire in Forests

Evolving Thoughts About Fire and Forests

For the better part of a couple hundred years we took the attitude that all fires in the forest were bad and needed to be put out as quick as possible.  If they weren’t put out they could burn our houses, barns and towns.  People were right, fires did all that and burned people in the process.  But, people didn’t deal with why fires got to be so big and destructive.  They knew it was all the slash (limbs, tree tops, rotten logs, etc.) left from logging that burned so hot, but they continued to leave the slash behind and keep moving into new forest areas.    After all, if there were ways to reduce the slash fuels it would cost a lot and who wants to pay for a dead horse? - so to speak.   So, the slash was left in the wake of logging and forest fires got bigger and more destructive.  As people learned more about forests, they organized to put fires out while they were small.  Requirements came into effect that tree harvesting operations include the cost of reducing slash.   Recently logged areas were broadcast burned when the weather was cool and rain was forecast, in other areas the limbs and tops were piled and burned in winter.  Foresters started to gets control of the big, bad fires by preventing them.  

At the same time the small cool fires were being prevented, or put out when they were small, if left alone small fires could turn big and destructive.  The Forest Service's “10 am policy” (every fire should be put out before 10 am the day after it was discovered) was effective at putting out most fires on National Forest while they were small.  Of course some fires got away and became big, but generally, fire was greatly reduced in the forest.

Harold Weaver graduated in forestry from Oregon State University in 1928 and wove his way into the Department of Interior’s Indian Service, now the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).  The Indian Service had responsibility for technical advice for managing Reservation lands including considerable forest land.  The Indian Service, (BIA), did not have a fire policy eliminating all fire from the forests.  This allowed their foresters to really think about forest fire and all of its effects.  Harold Weaver did just that, he observed and thought about what he was seeing, then he took the extra step and wrote his findings and, in 1941, submitted his article to the technical forestry journal of the time  (today’s The Journal of Forestry).  Weaver’s article was titled “Fire as an Ecological and Silvicultural Factor in the Ponderosa Pine Region of the Pacific Slope.”  Weaver questioned that all forest fires should be put out as soon as possible and showed how fire could benefit a forest.  The Forest Service already had answered that question and opposed Weaver’s reopening the discussion.  But, somehow, through all the small “p” politics and review levels and opposition the article was published in the 1943 Journal.  It got people to thinking and about fire in a different way.  By the early 1950’s other respected forest scientists  began to support Weaver’s thoughts backed by peer reviewed research.  Weaver’s observations began to get traction. 

In the 1970’s forest scientists began speaking out that without small cool fires running around, the natural accumulation of needles, limbs and fallen trees was building on forest floors everywhere.  Also, stands of crowded, small, shade-tolerant trees with limbs all the way to the ground were everywhere growing under the bigger taller trees - ladder fuels!  Whole forests were becoming ripe for stand replacement fires, big bad ones. 

The last forty years, foresters have been dealing with this threat by using prescribed fire.  Prescribed fires are deliberately set to accomplish specific goals and objectives that can be achieved when the weather, fuels, and boundaries are right, that is, “in prescription.”  A written fire prescription states the objectives for a burn, it may be to reduce slash, to improve browse for wildlife, to kill some crowded small trees, to reduce fuels near buildings or communities, to make the site better for preferred species of trees.  Most prescriptions are designed to accomplish several of these desired results.  Prescribed fires are a proven good tool, they are widely used on public forests and timber company forests, but they need to be used on many more acres.  The problems are, prescribed fire is expensive, but then, so are mega fires, and there is always the chance that a prescribed fire will get away and do damage.  When that happens the “ain’t it awful” group and the lawyers have a great time at the expense of forest managers.

The “Fire Wise” program that encourages home owners in forested areas to reduce fuels around buildings is gaining acceptance, but it is usually a voluntary program.  It needs to be fully funded and required wherever buildings exist within forests.  That will require financing and cooperation between property owners, local governments, insurance companies and subdividers.  That will be very difficult.  Perhaps, in the long run, perspective homeowners will realize that charming forested house sites at the end of a dead end road are basically fuel and someday will burn, possibly trapping them in the burning house.  That discouraging realization may help reduce the problem of houses being fuel