Month: April 2020

It is important to note that William Greeley, among other forest service cheifs of the time all fought fires in 1910. This really contextualizes why they were so adamant about aggressive fire suppression. The huge fires of 1910 were harrowing for many fire fighters and led to an unprecedented number of deaths from fire fighting, which justified many of the anti-fire sentiments at the time. This time period really prioritized natural resources, and protecting wood from fire was a primary goal of the fire suppression as well. I also found it interesting that Greeley was highly educated, and that the forefront of the forestry field took after many British standards of fire suppression. Greeley was integral to advancing the goal of prevention in forest fires. The Forest Service at the time did not promote light burning practices, and suppression was the primary philosophy.

Many fire policies following Greeley’s time as chief centered around funding methods to suppress fires. The CCC and other New Deal policies directly funded and provided the labor to complete arduous fire prevention. The prevention continued throughout the post World War 2 period due to the increase in infrastructure and technology, along with retired military vehicles to aid in fighting wildfires. Aggressive suppression continued until the Leopold Report of 1963 which identified fire has essential to forest ecology. This was important in paving the way for more modern ideas that we have today like prescribed fires and letting wildfires burn in a controlled manner to reduce fuel loads. Today, historical fire regimes are at odds with the built up fuel loads and mismanagement of the past century. By preventing fires we have primed ourselves for more megafires, which can completely destroy a forest rather than leaving behind old growth.

The major rationale changes have occurred due to shifting needs. The natural resource of the forest is no longer the number one priority, and we are better at taking in to account the health of the forest as a whole. Also there is better environmental science and forestry being done that isn’t biased through such an anthropocentric lens. The better methods of forest management were realized by more destructive fires and realizing the role fire played historically and how it has changed our forests for the worse.

I read the Ingalsbee article to inform my blog post this week. This article details extensively the barriers and reasons for many of the high costs in fire management. The forest service is routinely over budget and it isn’t because they don’t know how to fight fires or manage fires. The issues lie in perverse incentives and archaic policy that are fueled by stigma and blame.

The article really emphasizes the dangers of fire borrowing because of how much it weakens the role of the Forest Service in preventing other management programs. It also brings up the biggest issues in fire management for the future: climate change, WUI (at risk areas and housing development) areas, and fuel accumulation. It is interesting that they predict climate change to have the strongest effect on wildfire costs in the future, as so much of the focus seems to be on fuel loads. So much of the fire management issues are directly tied to systematic inefficiencies. The article goes very in depth on operational and institutional based costs. Ingalsbee predicts that operational costs are likely the easiest to decrease without systemic change. This includes very specific targeting methods towards most at-risk WUI areas, and imposing more let burn policies in wildlands. One issue brought up as a barrier are the lacking incentives for fire managers to be able to make these decisions. So often they are blamed and held accountable for making the best decision for forest health using the best scientific information available.

Perhaps the most interesting thing I learned from this article was the incredible privatization among firefighting. It seems like this would decrease collaboration as a result of having more complex lines of communication and a more diverse set of managers. The article claims that about half of all firefighting is done by private companies. They cost more to employ, and often do a worse job and are part of a system of over-aggressive fire fighting tactics. The privatization of federal workers is supposed to decrease costs by increasing competition, but this isn’t happening largely due to an ideology focused on profit off of improper ecological management. This article is very critical of private fire fighting companies, and even suggests a federal workforce, which very much reminds me of FDR’s CCC. This article has a lot of potential solutions to rising fire management costs. Fire ecology amazes me because in know other field I have studied have I seen such obvious management solutions but such an amazing contradictory sociological understanding and stigma.