Fire: the Good and the Bad By Del Albright

For those of you following the new USFS policy on the "safe and prudent use of wildland fire".....let me follow up with a little clarification. First off, fire is (can be) good for the environment; especially if based on science. As a person who is in charge of a major prescribed burning program in Calif, I can attest to the need to use fire where appropriate; and under the right conditions.

Most wildlife biologists (at least in the west) love to see small, controlled fires burning in areas of potential wildlife habitat -- especially where a mosaic type burn can occur that leaves *gaps* in the burn of unburned fuel. These gaps provide the cover for wildlife who can still enjoy the benefits of the burn (new growth, nutrient release, etc.).

Most, if not all fire managers, will tell you that controlled or prescribed fire is a great tool for fire prevention. With fire, we can eliminate large buildups of forest fuels (large limbs on the ground), without burning down all the standing trees. It takes some science to do this, though. But when done properly, it gives us a place where the fuel types change enough to allow fire suppression tactics to stop a major fire, for example. So what does this mean in light of the new USFS policy that says they will start letting more wildfires burn; and even using more controlled burning to bring the forest back to what some think would be a more natural state? It means several things. First, in my opinion, it WOULD be a good thing if it were driven by science. It is not. This major policy change is being driven by politics and budgetary deficiencies.

*Politics* comes from the President all that way down (and thru the USFS staff). It is environmentally driven (by that I mean folks who would rather not have us out there using the public land). It is related to, in my opinion, the current talk of moving the USFS from the Dept. of Agriculture to the Dept of Interior (Babbitt). Now if you know anything about fire, you probably have already guessed that what has happened in Yosemite and Yellowstone in the last several years has been a major disaster (and faux pas) in the minds of most fire managers, wildlife biologists, and scientists. The Park Service mentality of *let it burn* needs serious reconsideration in my mind. It would OK to let little fires burn the undergrowth or clean up the ground accumulation of fuels; but to let a crowning conflagration rip thru trees that are older than dirt is a crying shame. Then on top of that, the money we spent on protecting structures in and around these two parks would blow your mind......unnecessarily spent tax payers money. I know. I had people at both of these disasters. I saw some of the bills and payments. ouch.

In this area of politics, we can't over look the fact that another mandate facing the USFS is the one about closing 6000 miles of roads per year until the year 2000 (or some such quota). Actually, whether this is politically driven or budgetarily driven, the danger is the same. It would be easy to see how a current revision of a forest plan could start tying these road closures and burns into one package.

Second, it's budgetary. The feds are being cut back. Fact. They are hurting. And whether this is a real budget crunch, or an imposed one (by the Clinton administration), it is still there. A budget crunch is one good way to make a major shift in priorities and policy. Timing is perfect. Less money, fewer people; change priorities. It happens all the time. So one could draw the conclusion that because the USFS isn't playing the game exactly like the Clinton's and Babbitt's of the world like, they get their budget cut so they have to establish new priorities.....while at the same time receiving new direction from other Clinton appointees who think, act, talk, and look like a Babbitt.

As the USFS budget dwindles, they will have less ability to fight fire. So naturally, more fires are going to get bigger. They might as well do it on purpose and call it controlled burning (or the safe and prudent use of wildfire).........at least the public this way won't be at their throat as bad.

I believe we should support well thought-out controlled burning programs (and yes, the temporary road closures that may come with them). But if we're not there in the planning process, the gates will outnumber us before too long.

So anyway, this sounds like a soap box, and maybe it is.....but we (the motorized recreationists and taxpayers) are going to get ripped if we don't tune in and be a player. The Babbitt's of the world (and the money behind them) want to see a different world than we do. It's not that we don't want wilderness or beautiful scenery; it's just that they want everything locked up, with no compromise. That is why I entered the fight. I refuse to let a vocal, well funded minority rule the landscape. They need us for competition in the halls of congress. We've got to be there; and every little letter helps!

Respectfully yours in service to the cause, DEL

Created 06/08/99. Last Modified: