In Greeley’s article, he talks about surface burning and its impacts on forest production. Specifically, he mentions the impacts on young growth in the forests and how frequent fires will inhibit growth. He recognizes that the use of fire on slash piles limits fuel accumulation and reduces larger fire risk in mature forests, but ultimately decides says that surface fires cannot reasonably be used in productive forests with young trees.
This is an older idea that we are moving away from in modern fire management methods. In PBS news video they bring this up with the idea of using prescribed burning and how it was once a commonly used tool by indigenous communities. They bring up how modern systems in the southeast started using these methods after the recognition of its impact on the ecosystem and discuss how it has improved game habitat and timber production.
Similarly, Hessburg talks about the impacts of fire suppression and how it has altered the structure and composition of our forests. He brings up the point about too many trees for the land to support and how this is a result of the efforts, like Greeley’s, to remove fire from forests as a means to protect them.
Looking at these three viewpoints it is easy to see where they may be coming from. For Greeley, he had dealt with many fires from man made sources like railroads and had seen large fire like the Big Blowup. The Forest Service was still young and trying to protect the public’s forests, so it made sense that Greeley wanted to see the removal of what he saw as a destructive force.
Both speakers on the other hand, have been witness to the current climate changes and shifts to higher severity fires due to large fuels loads on landscapes. They have seen these impacts along with the public, and opinion has started to shift with new research into how fire serves as a ecosystem process. Further change has come from the Forest Service with this recognition of fire deprivation from frequent fire dependent systems, as seen in the Observer article. They mention the use of “light burning” of forests. This was something that had been supported by Pinchot in his day, but only really gained traction in the southeast until recent times.
Given the motives and information before these individuals, it is understandable how they might have come to the different policy and management methods. Greeley still recognized the potential of light burning but could not see it use in forests with the risk it posed to forests and people. That is still a sentiment felt today, but the winds are shifting as the science does.
One reply on “Week 1: Chief Greeley in 1920 and fire policy”
I liked how you focused more on their views regarding fires as fuel management. I looked at their top-down philosophy towards fire and missed out on some of the depth it seemed like you nailed. I would be curious to find out where people like Greeley formed their opinions from. For example, he recognizes they can remove fuels, but doesn’t think they allow growth – why? Where has Greeley gotten the idea that no fire interval allows growth and debris removal? This is somewhat true but Greeley didn’t have any proactive ideas in this area (at least in the reading he didn’t). This might be an effect of the readings but it felt like Greeley wanted to have his cake and eat it too. I’m unclear what projected budget sheet Greeley was working from to think suppression would work forever.