The topic of wildfire management and wildfire suppression is one that has been heavily debated over the years and provides many possible approaches. One approach that has had some controversy between different officials has been the prescribed burn approach. Prescribed burning is a practice that creates small, controlled fires within a forested area to help alleviate the possibility of more destructive fires in the future. By doing so, it diminishes the amount of fuels present within the forest which is what creates the larger and more destructive fires. Though not used regularly in all forested environments, it is a growing practice that has seen positive results in areas where it has been used.
An opposing view that has been presented by author William Greenley advocates to stop prescribed burns. He claims that this use though deemed “controlled” still creates fires that cause damage to the area, and that the reasoning of past local tribes using small burns is not a good enough reason to do so. Greenley pleads that the best approach is fire suppression and more fire management. He believes that by using our firefighting resources to help prevent fire is a more effective use of time and resources to help protect not only our forested areas but also the communities living near them (Greenley, 2000).
A more progressive approach, as proven by more research and ecological study of fire on forested land, shows that providing periodic prescribed burns can be a more proactive and effective tactic. Authors Donovan and Brown in their paper titled “Wildfire management in the US Forest Service: A brief history” outlines the Forest Service’s evolved approach to fire management over the years until they finally came to the conclusion of a balance of light burns and fire suppression. After countless policy changes attempting to find the best way to manage fire, prescribed burning is more readily accepted and used, proving to be very effective (Donovan and Brown, 2005).
Overall, the views and practice of fire management has evolved over the years and across many federal agencies but the goal has always remained the same. Though some groups and individuals still may take the view that was presented by Greenley where light burning is the wrong approach, many are turning towards a more sustainable direction with light burns and fuel management. As we wait for more advancements and research to come out, this is seen to be the most effective approach to date.
Greenley, W. (2000). ‘”Paiute Forestry” or the fallacy of light burning”. Fire Management Today. 60; 4. Retrieved from: https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.proxy.library.oregonstate.edu/docview/232961923?rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo.
Donovan, G.H. and Brown, T.C. (2005). “Wildfire management in the US Forest Service: A brief history”. Natural Hazards Observer. Retrieved from: https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/pnw_2005_donovan003.pdf.
