Every other civilized nation in the world has been compelled to care for its forests, and so must we if waste and destruction are not to go on to the bitter end. ~ John Muir
Mr. Muir was actively involved in environmental causes in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. All told, he spent more than 40 years working toward conserving forests.* When President Roosevelt visited him at Yellowstone in 1903, Muir referenced the destruction when he labeled logging operations in this quote published by the Sierra Club: “the timber thieves, and the destructive work of the lumbermen, and other spoilers of the forests.”
Until 2021, I would have thought that anyone who deliberately destroyed a forest with fire would fall under the same description. Now, not so much. I have watched professionals set small fires in a designated perimeter and put them out later that day. Within two weeks, the grass had begun to return and you could barely tell there had been a fire. And, as it happens, there can be good reasons for setting fires in forests. Will this new idea catch on? Wait. It isn’t a new idea, and that was an awful pun. Read on.
*To read more about John Muir, check out this Sierra Club article.
A little history
I began to learn more about forest management the first time I observed that controlled burn a few years ago. However, this conservation method has been around for thousands of years, according to the National Park Service article, Wildland Fire. Native Indians, for example, had multiple uses for intentional fires:
- Protection from enemies who might try to burn out their village. If the natives burned out a perimeter first, they had a better chance of avoiding total destruction when an enemy tried to burn their families and possessions.
- Hunting success, which improved when fires were set to:
- Herd either deer or other game toward a protected area or
- Use smoke to repel insects and thus attract deer and
- Remove ground cover for lizard hunting, for example. Don’t ask. I have no idea why they wanted lizards.
- Increase desirable grassland areas, since that would positively impact the bison food source.
When the Europeans arrived and moved westward, they built fences. At that point, fires were viewed as more of a detriment than a help, as settlers wanted to protect “the forests and watersheds.” Good goal, but new ideas aren’t always the best ideas, and sometimes we aren’t as smart as we think. Lightning has been causing fires since time immemorial, and sometimes we need to roll with what’s natural. Calling a halt to fires altogether doesn’t really work for the good of forests, long-term.
Current best practices
As so often happens, it appears we’ve come full circle. An NC State article extols the benefits of prescribed burns. In short, low-intensity fires help prevent high-intensity fires that might require extended weeks to control. This is because controlled burns reduce the amount of fuel available in the event of an unplanned burn. A low amount of fuel means a slower spread. Also, prescribed burns:
- Facilitate new native vegetation growth,
- Increase plant species biodiversity,
- Reduce the number of pest insects, resulting in less spread of disease, and
- Are effective in recycling nutrients back into the soil.
When the National Park Service and other organizations plan burns in specific areas, they consider multiple factors. Among those are the weather, topography, whether an adequate number of trained personnel are available, and the proximity of residents who could be negatively impacted by the smoke. Additionally, Britannica reminds the reader that forest management considerations include the time of year. That is, are there any ground-nesting birds whose eggs would be destroyed? Any plants that butterflies typically feed on? We don’t want to unwittingly destroy winged creatures in an attempt to keep the forest healthy. This kind of environmental protection tool is obviously not intended for those of us who have no expertise in controlling fires.
And that brings me to the point of all this. I am occasionally guilty of casting an errant stink eye when I hear about a new rule or protocol. Sadly, there are so many things about which I know very little, and sometimes that ignorance bites me. Here’s an example.
A few years ago Tennessee made it illegal to bring firewood in from another state unless it’s heat-treated. (Check out don’t move firewood.) Initially, my response was, “What the heck?” However, since I keep company with some super cool and intelligent people, I soon learned why imported fuel might be a problem. Importing wood generally imports pests we don’t need to be imported.
Life is full of speed bumps I don’t care to navigate or don’t see the point in navigating. Sometimes there is a rational explanation for the way a process has to work. Perhaps I would be happier if I reserved judgment long enough for my brain to catch up to my mouth.
You?
Lived in California for a while post retirement and watched a lot of fires. Thousands of acres are lost annually there because environmentalist tie the hands of forest management. That is stupid but then that is California, but then, I repeat myself.
I have heard that residents aren’t allowed to remove brush on their own property, but that is likely a jurisdictional issue in that state.
Great article Gail. Fire indeed is a necessary part of nature. And…. Some species actually require fire including a number of conifers; Sequoias, jack pine, lodge pole pine, long leaf pine, and here in the Smokies, Table Mountain pine. There “Serotinius” cones will only open on fire like conditions. There are a number of places here where a new forest of 15’ high table mountain pines are growing where the 2016 fire moved through.
“Their” cones, that is 😳
Aarrgghh. I read about that (so cool!) and then forgot to mention it. Thanks for filling in the blanks for me.