Crisis on our National Forests: Reducing the Threat of Catastrophic Wildfire [San Bernardino Fires]

The Congressional Record ^ | August 25, 2003 | DR. THOMAS M. BONNICKSEN

[E.G.C.]

Oklahoma Agriculture Bump.

[kidd]

Great article. Thanks for the ping.

The Sierra Club's forest management policy has proven itself wrong time and time again, yet they continue to push it unapologetically.

They simply want man to butt out. By making forested areas a risky place to build a home, they hope to keep forests free of people.

[yoswif]

I can't understand why all this smoke spewing from burning trees isn't considered pollution. It's pollution when it comes from my stove. If the smoke were pollution, it seems like policies that would produce about as much smoke as these forests are capable of producing would be considered questionable policies. Anyone who's lost a loved one or their homes because individuals who profitted from the production of harmful smoke on federal land should be able to demand redress in federal courts. There should be a federal grand jury convened to investigate whether any bureaucrat, politician, or special interest groups profitted from managing federal lands to produce as much harmful smoke as they were capable of producing.

Most professional firefighters in large communities are paid salary plus benefits. Most large communities consider having top quality equipment for their professional firefighters a wise long term investment. Top professional firefighters work with insurance companies, building contractors, construction trades, equipment suppliers, and building inspectors in a continuous effort to ensure the property and people they're responsible for is safe from fire.

Federal forest land firefighters are paid by the hour and get hazard pay if some portion of the fire they're assigned to is listed as "out of control" by those in charge. Large fires on federal land are generally listed as "out of control" by fire managers until there's a monsoon or blizzard or nothing left to burn. Equipment provided for fighting fires on federal land is contracted by the hour at very high rates and their hours have escalated rapidly. I recently overheard a top federal firefighter tell two trainees "the first thing you do when you get on a fire is grab hold of the cash register; that means maximize the hazard pay and overtime". In order for bureaucrats managing federal lands to get the maximum grade on their performance reports, they have to spend all the money they're authorized to spend.

I very much support a classic liberal forest management plan that encourages private ownership by responsible parties with local government oversite that's easy for the local residents to understand and help enforce. I'd like to see some sort of homesteading scheme where qualified families would be authorized to manage large tracts of forest land like family farms. Homesteaders could have control of mechanized vehicle access and stock access in order to develope and profit from the developement of recreational opportunities on these tracts. That would leave those on foot reasonable access to these lands as long as they didn't take property or damage property.

Tracts would be divided along watersheds and sized for their capacity to generate a good family income from the sale of marketable wood fiber over multiple generations if well managed. Local governments could require some easily understood quality control scheme like requiring water flowing from family tracts in streams over a certain size maintain or improve levels of temperature, oxygen, and silt. Private ownership would allow use of temporary logging roads built for their ease of removal. Some portion of timber reciepts could pay for dramatic improvement in prime access routes to and through the private tracts and removal of permanent roads not needed by the new forest managers but still a threat to the quality of water flowing from the tract. Privite ownership would allow insuring against fire loss and require co-operation between insurers, forest managers, loggers, professional firefighters, and local governments in order to protect everyone from the production of needless smoke.

[wjcsux]

My mother has a summer home in Pinetop AZ. She is really concerned about this very problem. The forest is so dense in many areas that you cannot walk through it. The forest land south of the Pinetop/Showlow/Lakeside area is infested with pine beetles, and there is thousands of dead trees. Basically, this area is a tinderbox waiting for an ignition source.

[Carry_Okie]

I very much support a classic liberal forest management plan that encourages private ownership by responsible parties with local government oversite that's easy for the local residents to understand and help enforce.

It's been tried. It broke down, and for entirely understandable historical reasons. The power to enforce or regulate the use of resources is too much temptation for those who would use that power to manipulate resource value for profit.

After having studied this problem for over five years now, I have come to the conclusion that the problems we face in environmental management are strcutural. There are simply too many competing uses of forest land for the system you envision to properly account for the relative benefit of each constituent or the competing risks in a particular use. Although we agree that insurers, firefighters, and contractors should have their inputs, landowners must make the ultimate decisions among competing interests because someone has to be accountable for the producing resources of the land itself. It's time to start experiments with a new paradigm, one based in absolute respect for private property rights.

You may want to explore my website on the topic.

[blackie]

Fire ~ Bump!

[The KG9 Kid]

Bump; Read.

[wheelgunguru]

may the greenies read this in triplicate

The greenweenies aren't impressed, don't you know. They would prefer to lose 1000 acres of trees to fire rather than lose one tree to logging or preventative maintenance. Fire, to them, even if started by man, is more natural than a chainsaw.

It goes to their retarded earth-first religion.

That's why we must destroy the greenweenies' influence, not reason with them.

Same as for demonRats. Hound them out of existence.

[Fury]

You may want to explore my website on the topic.

YOU wrote Natural Process?

Sir, you have my respect and admiration. I've had a chance to read some of the book and was most impressed.

Just faxed you over an order for my copy.

Thank you for making this work available!

[Carry_Okie]

YOU wrote Natural Process?

Yes.

Sir, you have my respect and admiration. I've had a chance to read some of the book and was most impressed.

That means a lot to me. Thank you.

[halfdome]

What is the problem with the Sierra Club's conservation policies you posted? They say the forest benefits from recurring wildfires, and dangerous fuel accumulations should be reduced, and both human caused and naturally occuring fires should be allowed to burn unless they become threatening. I'm not sure what the problem is.

[Carry_Okie]

The problem with the policy is that the fuel accumulatons wildly exceed the historic stand densities. Please consult the following critique of the Sierra Club Policy, A Burning Desire, A Critique of the Sierra Club Public Lands Fire Management Policy (1999).

[yoswif]

"It's been tried. It broke down, ..."

My neighbors and myself resent having to accept low standards or no standards at all imposed on us by outsiders. We've had policies from outsiders shoved down our throat for 40 years and we're sick of it. We're tired of choking on smoke and breathing the stench of dead carcasses floating in our streams. Where does the federal government get the power and authority to say that the people of Idaho County, Idaho, through our local elected government, can't regulate potential sources of wood smoke in Idaho County (something not even discussed by federal regulators) or can't require that the levels of temperature, oxygen, and silt in our streams are maintained at higher standards than the federal government's. Nothing offends people living in rural areas more than being told they're to stupid to govern themselves better than the federal government is doing.

[Carry_Okie]

Nothing offends people living in rural areas more than being told they're to stupid to govern themselves better than the federal government is doing.

I live in a rural area ma'am. My family has been in California for five generations. I own a mixed forest for the purpose of research. I would argue that my local government is every bit as stupid, if not worse than the Federal resource agencies.

I agree with your complaint in principle, but with one proviso. Every regulatory mechanism, local or federal, acts upon the presumption that all we can do is to minimize the harm that people might do. They do not operate as if the landowner was improving anything.

No regulatory system encourages landowners to push the state of the art in their management technology. Only competitive free markets do that. Were private landowners marketing habitat attributes as a product, we'd see vast improvements in performance, quality, and efficiency. The key then is to have a means to validate measures of that performance and encourage research, development, and experimentation toward patented processes available for license.

[Steve Van Doorn]

Executive Order 12986: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

The purpose of this Executive Order, signed January 18, 1996, is to extend to the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources the privileges and immunities that provide or pertain to immunity from suit under the International Organizations Immunities Act.

I cannot find anything to show what this actually does. Could you point me in the right direction?

Thank you.

[Steve Van Doorn]

Are the Sierra Club Policy being used?

Just trying to understand this.

[Fury]

What is the problem with the Sierra Club's conservation policies you posted? They say the forest benefits from recurring wildfires, and dangerous fuel accumulations should be reduced, and both human caused and naturally occuring fires should be allowed to burn unless they become threatening. I'm not sure what the problem is.

I believe the Sierra Club makes a distinction between where these fires take place and fuel accumulation risks should be remidiated. From their web-site:

Fire is a natural part of the forest and has a role to play in any forest's lifecycle by clearing out brush and restoring nutrients to the soil. But years of overly aggressive fire suppression have left many of our National Forests cluttered with small, highly flammable brush. Overly aggressive fire suppression and extensive logging have created unnatural conditions that lead to huge, hard-to-control fires."

In doing some research on the 'Net (as I am no expert), there seems to be some disagreement on all the conditions that contribute to hard-to-control fires. Both the Sierra Club and the Forest Service mention aggressive fire supression. The Sierra Club mentions logging as an additional cause. The Forest Service also mentions "a lack of active forest and rangeland management". The Forest Service also mentions tree densities per acre that has increased in many forests.

The Sierra Club continues:

"The Sierra Club strongly supports prescribed burns as a way to restore fire's natural role to the forest. Sierra Club supports fuel reduction projects near homes and communities. For a decade the Sierra Club has been urging the Forest Service to do more prescribed burning, reduce flammable brush near communities and we've been asking Congress to devote more money to do the job right. The Forest Service should stop pushing for commercial logging and put more resources towards protecting lives and communities."

So, the Sierra Club supports controlled burns near homes and communities (what they call "Protect Communities First"). That leaves forested areas that don't meet that criteria in somewhat of an unmanaged state, concerning remidiation of areas with high fuel loads. I'm not sure when forested areas not near communities get protected. In fact, I am still looking on the Sierra Club to see where they outline a plan to reduce fire risks in areas that are not near local communities. I have yet to find it, so any help would be appreciated.

The Sierra Club does mention roadless rules. These appear to be very popular.

In doing some additional reading, it seems that scientific research is used as the basis to litigate many decisions made by the Forest Service in regards to fuel load reduction, logging of forests, etc. It's sometimes hard to argue when someone has scientific facts and data in a matter.

[Fury]

Will also mention that the testimony by Dr. Bonnicksen seems to present a very good case using science that contradicts some of the Sierra Clubs contentions...

[Baseballguy]

Someday I hope to see the redwood forests burn down. What I dont understand is where are the people in the trees. I would think this is a good time for people to protest the burning of the trees.

The other thing I question is what is a firehose connected to a limited water supply suppose to do to 45 miles of fire. I would reccomend napalm, or some bombs to suck the air away from the fires. How about that bomb they tested thats the size of a nuclear bomb to remove the fires we have now. If that is not what you want then try buldozers or tanks. Fly 747 full of water over the fire. Try putting out the fire the american way not the french.

Power is Right

[Carry_Okie]

I believe the Sierra Club makes a distinction between where these fires take place and fuel accumulation risks should be remidiated. From their web-site:

It's a cynical distinction.

Unprecedented stand densities have multiple contributing factors. Besides fire suppression, many of these forests were planted, with the expectation of a thinning operation that the Sierra Club worked to prevent. Another is that carbon dioxide reduces drought stress in seedlings, permitting larger numbers to survive.

The point isn't how the forests got to where they are, it is that we don't have a choice but to mechanically thin them now that they are at current stocking levels. To say that they can be thinned by fire is, in most cases, an ignorant or cynical fatasy. Take your pick.

In doing some research on the 'Net (as I am no expert), there seems to be some disagreement on all the conditions that contribute to hard-to-control fires. Both the Sierra Club and the Forest Service mention aggressive fire supression. The Sierra Club mentions logging as an additional cause. The Forest Service also mentions "a lack of active forest and rangeland management". The Forest Service also mentions tree densities per acre that has increased in many forests.

Well of course there is disagreement, but unfortunately, a lot of that is a consequence of who paid for the science. Many of these biologists are kids who've never fought a fire or thinned a forest which now includes a raft of new Forest Service bureaucrats ideologically conditioned against logging, especially the AFSEEE. The subjectivity of such work has become so bad that you would have to see a forest that got a thinning treatment and burned in otder to appreciate the difference it can make.

The importance of Dr. Bonnicksen's work, and you should buy his book even if it is $75, is that he has researched historic stand densities before man ever took an ax to these forests. The Sierra Club stands squarely opposed to even approaching these historic stand densities. You should go to the Quincy Library Group site and read some of the debate.

So, the Sierra Club supports controlled burns near homes and communities (what they call "Protect Communities First"). That leaves forested areas that don't meet that criteria in somewhat of an unmanaged state, concerning remidiation of areas with high fuel loads. I'm not sure when forested areas not near communities get protected. In fact, I am still looking on the Sierra Club to see where they outline a plan to reduce fire risks in areas that are not near local communities. I have yet to find it, so any help would be appreciated.

To support controlled burns near these communities with current fuel accumulations is to expect to burn them to an ash heap. The way the enviros go about holding up meetings in the field to decide if a fire that is getting out of hand needs control needs to be witnessed to be appreciated.

The Sierra Club does mention roadless rules. These appear to be very popular.

The roadless gambit came after this policy was published; the Sierra Club hasn't updated it since 1989. You can read more of my concerns about this policy here.