To Burn or Not to Burn

Two articles in today’s press invite further discussion of this burning topic.
Bob Zybach pointed out the first, which quotes retired forest managers taking the government to task for letting a Lassen-area fire burn. [I got an email inquiry today from a Lassen area lady asking "who is paying for the fire suppression currently UNDERWAY."]
The second is an AP story making the opposite point, taking the government to task for putting out too many remote fires.
Pile on, folks!
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Benedict’s Corner
Recommended Comment Considerations
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
- Dialogue in an Era of Divisiveness: ACR 2013 Conference
- Wisconsin wildfire started by logging operations destroys 17 homes
- Kissing the Past Gently Good-bye
- Buffalo Nightmare: 3 Days of Taxpayer-Funded Yellowstone Helicopter Hazing
- How Feminism Wrecked the US Forest Service
- US boom transforming global oil trade
- Colorado: Green Industries With Wood
- Court Upholds Forest Plan for Black Hills
- Lawsuit filed against Kootenai National Forest logging project
- Oregon Laws Proposed to Punish Logging Protesters
Contacts
Purpose
Disclaimer
Top Views
Archives
Science Policy Quote of the Month
"In the real world, many risks we face present neither the great certainties we would need to use cost-benefit analysis effectively nor the almost complete uncertainties that would justify radical precautionary approaches. Moreover, neither the precautionary principle nor cost-benefit analysis tell us anything about the role of democracy in making policy decisions.
I am currently working to develop new approaches rooted in deliberative democracy which might move beyond both strict cost-benefit and knee-jerk precaution toward processes that could achieve better public participation and greater political legitimacy on the major environmental threats to our future."
Jonathan Gilligan, Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences on his website here.
On Learning Through Blogging
Tags
Blogroll
Forest Service Miscellany
References
Science Policy
Species Diversity/Viability
The West
Post Categories
- 2012 Planning Rule
- 21st Century Problems
- Access
- Accountability
- adaptive management
- Advice for Administration
- Agency Efficiencies
- Alaska Issues
- All Lands
- Appeals and Objections
- Bark Beetles
- Best available science
- Biomass
- Blog -Workin' It
- Budget
- Building Trust
- Business of Land Management
- Certification
- climate change
- collaboration and public involvement
- Communication
- Community Forest Management
- conflict resolution
- Congress
- Cool Technologies
- CREATE
- District of the Week
- Diversity and species conservation
- Economics and Economic Recovery
- Ecosystem Services
- Energy
- Environmental Organizations
- ESA
- Fire and Fuels
- Forest Products
- Forest Service: Culture, History, Morale, Organization, Future
- Future (Imagining our Mutual)
- GE Trees
- Good Things
- Grasslands
- Grazing
- History
- Humans and the Environment
- Interior West
- Invasives
- Jobs
- Lands
- Landscape Scale
- Law Enforcement
- Law Review
- Litigation
- Meetings of Interest
- Monitoring
- National Reserve Conservation Assocation
- Natural Resources
- Naturalist Interest
- NEPA
- Objections
- Old Growth
- Partizanizing Issues
- People's Database
- Photos
- Place-Based Bills & Agreements
- Planning
- Planning Rule Development Process
- Politics
- Press
- Privatization
- Projects of Interest
- Proposed Rule
- Recreation
- Reform and Enhance Litigation and Appeals
- Renewable energy- wind and solar
- Research
- Responses to NOI
- Restoration
- Roadless
- Role of local and state governments
- Role of science
- Sacred Sites
- Science Process Redesign
- Science- The Business of
- special forest products
- State and Federal Forests
- Stewardship
- Sustainable Rural Economies
- timber
- Travel Management
- Tree diseases and insects
- Trust Managaement
- Uncategorized
- Water
- What Should Plans Do?
- Wilderness
- Wood
- workforce
Hi Andy: I’ve let my own preferences for active forest management and prescribed burning over let it burn wildfires be known in several discussions here, so no need to go over that ground again. What caught my eye is the statement: “Across the West, only one fire — deep in the Teton Wilderness in Wyoming — is being allowed to burn.”
Isn’t this statement ignoring the California wildfire also under discussion? Or is that excluded because it was on NPS ground, or because it is no longer being “allowed” to burn now that there is a belated effort to actively suppress it?
Also, I thought the comments regarding the worst fire in New Mexico’s history as having its “severity minimized” by previous let burn fires was pure arrogant nonsense. Wouldn’t a more logical analysis demonstrate that they “contributed” to the worst fire in state history, rather than moderated it? Maybe even a little cause-and-effect, given the timing of these events? Where do they get this stuff?
Further: “Rollins, who has studied the Gila’s fire ecology over the years, said one year of fire suppression won’t undo decades of active fire management. But the fire-management world is abuzz about what the reversal could mean for the future.” So now a history of “let it burn” wildfires is somehow transformed into a record of “active fire management” by a student of local fire ecology? Who pays this guy? Has anyone clued him in that he is now discussing the largest fire in state history? And where is this buzzing “fire-management world” located anyway? Will one of its citizens clue Rollins to the fact that the worst fire in state history has probably had a much (much) greater effect on “undoing decades of active fire management,” than a summer of after-the-fact suppression ever could.
The horse is out of the barn. Too late to close the door, and these types of feeble excuses and rationales are starting to wear thin with a population with no memory of so many wildfires of such large magnitude ever in their lifetimes. What an unnecessary waste. We can and should do better.