Burning Idaho to save it: Why one solution to our raging wildfires can’t gain traction
When fire scientists talk about prescribed burns, the discussion often turns to the Forest Service. Critics say the agency clings to a century-old “suppression culture” that resists deliberately starting fires. “For the Forest Service, the only good fire is a dead-out fire,” said Ingalsbee, a former firefighter with the agency in Oregon.
Whack and stack: PG&E’s toppling of trees creates new hazards
In an attempt to clear vegetation from around power lines, the workers cut down old-growth redwoods, and in some cases simply sawed off the tops of the beloved giants, creating a “horrid Dr. Seuss kind of tree,” Kristi Anderson said. “It makes us sick to our stomachs.”
“Some of these guys on the powerlines are going for overkill, with minimum supervision and no ecology,” former firefighter Ingalsbee said. “They are little fire bombs waiting to ignite. They can burn for hours.”
Can 'fuel treatments' like thinning and controlled burns slow Oregon wildfires?
In addition, opening the tree canopy can dry out ground fuels and increase wind, fueling wildfire behavior rather than slowing it, said former firefighter Tim Ingalsbee, director of Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology. “Particularly in a world where climate change is drying out soils and vegetation faster than ever, we need to hold on to as much canopy cover as we can to retain that moisture,” he said.
How can wildfires like those Oregon experienced in 2020 be avoided? Scientists and loggers have different ideas.
“The 21st century climate is rapidly ending the effectiveness of our 20th century firefighting strategies and tactics,” said Dr. Timothy Ingalsbee, executive director of Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics & Ecology. He spoke on the Oregon Wild panel in October. He said aggressive firefighting is becoming more dangerous to firefighters and more expensive to taxpayers and isn’t effective at stopping fires.