Public attitude towards wildland fire in the early 1900’s differed greatly from current best practices. Most Forest Service chiefs in this era (the USFS was founded in 1905) began their careers as wildland firefighters and brought that viewpoint into their decision-making. One such USFS chief was William B. Greeley, known for his policies of total fire suppression as quickly as possible. This attitude stemmed from a desire to conform to European forestry methods, a recent history of catastrophic fires, and a focus on the economic value of timber. Total suppression was viewed as an established and scientific forestry practice whereas light burning, or “piute forestry” was seen as uninformed and destructive (Greeley, 2000).
The Big Burn of 1910 and increasingly intense fires in the west convinced the new forest service that lack of manpower for suppression was the only thing inhibiting total wildfire prevention. This was reflected in legislation of the time including the Forest Fire Emergency Act of 1908, the 1911 Weeks Act, and the later 10A.M. policy of 1935 (Donovan, G.H. and Brown, T.C., 2005). In addition, the forest service perceived western forests as only useful for their timber and the potential profits of its sale. Their goal was to produce as much usable timber as possible and to sustain that production for many years.
Greeley argued that the use of light fire destroyed forest productivity, damaged valuable timber, and converted forest cover to shrubland (Greeley, 2000). Based on the limited information available at the time, this was a reasonable assumption. Examples of charred forests and shrubland where pines once grew were held up as proof that fire was evil. However, foresters now know that it is only the intense fires (resulting from buildup of dead matter and excessive young tree growth) that cause lasting damage to a forest. Light burning is, in fact, necessary to prevent larger blazes and encourage seed germination.
The concept of light burning was first officially presented in the Leopold Report of 1963, though it had long been practiced by Native Americans and in the southeastern United States. The report found that removal of fire from the landscape was problematic. It also suggested that controlled burning combined with more lenient fire suppression could ultimately reduce wildfire destruction. The National Park Service was the first agency to experiment with prescribed natural fire, and this practice has continued to be used in modern times. Prescribed fire remains a touchy subject for many and it is still difficult to gain support for it in the west. Occasional prescribed burns or “let-it-burn” wildfires that escape do not help the image of fire as “bad” (PBS, 2019). Increased public education and the combination of prescribed fire with other fuels reduction efforts may allow our forests to return to their original healthy, fire-resistant state.
PBS. (2019, June 9). With the rise in wildland fires, prescribed burns may be a solution. PBS News Hour Weekend. Arlington, Virginia.
Donovan, G.H. and Brown, T.C. (2005). “Wildfire management in the US Forest Service: a brief history.”Natural Hazards Observer. 3 p.
Greeley, W. (2000). “Paiute Forestry” or the fallacy of light burning . Fire Management Today, 60(4), 21.
