Views on the role of wildfire in forest ecosystems and policies crafted by those views have made drastic shifts across time in the United States. Before the colonization of the West, Native Americans used low-intensity fire to manage forests. In the 19th century, the federal government began to manage wildfire suppression on public land, with the primary motivations being to secure timber production and protect watersheds.
William B. Greeley served as the Forest Service Chief from 1920 to 1928 and was a fierce critic within the agency of what he problematically called “Paiute Forestry”, or managed fire.
Chief Greeley’s Fire Policy
“light burning, in actual practice, is simply the old ground fire which has been the scourge of the western pineries, under a new name”
Greely stated that America can have “real forests” if all partners and interests support a program of fire protection and more united effort by all agencies, public and private. He encouraged state legislation which required the disposal of slash on logged land. In addition, he sought to enlist private landowners in organized fire protection by promoting legislation to give the Forest Service more resources for cooperating with local agencies in fire protection and suppression.
Greely often cited European forestry as a rationale or motivating factor to back up his views. He stated that fire protection in Southern Europe should be an example for Western forestry to follow, where there is an organized system of detection and suppression with the end goal being to bring forth “improvements and intensive use” of forests. He believed that these fire protection policies could reduce destructive wildfires to a “negligible average or aggregate loss”.
Contemporary thinking of the role of wildfires in ecosystems
The Forest Service and public opinion on public land management began to experience a shift from suppression policies in the 1960s. Legislation such as the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (1960), the Wilderness Act (1964), and the National Environmental Policy Act (1970) more than likely began to shift conversations toward the ecological services provided by forests in addition to economic productivity and board feet.
Perhaps most markedly, these policies and expenditures supporting suppression were not resulting in less wildfire damage and offering a return on investment. The above shifts combined with increasing knowledge, interest, and research into the role of disturbance in ecosystems led to the 1972 Wilderness Prescribed Natural Fire Program which allowed some wildfires to burn in wilderness areas.
Another federal agency, the National Parks Service, officially recognized the “natural role of fire” in 1968.
These policies no doubt fueled more interest and support in scientific research on the role of fire disturbance for forest ecosystem health, and with that science came more policies that recognized the natural role of fire (and the necessity for prescribed fire) in forests, such as the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy of 1995.
Even though there have been huge shifts and innovations in forestry since Chief Greeley’s time, the motivations between economic productivity and multiple use policies on public land and forests have continued to make policies about wildfire management nuanced and difficult. Even so, there are significant state policies developed to support fire management plans that allow the use of fire in certain conditions and with collaboration from the public.
