When William B. Greeley took over as the United States Forest Service Chief, he had been primed by the original Forest Service Chiefs, his teachings at the Yale Forest School, and his own experiences to despise fire use of any kind on U.S. forests. In an article written by Greeley, titled “ ‘PAITE FORESTRY’ OR THE FALLACY OF LIGHT BURNING”, he believed that any fire on specifically pine-dominated forests would lead to the “gradual wiping out” of the mature forests and young tree growth altogether.
The arguments within his article derogatorily labeled those who would reintroduce light burning into the forests as “Forest Burners” and “Light Burners”. He described multiple times that the “light burner does not want young growth” and that it is “preposterous to assert that young trees can survive this process (of frequent, low severity fire)”. All of these comments compared to a contemporary attitude towards “light burning” or prescribed fire (as it is known today) might seem archaic or lacking in knowledge but there are sincere reasons behind this attitude towards fire.
Before becoming Chief Greeley, he had the mentorship and approval of both the previous chiefs of the Forest Service (Gifford Pinchot and Henry Graves) but the most significant motivator for his despise of fire was most likely due to being a veteran of the 1910 fire season. During this catastrophic fire season, more than 5 million acres burned in the United States. That fire season set the tone for the actions of the Forest Service as a whole to embrace the idea that fire was public enemy number one and the job of the Forest Service was to eradicate the enemy. Greeley’s message might not come across today as the rational choice but there was a fear associated with wildfire that drove that message.
Towards the end of the 20th century and leading on to today, there is a general consensus in the forestry field professionals and among the multiple federal, forestry-related agencies that prescribed fire is needed in ecosystems that stay healthy from frequent fire regimes. This idea of fire being “good” and the adoption of prescribed burns started with the National Park Service’s Wildfire Use Program in 1968 (4 years before the USFS’ similar Wilderness Prescribed Natural Fire Program was implemented). Eventually the idea of wildland use and prescribed fires has gained more science-backed momentum in the industry to actually help combat the catastrophic fires that are the result of nearly a century of fire suppression.
References
- Donovan, G.H. and Brown, T.C. (2005). “Wildfire management in the US Forest Service: a brief history.”Natural Hazards Observer. July (2005). 3 p.
- Forest Service. (No Date). Prescribed Fire. Retrieved from https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/prescribed-fire.
- Greeley, W. (2000). “Paiute Forestry” or the fallacy of light burning. Fire Management Today, 60(4), 21.
3 replies on “Attitudes Towards Fire During The 20th Century”
Hi Sven! I think there is still fear associated with the wildfires today. I also think there will always be people that will view fire as the enemy as it’s what many have grown up believing. However, the science coming out all the time now is promising that our forests may return to their appropriate fire regime or at least one that can support healthy forests today.
Hi Sven. Great summary on US fire policy over the last decade. I think you did a great job summarizing the ideas of Greeley. I especially like how you mentioned how Greeley came to these ideas. This is an important thing to know because he was justified, for the time, in thinking this way. The devastating fires of the earlier years inspired him to lead a no tolerance policy on fire. As we have learned in more recent years, it is actually more beneficial for the forest ecosystem to have occasional fires. I think that the coming years will be an interesting time for forest managers as there have been increasingly frequent and more destructive fires in recent years. The USFS, forest managers, and anyone else dealing with forests will have a difficult task to not only protect forests from unnecessary fires but also humans from any destruction these fires may cause.
Very informative and descriptive post. It is interesting to look back at history and imagine the mindset that the individuals that developed our policies had. There seemed to be a sense of selfishness in the use and exploitation of the natural resources, with disregard to sustainability and ecosystem function; fire was viewed as a destructive property that devoured everything in its path and wrecked havoc on financial gain for investors and timber companies.
The progression of policies that instigated the war on fire also portrayed this sense of selfishness, with the 10 AM policy requiring the full suppression of all ignitions by 10 AM the day following ignition. This aggressive mentality ensued for decades, until the environmental movement began in the early 1960’s. The policy received its first revision in 1971, and then was fully abolished in 1978. During this same era, wildfire use began to become a management tactic and expanded to more than just wilderness areas when the 10 AM policy was abolished.
Informative post, great work.