Home › Opinion › Speak Your Piece
Status quo will only bring bigger forest fires
STORY TOOLS
- E-mail story
- Comments
- iPod friendly
- Printer friendly
- News alerts
- Subscribe to the paper
- Submit a news tip
More Speak Your Piece
- Who are the aggressors in Prop. 8 battle?
- Can Forest Service get back on track?
- OHV riders cause real, long-lasting damage
SHARE THIS STORY [?]
Fire season is on the wane and now is the time to discuss fire issues. This is the third summer in a row where the citizens of Shasta County have been forced to endure long periods of hazardous air quality caused by ongoing forest fires. Wildfires are to be expected, but everything should be done to minimize the impact of those fires.
A large portion of the smoke that has burned our airways and caused our eyes to water has been generated from fires burning on U.S. Forest Service land. Tons of greenhouse gases were emitted. The USFS has demonstrated that it either cannot or will not put those fires out as quickly as possible.
The reasons are many; the USFS is a land management agency, not a fire department. Much of the land is in designated wilderness areas. Wilderness areas are huge, often roadless areas that can be enjoyed by only a small percentage of the population, those who backpack or horseback into the area.
Since machine use is prohibited in wilderness areas, special fire control tactics must be used. These tactics vary from forest to forest. On one nearby forest, fires that are lightning caused are allowed to bum while man-caused fires are extinguished. Another boldly says it has a "total suppression" policy. What they all have is a modified suppression policy that calls for a "light hand on the land." These policies do not work in California, where homes and private holdings co-exist with the federal lands. It's akin to sending your firefighters into the fray with one hand tied behind their backs.
In those designated wilderness areas, fires are allowed or encouraged by burnouts to burn to natural boundaries such as creeks or rock outcroppings. The construction of fire line is discouraged or minimized, often resulting in large, long-lasting fires. These fires cost millions of dollars, endanger nearby properties and communities, and cause widespread smoke pollution.
Early in California history, uncontained fire was recognized as a public nuisance and laws were passed to prevent a person from allowing a fire to exist on his land or spread to the lands of a neighbor, yet the USFS flouts these laws with regularity.
The USFS can be compared to a bad neighbor who doesn't clean up his property. When the property catches fire, he doesn't put it out; he uses it as a measure to clean up his land. While he's doing that, his neighbors are exposed to choking smoke, health hazards and the risk of escaped fire onto private property. To make it even worse, he then expects the neighbors to pay for the cost of the fire.
The costs in recent years have been staggering. The Iron Complex, which threatened Junction City this summer, cost $74 million dollars. The Lime Complex, which threatened Hayfork and Hyampom, cost $60 million. Fourteen lives have been lost on these fires.
When these fires occur there is little or no follow-up fuel reduction, resulting in a more flammable forest condition, one that is fuel loaded with snags and dead and down material that will only make the next fire worse.
Do we want a huge unmanageable fire hazard that is used by a select few or do we want an accessible well-managed forest that can be used by many? Logging has been used as a forest management tool for timber stand improvement as well as for fuel reduction. Re-introduction of logging on federal lands would create jobs and stimulate the economy.
The keeping of status quo on our national forest lands will only result in bigger, longer-lasting fires. The USFS has no incentive to reduce fire size. Big fires equal big budgets.
It is time for the citizens of California to demand the federal government to act in a responsible manner, clean up its lands and put out its fires in a timely fashion.
Royal Burnett lives in Redding.
Posted by secondclass on September 21, 2008 at 7:05 a.m.
Beautifully written piece.
Opponents of logging have overused the following tactic: Start out with saying selective logging, and thinning the forest to the density desired by ecologists is good. Midway through the piece switch to "clearcutting." Any logging is clearcutting. Salvage logging or forest thinning is just a cover for "clearcutting." By the end of the piece, we are left with no logging or thinning and fire suppression confined to the "urban wildland interface."
Watch the coming litigation from attempts to salvage log after this year's fires.
Posted by red on September 21, 2008 at 7:23 a.m.
For those that don't know, Royal is retired from CDF (he retired before it starting calling itself CalFire). He's held a grudge against the USFS for years. These opinions are the same he expressed in 2006 on these pages. His article above is nothing but a slam to the USFS. He makes no mention to all the smoke Shasta County suffered from the Moon or Motion fires which were managed by CalFire; nor the terrible environmental damages CalFire inflicted on the landscape with it's chaotic use of bulldozers, scars to the land that will still exist even when all the trees and brush grow back. He also doesn't mention about all the acres CalFire let burn in it's tactics such as letting it burn into Whiskeytown NP. Yes, it was their tactic to let it burn into Whiskeytown and then strong armed the NPS in the use of dozers in your park. It's time for the citizens of California to demand that CalFire act environmentally responsible in it's fire suppression tactics.
Posted by Zebrareader on September 21, 2008 at 12:42 p.m.
He does have a point. Now is the time to think about fire suppression now that the cooler temperatures seem to be here (hopefully). I don't think many of us enjoyed the smoke choked air nor have the families of those lost in the fire fighting enjoyed losing their loved ones. There must be a plan that will reduce this and we should start thinking about it now.
Posted by BobZybach on September 22, 2008 at 10:16 a.m.
in response to red
red:
What is the point in spreading conjectural gossip about Royal? The points he makes are accurate and well-written. What difference does it make if you think he has a "grudge" against the USFS? Are you a USFS employee? It sounds like you're the one with a grudge -- but against CalFire. Or are you just jealous of their success?
The wake of foul, stinky air, dead trees, killed wildlife, polluted streams, and busted budgets that has been left behind USFS wildfire mismanagement the past 20 years is appalling. The evidence is everywhere throughout the West.
Royal Burnett clearly describes this waste and the dangerous, ugly evidence that is the proof of his observations. He offers good advice for fixing this mess before it becomes worse. If he truly has a grudge, then there seems to be good cause for his feelings.
The methods of managing wildfires and preventing their recurrence have been well-known for decades: salvage logging and thinning to remove fuels, road-building to improve access, and rapid deployment to quell flames. These actions also produce tax revenues and legitimate rural employment, as well as make our woods safer and more beautiful for wildlife and human visitors.
How the "environmental" movement has come to convince the American public that active management is bad, and that predictable catastrophic wildfires are good is a mystery with suspect motives. Certainly, there are a lot of happy urban lawyers out there as one result. And a lot of dead animals and polluted air as another.
Posted by 2008marsh on September 23, 2008 at 1:46 a.m.
Royal's piece is well stated and reflects what is being experienced on the land. Huge boxes are being drawn around the lightning strike fires and then extensive backburning is being done to "control" the fire spread. The backburns are often larger than the original fires leading one to suspect that they are being used to manage over-grown forests.
Problem is that some of the fires leave huge areas of dead and dying trees. This will invite bug kill and provide ready fuel for the next lightning strike.
This summer, smoke reached hazardous levels in Trinity and Siskiyou Counties. This has happened for several summers. In the Klamath River area, there are pre-schoolers who have never experienced a summer without smoke. This certainly invites asthma and other respiratory conditions that may stay with them throughout their lives.
If you compare CalFire fire supression tactics and results with that of USFS, you will easily see that CalFire gets the job done quickly, while the Forest Service drags on for months and months until the fires are so extensive they can only be extinguished by fall rains.
Posted by Buzz_Fledderjohn on September 29, 2008 at 8:07 a.m.
Thanks for letting us witness the pissing match, Royal and Red.
Good to know that there's bad blood between the USFS and CALFIRE.
(Requires free registration.)
We're happy to offer a home for your discussions, but please be respectful and follow the house rules:
Stay on topic - Life's too short to waste.
Be nice - If you want your comment gems to survive, you won't defame, threaten or be abusive to other readers or the subjects of our stories. Victims have feelings too. Out of concern for them, we may not allow comments on certain stories.
Keep it clean - This is a public forum, open to civil adults and children who do not appreciate your vulgarities or obscenities.
You are deputized - Police these comment threads. If you see a comment that violates the rules, click "Suggest removal" to flag that comment for review by our staff.
There are consequences - Rule violators may be banned from commenting.
Click here for our full user agreement.
If you wish to participate in off topic discussions, please go to the Redding.com Forums.