In 1920, former Forest Service Chief William B. Greeley wrote an article titled,”‘Paiute Forestry’ or the Fallacy of Light Burning.” In his article, he argues against the practice of controlled burning as a solution for many issues, from fire management to timber production.
Greeley starts by talking about how fire exclusion in US forests has been hugely successful, and the few large fires that have happened were not preventable. He uses the state of European forests as an example, saying that our forests are currently on par with theirs. He describes light burning as harmful, misguided, and outdated. He describes light burning as frequent burning (every 3 or 4 years) of understory litter without harming young trees. He describes type conversion of pine forests into shrublands, and extolls the efficiency of continuous monitoring of forests for rapid fire suppression. He accuses advocates of light burning of seeking deforestation through light burning for personal gain before dismissing it entirely in favor of the current forest protection plan.
It wouldn’t be fair to dismiss Greeley as a crack-pot relic who never knew anything about forestry. He was well-educated and experienced, graduated from Yale Forest School before rising to the rank of Chief of the Forest Service (Forest History Society). What we read in his 1920 article, then, is more complicated than a tirade.
First, let’s clear up an issue with his definition. Our current mean fire return interval (MFRI) for dry/mixed conifer forests is 5-50 years (Steel 2015). That return interval would allow understory fuels to accumulate to acceptable levels where a reburn wouldn’t further damage trees or cause a large conflagration.
Later, Greeley repeatedly compares what he calls “timber mining” with forest protection. So much of forest management has to do with the objectives of the manager. Here we see Greeley in a better light. He truly wishes to protect the forests in his charge from harvesting with total disregard for the future of the forest, which likely accounts for his passion in writing this. To the best of his knowledge, light burning is thinly veiled timber mining. Now we know that light burning, or “prescribed burns” as we call them, are beneficial in numerous ways. Greeley emphasizes the importance of young trees and new growth, but we now know the danger of stands dominated by pole-sized trees. He was worried about fires getting out of hand and destroying forestland (which does happen), but his mistake was settling into acceptance of the inevitability of conflagrations like the fires of 1910 and failing to see that the forests of the golden age of logging in the west were a result of “Paiute forestry.”
We’re still seeing the results of fire exclusion, and we likely will for decades. Ironically, the very thing that he feared is happening as a result of the strategy he advocated. Forests are being wiped out by large fires and some are being converted into shrubland and grassland.
2 replies on “Week 1 Post: Fire Policies Compared”
I appreciate the fact that you identified the time frame of light burning methods as described by Greeley, as well the MFRI for conifer forests, since that was an ecosystem of concern to Greeley. Also, the fact that you linked your references to the blog is especially helpful. The Steel paper was a great choice for demonstrating present and pre-settlement fire frequency. Something interesting I noted was that Figure 1 in the Steel paper indicates that oak woodlands have the limiting factor of fuel quantity. I live in the Southeast and live in oak forests, and although we also have way less fire as compared to pre-settlement conditions, I don’t think fuel bed is an issue. We have quite the accumulation of oak leaf litter, especially since it decomposes slowly. Regional climate is a big factor, so I would assume precipitation is a greater factor in the Southeast, which might explain why prescribed burns have been used around here pretty commonly compared to other locations in the country.
Great blog post.
I think that you are right about not dismissing Greeley’s ideas as crazy. I don’t think that he was trying to promote any nefarious ideas about forest management, instead he was just using the information available to him at the time to try and protect the forests of the West. He really had the best interests of the forests in mind when promoting the idea of fire suppression, he just overlooked how it would affect the future of the forests.