Nature Needs a Hand to Prevent Fires

If California naturalist Aldo Leopold were alive, he probably would wonder how some members of Congress had come to find themselves in league with extreme opponents of forestry. These are the people who, claiming to be naturalists, object even to the removal of brush and deadfall on the forest floor rather than viewing it as the best way to save forests from the increasing danger of intense wildfires.

Leopold, who died in 1948, was an extraordinary thinker and innovator. His insight into the biological health and diversity of forests helped shape the current generation of professional foresters. Leopold was among those who championed the use of environmental values as an integral part of forest management. Then as now, there were some people who recoiled at the idea of removing timber from federal forest land for any purpose, whether for harvesting or to improve the forest’s health.

At stake is the well-being of our national forests, particularly those in the Pacific Northwest. Since 1992, more than 7 million acres of federal forest have burned. So far this year, wildfires have burned out of control all across the West, and it appears that 1996 is well on its way to setting a record. In fact, we are experiencing roughly three times as much wildfire in the Western states as occurred in the 1950s and 1960s. But the worst is yet to come. Unhealthy forest conditions are likely to lead to even more and larger wildfires in the years ahead.

That is, unless Congress recognizes the need to improve conditions in high-risk national forests and passes forest health legislation. A coalition of Democrats and Republicans is supporting a Senate bill that would give priority attention to sick and dying federal forests that are in danger of being devastated by wildfires.

The conditions have been stoked by a century of neglect. Before the turn of the century, occasional small fires would clear out underbrush and leave a few trees on an acre, with wide open spaces in between. Healthy trees could develop a thick armor bark that made them virtually fireproof.

Now, decades of fire suppression have left national forests with hundreds of trees per acre. Many are thin, sickly stands crowding between the big trees, which no longer have the strength to develop such thick bark. Deprived of moisture and nutrients, dense stands are more susceptible to insects and diseases. Piles of brush and deadfall accumulate, creating a fire ladder that carries flames to the top of the tall trees, erupting into dreaded crown fires.

Within the past few years, a number of wildfires have burned with such ferocity that the clay in the soil has been fired into a ceramic-like material that cannot sustain life. In severely burned-out areas of the Boise National Forest in Idaho, for example, damage to the soil is so bad that reforestation will not be possible for decades. In a few places, it is doubtful that the forest can ever recover.

What must be recognized is that many of our national forests are sick and dying. To do nothing about them and “let nature takes its course” in the belief that they will return to “natural” conditions if left alone, as some people advocate, is a prescription for disaster. Firefighters will face even greater dangers than they already do. And homes, wildlife habitat and billions of dollars worth of timber will be lost.

That is why those who consider themselves environmentalists should not rush to the cause of “nature knows best” just because the battle flag of preservation has been raised. The future demands something different, somewhere between a policy of neglect and dreams of waving a magic wand.

The emphasis needs to be on removing some young and middle-aged trees from crowded forest stands, along with brush and deadfall without being hobbled by arbitrary bureaucratic restrictions. Once these huge loads of flammable fuel are removed, professional foresters will be able to reintroduce controlled fire under conditions where it can burn the dead wood, needles and brush without undue damage to live trees or soil.

Congress has the opportunity to act in the nation’s best interest. It should approve the proposed Federal Lands Forest Health Protection and Restoration Act. The measure authorizes a wide array of projects for a 10-year period, including reforestation, prescribed burning and mechanical removal of deadfall, insect and disease control, habitat improvement and tree thinning. High-risk forests will receive priority. With 10 California forests so designated, we stand a good chance of being eligible for early intervention.

No other nation has made such great strides toward intelligent, sustainable forestry--an achievement that Aldo Leopold could only dream about half a century ago. It is up to us to secure what we have inherited and pass it along.