Fire as a Forest Management Tool

By Richard Vanderlip

 3-10-97

To Burn or Not to Burn?: Fire as a Forest Management Tool

A sound like thunder rolls through the old growth Lodgepole Pine forest as gale force winds topple trees. A three hundred foot wall of flames creates the winds as it devours oxygen, trees and anything else in its path. Firefighters call a fire of this magnitude a firestorm and nothing but time will stop it. The fire jumps fire lines, roads, and even the Madison River as hot embers fall two miles ahead of the storm. Clouds towering thirty thousand feet high and capable of creating their own weather patterns billow upwards from the storm. Yellowstone, the symbol of natural beauty, is burning and the park looks like the site of several hydrogen bomb explosions (Williams, 1989; Staub, 1993). Nevertheless, throughout earth's history Mother Nature has used fire as a tool to regenerate the land, to reset the cycle of forest succession, to return the basic elements of life back to the soil, and to free those seeds that require high heat in order to germinate. Until recently, humans have tried unsuccessfully to eradicate fire from the forests. Consequently, as dead limbs and needles pile up an enormous fire becomes inevitable. One year after Yellowstone burned Mother Nature brought forth a rebirth of the park. In light of this rebirth we see that fire is indeed a fundamental element of healthy forests.

August 20, 1988, a day of tragedy, because this date marks the day when more acres burned in Yellowstone Park then any decade had ever seen before. However, fires in Yellowstone were not a rare occurrence. By looking at trees that have been through previous fires, scientists learned that fires blackened the land throughout earth's history. Small fires occurred often and big ones, like Yellowstone's wildfire of 1988, ravaged the area about every one hundred years -- Yellowstone was due (Staub, 1993). This is typical to every forest in every region. Whether it's Yellowstone, The Sierra Nevada or Washington's Gifford Pinchot, the cycle of fire plays out its role in nature's scheme of things (Williams, 1989). Unfortunately, when the cycle of fire occurs, it often claims personal property and sometimes even human lives. This has caused us humans to have an intense anti-fire sentiment. However, the cycle of fire will still run its course regardless of our opposition.

The destruction that fire caused in forty-eight hours during August of 1910 created much of the anti-fire sentiment people now feel. In two days, three thousand wild fires, powered by a hurricane, destroyed five million acres of land containing eight billion board feet of timber. The fire claimed eighty-five lives as well as destroying many peoples' homes and towns. This destruction occurred in parts of Northeast Washington, Northern Idaho and Western Montana (Spencer, 1958; Williams, 1989). With this much destruction no one wanted fire in the woods. People, property and fire did not mix well. Fortunately, the killer fires of 1910 helped to bring about some major improvements to fire fighting. State and federal fire fighting efforts took on renewed life as congress passed the "Weeks Act." This act allowed the Forest Service to enter into joint funding arrangements with individual states. This gave the Forest Service the power to be "Top Gun" of wild land fire fighting efforts. The Forest Service's perception of fire would prevail. That perception being, fire is bad and it destroys valuable timber, personal property, and sometimes human lives. Therefore, firefighters needed to suppress any fire as quickly as possible (Morrison, 1993). The US Forest Service launched an all out campaign of fire suppression and education in order to banish fire from the woods. In 1935 the Forest Service implemented its' "10 AM Policy." Simply stated, the Forest Service had to extinguish any fire that showed itself -- by ten o'clock the following morning. The Forest Service, in an attempt to change public opinion about fire, employed H.N. Wheeler. Jack Shepard, an author, described H.N. Wheeler in his book as a "bellowing demagogue who had little knowledge of forest management ... but who whipped up emotions and fundamental fervor, incorporating scripture with Forest Service Gospel." The Forest Service even hired a fire psychologist that established quickly that fire as a forest management tool reflected the defensive beliefs of a disadvantaged culture group (Williams, 1989). The Forest Service was not the only influence that fueled the anti-fire sentiment.

A major influence to the anti-fire sentiment occurred between 1917 and 1926 when eighty percent of all the fires occurred in the South. This high percentage of fires was due to the practice of burning forests and croplands for a variety of reasons. A person might intentionally set fires to kill any ticks and snakes or to produce useable land for cattle. Land owners would set fires in order to prevent a wildfire from burning up their fencerows and more often than not these intentional fires would become a wildfire. This was such an ingrained custom that teaching the people the evils of fire was not an easy task. In 1927, the "Dixie Crusaders" armed with special trucks, generators, and motion picture projectors; set out to preach the gospel of fire prevention to the uninformed. They brought the religion of fire prevention to three million people throughout Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina (Sarvis, 1993). Japan unknowingly gave their support to the Dixie Crusaders during World War Two by launching raids against the United States' timber reserves. Japan carried out these raids utilizing balloon borne incendiary devices. These devices were not real effective in destroying our timber reserves. However, it did teach Americans that supporting fire in the woods was supporting the Axis (Germany, Italy, and Japan) during World War Two (Williams, 1989) and this made fires in the woods unacceptable. The Dixie Crusaders, Japan, along with the US Forest Service helped set the stage for Bambi, Smokey the Bear, and the attitude changes about fire that were about to come.

In 1942, Walt Disney produced the movie Bambi. As the public watched, Bambi, together with his friends, attempted to outrun the fire that claimed their homes and the public once again experienced the evils of fire as Bambi's friends lost their lives. Helping Bambi to spread the word about the dangers of fire was Smokey the Bear. Smokey the Bear, remember him, he is the famous bear cub that firefighters rescued from a forest fire. Once Smokey the Bear recovered from his wounds he told everyone that "Remember only you can prevent forest fires" (Williams, 1989). Finally the anti-fire sentiment was born and nobody was going to let the forests burn -- well almost nobody.

Smokey was real effective at stomping out forest fires, but by 1960 cultural shifts begun to find their way into the policies and procedures governing wild land management. Conservationism began to give way to environmentalism. Science began to embrace the idea of self regulating ecosystems. Specifically, a natural body -- no matter how big or small -- was capable of maintaining itself. In other words, nature could find its own balance (Morrison, 1993). So when it came to Yellowstone, park authorities managed the park did so with a do not interfere with nature policy. This policy, originally prepared as the Leopold Report by Aldo Leopold (Conservationist), allowed for anything that occurred in nature, not caused by man's influence, to run out its course. This might mean the death of a moose that had fallen through ice into a lake or allowing a wildfire to burn an untold number of acres (Satchell, 1988). However, by managing Yellowstone this way the public would experience the allusion of Yellowstone as being Primitive America (Morrison, 1993). During the summer of 1988 this management guideline became the controversial "Let it Burn Policy." John Varley (Yellowstone's Director of Research) in defense of the management guidelines says, "There is no let it burn policy but rather a natural burn program." He feels (unlike most Americans and federal agencies) that nature can take care of herself. Therefore, we should trust her to do the right thing. He also feels that the human race has no obligation to coax, assist, or otherwise improve upon nature (Williams, 1989). Thus, the natural burn program allows for natural fires to burn while firefighters attempt to contain and put out those fires started by humans. The park authorities watch natural fires very closely and if they become a threat to people or property, firefighters immediately attempt to bring them under control. Park authorities were operating within these guidelines when in July 1988 (the woods having become so dry) they considered all fires dangerous and ordered firefighters to bring them under control (Staub, 1993; Williams, 1989). Even then, firefighters needed to suppress the fires with as little impact from mechanization as possible. Unfortunately, Mother Nature had a different agenda and she did what she needed to do. In the end, Yellowstone burned and efforts to control the flames became so expensive that the efforts to control the blaze amounted to the most expensive the nation has ever seen (Staub, 1993) but she is still the allusion of Primitive America.

Yellowstone, the nation's oldest and most primitive national park, was established in 1872. The park encompasses 2,219,823 acres (3,400 square miles) spread over three states (Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho) and boasts the largest population of wildlife in any of the lower forty-eight states. Two and one half million people visit the park annually bringing twenty million dollars in revenue into the regions' communities. The park employs five thousand people at the peak of the season and generates a revenue base consisting of an additional twenty million dollars (Morrison, 1993). The fire of 1988 burned approximately one million acres and efforts to control the fires cost $115,000,000. The fires burned for four months before nature finally decided enough is enough in October of 1988 (Carey, 1989). The charred and burned landscape was definitely primitive America because this was a landscape previously seen only by ancient Native Americans. Unfortunately, the fires and the charred landscape did little to impress the public.

The public based most of their opinions about the fires on where they lived, what their economics depended on and what Yellowstone meant to them. Those individuals who expected the allusion of "Primitive America" to bring them pleasure and wonderment saw the fires as the destruction of the most beautiful place on earth. Residents of the communities around the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem became upset because their newborn children could not breathe fresh air. They also complained that smoke levels were equivalent to three packs of cigarettes a day. For those individuals whose economic welfare depended on Yellowstone's allure to bring in the tourists, the fires represented the beginnings of economic decline in their home towns. Environmentalists, such as the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, saw the fires as a catastrophe only because more of the park did not burn (Williams, 1989). Environmentalists also feared that the desolate scene left behind in the wake of 1988's fires would drive congress back into a policy of fire suppression. They feared that such a policy would do nothing more than once again pile the woods up with dead limbs and trees for a big fire to use as fuel (Symonds, 1988). Scientists saw the fires as an opportunity to watch the effects of fire on the ecosystem and an opportunity to watch nature's rebirth. Sure, scientists have had opportunities to study fire's role in nature before but only with small fires. This was an opportunity for scientists to watch nature on a grand scale. Finally, politicians saw the fires as an opportunity to secure votes because 1988 was also an election year. Senator Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming announced, after Park Authorities decided to fight Yellowstone's fires, that the reason the Park Service dropped the "Let it Burn Policy" and decided to fight the fires was because he asked them to. Politicians everywhere used Yellowstone for their advantage and publicly condemned the Park Services policies (Williams, 1989). It is not a shame that Yellowstone burned but it is a shame that people concerned themselves with only what it would or could do to them. Except for scientists, conservationists and environmentalists most people gave no thought to the benefits that fire contributed to the ecosystem.

Fire is a necessary element in healthy ecosystems. Fire replenishes the soil low in nutrients by releasing the essential nutrients locked up in the vegetation already growing from the soil while clearing away dead, dying and diseased trees. The newly replenished soil grows new plant life that is essential for wildlife survival (Morrison, 1993). This is a natural process in places like Yellowstone, where cold temperatures and dry climates inhibit natural organic decomposers from doing their job (Staub, 1993). In Yellowstone the land reclaimed itself quickly after the fire ravaged it. In many cases, Fireweed sprang forth from the newly enriched soil within a couple of weeks of the burn. Fireweed, appropriately named, survived because its' root system grows deep within the soil. In fact, most plants survived because the fire only heated one half of an inch of topsoil and the seeds did not burn. Gradually, other plants, shrubs, and grasses flourish because fire releases nutrients (that old growth trees had locked up in their trunks) into the surrounding soil. This provides a renewed food source for the larger mammals that inhabit an area (Staub, 1993). After a fire, scientists have found that the numbers of birds, small mammals, and ground plants that inhabit an area increase dramatically. Large mammals will move back into the area before it even quits smoldering. Dead trees become new homes for an assortment of birds. Termites as well as other insects multiply in the dead stumps proving food sources for small mammals and birds. Streams benefit from the effects of fire as runoff water carries ash to the aquatic plants. The ash, laden in nutrients, gives the aquatic plants a renewed source of nutrition. Since sunlight warms the exposed water, it becomes an excellent incubator for aquatic insects. This in turn benefits the fish as now they can reproduce in greater numbers (Carey, 1989; Satchell, 1988). Scientists have monitored burn sites all over the Northern Rockies watching them to see how long it takes the ground to revegetate. The evidence they have collected shows that the cycle is the same everywhere. Rodents return to the area moments after the fire and by the third growing season seventy percent of the earth is revegetated with lush tender forage. This predictable cycle is known as forest succession.

Forest succession -- the cycle of life -- is the process in which the land evolves through several stages until an old growth forest is born. It is only through the process of natural forest succession, that truly healthy, vibrant ecosystems can continue their existence. After a fire, the evolution from meadow to forest is a slow one and is also a period of high bio-diversity. Bio-diversity is a scientific word that means a large variety of plant life. At first, the patriarchs that once inhabited the area will be nothing more than tiny seedlings scattered throughout the area. These tiny trees will grow from seeds, previously trapped inside serotinous cones (cones covered by a waxy substance), that will not melt unless exposed to temperatures of at least 113 degrees Fahrenheit (Staub, 1993). Some of these tiny seedlings will find their way into the bellies of deer who think this new growth delectable. Eventually, in about twenty years, these scattered trees will grow to heights of about ten to fifteen feet tall. These adolescent trees will provide excellent shelter for the larger mammals that live in the area. Time will pass, the trees will continue to grow, and in about a hundred years the trees will once again dominate the ecosystem. Their dead needles and lower branches will fall off as the trees prune themselves. This self pruning is the trees' natural process of making themselves resistant to the fires that will eventually come. The trees' crown (upper branches) will effectively block most light from reaching the ground and the plants that inhabit the understory will be dormant once again. Shade tolerant trees will grow slowly underneath the towering giants and over the course of a few hundred years will eventually reach the lower branches of the larger, older trees (Staub, 1993; Williams, 1989). Mother Nature will use these shade tolerant trees as a fuse to reset the cycle of life. Lightning strikes will ignite the dry debris lying on the forest floor. The flames will race up through the branches of the shade tolerant trees to the lower branches of the monarchs of the forest. The flames will spread throughout the forest devouring everything in their path. Mother Nature will decide when enough is enough and be it from rain, snow or rocky bluffs, the fires will die and the life cycle will start again. However, a complete analysis of forest succession is not complete without looking at the possible benefits of prescribed burning.

Igniting prescribed burns -- the intentional setting of fires -- to remove fuel wood and restore the minerals to the soil is a practice that is under-used today. Reasons that this practice is under-used may go as far back as the Dixie Crusaders who preached that intentionally setting fires was evil. There are many people who feel that the Forest Service would be better off spending taxpayer's dollars to set controlled burns. These people feel that it makes more sense to control fuel build up and prevent big fires. They validate their opinion by highlighting that the Forest Service will spend millions attempting to save a ten thousand dollar cabin or a stand of eight inch timber that will not be merchantable for a hundred years. In contrast, the total output to set controlled burns would be only in the thousands (O'Gara, 1989). Alston Chase (a retired philosophy professor) feels that had a routine of prescribed burning been implemented in Yellowstone the big fire of 1988 could have been avoided. Alston also agrees with sciences' perception that fire improves nature. However, he does not agree that fire is a basic part of nature. Nevertheless, biologists (including those independent of Yellowstone's park service) feel the trouble with a prescribed burn is that in order to start them you need summers like 1988. Biologists further state, that had a prescribed burn been set to reduce fuel in Yellowstone, there would still have been a fire like that of 1988. A more colorful opinion came from Yellowstone's superintendent Robert (barbee-que) Barbee when he stated, "anyone who believes that planned burns could have prevented 1988's fires is chewing lotus seeds" (Williams, 1989). Planned burns may prevent some fires, but in the end it is still Mother Nature who knows best and she tends not to give much thought to what humans think. Time will tell if prescribed fires will be a way of the future, but for now -- the jury is still out.

Since fire possesses the ability to destroy so much, it is highly unlikely that humans will give fire the chance to ravage the woods unchecked. However, it is not unreasonable to look forward to a time when prescribed burns are every bit as part of nature as wildfires. It is also not unreasonable to look forward to a time when prescribed burning is used as a tool to pick up where wildfires let off (Walstad, Radosevich & Sandberg, 1990). Since history repeats itself the proof is already in, after all, Native Americans often used fire to chase game and it is believed by archaeologists that they may have used it to create habitat for animals (Wood, 1989). We have learned that fire is an essential part of nature. Unfortunately, we almost destroyed parts of our world in finding out. However, we now know that fire renews the great seas of grass in the Everglades. We understand that cool ground fires are necessary in order to preserve the California Sequoias. We now recognize that in Michigan, our efforts to suppress fires almost made the Kirtland Warbler extinct. Fire is necessary in order to maintain the bird's habitat. We have finally come to appreciate (through fires like Yellowstone's fire of 1988) that a thorough understanding of fire ecology is necessary if we are to maintain healthy ecosystems. What Yellowstone is now since the fire is far better then what the park was before. Yellowstone, like the Phoenix, has risen from the ashes and been reborn. Unfortunately, the big question remains unanswered. Are parks for people to use and abuse, or are parks like Yellowstone for the use of the people to observe the last remnants of nature undefiled by humanity?

Works Cited

Carey, A. & S. (1989) Yellowstone's Red Summer.

     Flagstaff, AZ.: Northland Publishing

Morrison, M. (1993) Fire in Paradise

     New York, NY.: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

O'Gara,G. (1989, January/February). Beyond The Burn

     Sierra, pp. 40-51

Sarvis, W. (1993, May/June). The Great Anti-fire Campaign

     American Forests, pp. 33-35 & 38

Satchell, M. (1988, September 19). Burn Baby Burn! Stop Baby Stop!

     U.S. News & World Report, pp.14-16

Spencer, B.G. (1958) The Big Blowup

     Caldwell, Id.: The Caxton Printers, Ltd.

Staub, F. (1993) Yellowstone's Cycle of Fire

     Carolrhoda Books

Symonds, W. C. (1988, September 26). Did The Park Service Fiddle While Yellowstone Burned?

     Business Week, p. 48

Walstad, J.D. & Radosevich, S.R. & Sandberg, D.V. (1990). Natural and Prescribed Fire in Pacific Northwest Forests.

      Corvalis, Ore.: Oregon State University Press

Williams, T. (1989, January). Incineration of Yellowstone

     Audubon, pp. 39-85

Wood, W. (1989, August 7 / 14). Political Fires Still Smolder

     The Nation, pp. 162-164