FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

How Effective is Fire Suppression?

According to the US Forest Service and many others with a financial interest in logging and firefighting, prior to the settlement of the West, wildfires were more frequent than today. These frequent fires kept fuels low, and therefore, reduced fire severity of wildfires.

Since its inception, the Forest Service has had a policy of putting out nearly all blazes, and therefore, we now have a crisis of “too much fuel” and large “uncontrollable wildfires.”

So, the story goes, the occurrence of large wildfires in the past few decades are a direct result of this fire suppression policy.

The Forest Service justifies a lot of its logging programs to reduce fuels based on the presumption that “one hundred years” of “fire suppression” has radically altered the “historic variability” of western ecosystems.

There is, no doubt, a bit of truth to the contention that in some plant communities, a dearth of wildfires has contributed to changes in tree density, forest structure and species occurrence. But there are reasons to believe this argument does not apply to much of forest types in the West.

Fire Suppression for a Hundred Years?

First, the idea that fire suppression has been effective for 100 years can be questioned. In the early 1900s men on mules, armed with shovels, traveling through miles of wilderness lands of that era, barely made a significant different in acreage burned annually.

Only after WWII when helicopters, planes, smoke jumpers, combined with a greatly expanded logging road system provided rapid access to wildfires, did suppression begin to influence some forests.

Climate Effects Wildfires More Than Suppression

However, the fire suppression theory ignores the role of climate/weather in fire ignition and spread. If you don’t have the right weather conditions, you won’t get a large fire. All large blazes, pejoratively termed “catastrophe wildfires”, burning since 1988 have occurred during periods of extreme drought, low humidity, and most importantly high winds. Under such fire-weather conditions, even modern firefighting equipment and knowledge cannot slow wildfires.

Those favoring more logging of our forests tend to compare the past few decades with the preceding decades of the 1960 and 1970s. That comparison is invalid.

Between the late 1930s and late 1980s, the overall climate in the West was moister and cooler than at present. Moist, cool conditions reduce ignition, and any fires that start do not spread rapidly, and are easily controlled. So, to the degree that” fire suppression” had any effect, it has primarily influenced fires burning under less than ideal fire weather conditions. These tend to be small, easily controlled blazes.

If you were to compare the acreage burned during the past few decades with say the early 1900s where there were decades of drought, you would find that we have fewer acres burning today than at that time.

Why is this important?

Because all large high-severity fires are driven by climate/weather, not fuels.

Most Forest Communities Never Burned Frequently

Even more important, the idea of fire suppression is misapplied to the vast majority of forest types in the West. Most of the forest communities across the West naturally burn at long intervals of many decades to hundreds of years.

Plant communities that tend to naturally have long fire-free interval include forests dominated by lodgepole pine, spruce, various fir species, hemlock, aspen, juniper, larch, and most Douglas fir types.

Their natural growth pattern results in dense forest stands, with a lot of dead fall on the ground.

The natural fire pattern in such forests is mixed to high severity burns where a significant amount of the living trees is killed.

Therefore, it is totally inaccurate to suggest that fire suppression has contributed to denser, biomass laden forests and/or larger high severity blazes. Suggesting the occurrence of high severity wildfire is “unnatural” in such forests is ecologically flawed.

Ponderosa Pine the Exception?

In short, the only exception to this generalization of infrequent wildfire occurrence is ponderosa pine, a tree commonly found at lower, drier, elevations.

Yet even among ponderosa pine, there is growing evidence that in some areas, ponderosa stands experience decades of fire-free periods and occasionally burned at mixed to high severity. For instance, 80% of the ponderosa pine in Colorado’s Front Range historically experienced some degree of high severity stand killing wildfires.

In short, attempts to cut forest density, short-circuit natural events like wildfire, beetles, and disease, impoverishes forest ecosystem. And logging is not restoration, but forest degradation.

More articles by:

George Wuerthner has published 36 books including Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy. He serves on the board of the Western Watersheds Project.

September 24, 2018
Jonathan Cook
Hiding in Plain Sight: Why We Cannot See the System Destroying Us
Gary Leupp
All the Good News (Ignored by the Trump-Obsessed Media)
Robert Fisk
I Don’t See How a Palestinian State Can Ever Happen
Barry Brown
Pot as Political Speech
Lara Merling
Puerto Rico’s Colonial Legacy and Its Continuing Economic Troubles
Patrick Cockburn
Iraq’s Prime Ministers Come and Go, But the Stalemate Remains
William Blum
The New Iraq WMD: Russian Interference in US Elections
Julian Vigo
The UK’s Snoopers’ Charter Has Been Dealt a Serious Blow
Joseph Matten
Why Did Global Economic Performance Deteriorate in the 1970s?
Zhivko Illeieff
The Millennial Label: Distinguishing Facts from Fiction
Thomas Hon Wing Polin – Gerry Brown
Xinjiang : The New Great Game
Binoy Kampmark
Casting Kavanaugh: The Trump Supreme Court Drama
Max Wilbert
Blue Angels: the Naked Face of Empire
Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail