Federal Fire Policy Has Failed

By Jonathan Oppenheimer (July 3, 2002)

As the political heat over wildfires reaches an all-time high, it's time to step back and take a hard look at the problem. After decades of aggressive fire suppression, fires are burning more intensely, are harder to control and have burned down hundreds of homes so far this summer.

Instead of using the fires for political gain, as politicians are inclined to do, we need to find common sense solutions to reduce fire risks, especially around homes and communities.

This is no small effort with the rapid expansion of homes in fire-adapted ecosystems of the West. It has been estimated that 40% of all new home construction in the West is occurring in the "Red Zone", where communities meet the forest.

The Forest Service has also estimated that some 42 million acres of private, state, and commercial land face a high risk of fire, that's even more than the number of acres of federal land in the same category. This is a vitally important point that is often overlooked by the media and the public.

As the fires in Arizona and Colorado demonstrate, the main problem that we have is the potential loss of homes. Therefore, the solution must focus on communities, not remote wildlands.

Contrary to recent criticism, environmental groups have not utilized litigation to block fuels reduction projects. In fact, the General Accounting Office investigated all Forest Service fuels reduction projects and found that none had been litigated and only 1% had been appealed.

Instead, many environmental groups have supported prescribed burning and the removal of brush in and around communities. What environmentalists oppose is the co-opting of fuels reduction projects to increase industrial logging in our public forests.

Logging removes the largest trees and leaves the smallest ones. Fuels reduction removes the smallest trees and leaves the largest ones. This distinction is key, and the blurring of the lines will lead to more acrimonious debate, and will result in diminished accomplishments.

Peer-reviewed research is beginning to indicate that clearing brush and cutting small trees is effective in the area directly around homes. The area within 100 feet is of critical importance, yet usually it isn't federal land. Consequently, homeowners and municipalities should be leading the charge to reduce fuels in and around communities. Therefore, it is incumbent on policymakers and local leaders to encourage fire-safe land management planning.

Fire researchers tell us that replacing wood-shingled roofs, wooden decks and clearing pine needles from gutters is exponentially more effective than thinning public forests miles away from the nearest home.

Instead of wasting National Fire Plan funds on unproven thinning projects in controversial areas, the Forest Service and other land management agencies would be better served by spending the majority of their funds teaching property owners how to fireproof their homes. In some cases, agencies could even assist homeowners in the removal of brush around structures.

Unfortunately, proposed funding for community outreach and education programs represents less than 1 percent of the National Fire Plan's $2 billion budget.

It's time to change the way this country responds to fires. Decades of fire suppression and other land management activities, such as industrial logging, roadbuilding and grazing, have changed the way fires behave. But without realistic, common sense approaches to safeguard communities, debates will continue and little will be accomplished.

Jonathan Oppenheimer is the North Idaho Associate for the Idaho Conservation League. He was a member of the Stakeholder Committee for the development of the Western Governors' Association 10-Year Wildfire Plan. He may be contacted at P.O. Box 9783, Moscow, ID 83843, (208) 882-1010 or joppenheimer@wildidaho.org.