Public attitude towards wildland fire in the early 1900\u2019s\ndiffered greatly from current best practices. \nMost Forest Service chiefs in this era (the USFS was founded in 1905)\nbegan their careers as wildland firefighters and brought that viewpoint into\ntheir decision-making. One such USFS chief\nwas William B. Greeley, known for his policies of total fire suppression as\nquickly as possible. This attitude\nstemmed from a desire to conform to European forestry methods, a recent history\nof catastrophic fires, and a focus on the economic value of timber. Total suppression was viewed as an\nestablished and scientific forestry practice whereas light burning, or \u201cpiute\nforestry\u201d was seen as uninformed and destructive (Greeley, 2000). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Big Burn of 1910 and increasingly intense fires in the\nwest convinced the new forest service that lack of manpower for suppression was\nthe only thing inhibiting total wildfire prevention. This was reflected in legislation of the time\nincluding the Forest Fire Emergency Act of 1908, the 1911 Weeks Act, and the\nlater 10A.M. policy of 1935 (Donovan, G.H. and Brown, T.C., 2005). In addition, the forest service perceived\nwestern forests as only useful for their timber and the potential profits of\nits sale. Their goal was to produce as\nmuch usable timber as possible and to sustain that production for many\nyears. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Greeley argued that the use of light fire destroyed forest\nproductivity, damaged valuable timber, and converted forest cover to shrubland\n(Greeley, 2000). Based on the limited information\navailable at the time, this was a reasonable assumption. Examples of charred forests and shrubland\nwhere pines once grew were held up as proof that fire was evil. However, foresters now know that it is only\nthe intense fires (resulting from buildup of dead matter and excessive young\ntree growth) that cause lasting damage to a forest. Light burning is, in fact, necessary to\nprevent larger blazes and encourage seed germination. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
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 \u201clet-it-burn\u201d wildfires that escape do not help the image of fire as \u201cbad\u201d (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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
PBS. (2019, June 9). With the rise in wildland fires, prescribed burns may be a solution. PBS News Hour Weekend<\/em>. Arlington, Virginia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Donovan, G.H. and Brown, T.C. (2005). \u201cWildfire management in the US Forest Service: a brief history.<\/a>\u201dNatural Hazards Observer. 3 p.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Greeley, W. (2000). \u201cPaiute Forestry\u201d or the fallacy of light burning <\/a>. Fire Management Today, 60(4), 21. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Public attitude towards wildland fire in the early 1900\u2019s 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 … Continue reading History of Wildland Fire Policy<\/span>