What should be done about this past year’s wildfire crisis in the Northwest, West, and Southwest?

Are there sensible policies that could be put in place so that the past year’s wildfire crisis in the Northwest, West, and Southwest doesn’t repeat itself in the near future? We think so, and the solutions we propose for discussion have bearing on what the relationship of government assistance should be to other types of natural disasters — hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, etc.

We believe that the most important “take home” from this past year’s wildfires out West is that forest management should be handled primarily at the local forest level, not centrally in Washington, DC.

Why? Because forests differ in their past history of management practices, the trees growing in each forest, local climate conditions, etc. Nicole Strong, a forester with the Oregon State University Extension Service, explains:

“[I]t all depends on the forest you’re looking at….Ponderosa pine forest is going to behave in a very different way than our high elevation hemlock forest. And then south-facing slopes will behave much differently than a cool north-facing slope.”

Dry forests, she says, “like those found in eastern Oregon and in parts of southwest Oregon, historically burned more frequently but less intensely than the moister forests in the Cascade and Coast ranges. So what makes sense for one may not make sense for the other.”

Norm Johnson, professor emeritus at the OSU College of Forestry, adds [same source] that “there’s a strong argument to be made for removing woody fuels in naturally dry forests as a way to reduce fire intensity and restore ecological balance. But as for fires in moist forests like the Cascades …

“That’s just nature at work…And the fires historically were severe. [T]he notion that we ought to go in there and reduce fuels to restore natural processes is wrongheaded.”

Local managers will also know the best local mix of business vs recreational uses of their forest and what fees are appropriate for each type of user to cover the annual management costs. The role of state or federal owners of the forest should be to ensure that the best professionals are appointed to each forest and supply fire-fighting services when appropriate. Where possible, all expenses including firefighting should be covered by local user fees.

Are environmentalists responsible for the wildfires?

Some conservative sources have claimed that environmentalists are to blame for this year’s devastating fires in the West — by preventing commercial logging and forest-floor brush cleanup. As we’ve seen above, such policies may not be appropriate in all cases. But the conservative critics have a point that environmentalist lawsuits have often delayed or blocked management programs from being carried out in a timely fashion or not at all:

“As a Reason Foundation study noted, the U.S. Forest Service, which is tasked with managing public wildland, once had success in minimizing widespread fires in the early 20th century. But many of these successful methods were abandoned in large part because of efforts by environmental activists. The Forest Service became more costly and less effective as it increasingly ‘rewarded forest managers for losing money on environmentally questionable practices,’ wrote Randal O’Toole, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute….

“One idea is to adopt a policy popularized by the school choice movement: create charter forests that are publicly owned, but privately managed. This would allow forest management to move away from top-down, bureaucratic control to a decentralized and varied system that may better conform with local realities.”

Is global warming to blame, as environmentalists charge?

A major factor in the severity of the past season’s fire was the unusual dryness of the forests. But as the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) graphic above from Reason Foundation shows, periodic drought patterns haven’t changed over the 20th century. That severely undercuts the Global Warmists’ argument that recent human fossil-fuel burning created the unusual dryness that made the huge wildfires possible.

To environmentalists, humans are a menace to nature, whether climate is the topic or forestry management. Typically, environmentalists sue to stop forest management programs on the argument that forests should be allowed to revert to pristine status — untouched by human hands. There is a profound irony in this misguided effort. The Reason source above notes:

“Prior to European settlement in the early 1800s, Native Americans set forest fires  for hunting, harvesting and many other purposes – including fire proofing. These frequent, small, low-intensity fires, usually set at times of year when they were unlikely to rage out of control, burned much of the dead wood and created more park-like forests of variegated tree types and ages, which created favorable hunting conditions. By removing fuel, these fires reduced the number and scale of catastrophic wildfires.

“European settlement resulted in the collapse of the Native American population– and with it the practice of intentionally setting small fires. Forests reverted to a more “natural” state (i.e. how they might have been without human intervention): pioneer trees such as pine, aspen and larch, were able to mature, while shade tolerant species, such as spruce, fir and giant cedar grew in the understory. In these densely packed forests, trees compete for water and in drier years become severely water stressed and thereby more susceptible to disease and pests.

“When lightning hits a healthy tree in a lightly packed, variegated forest, the resultant sparks might cause a small fire that clears the understory. In a dense forest full of diseased and dead trees, a lightning strike rises up the ladder created by the thick understory, reaching the crown. The resulting, explosive crown fire then spreads rapidly, especially in arid, windy conditions.”

So the environmentalists are trying to protect, as “pristine,” the degraded forests of the post-Indian period, supposing it more natural.

The role of homeowners and nearby businesses

Homeowners and the nearby businesses that support them have responsibilities of their own rather than depending, when disaster strikes, on the charity of strangers, i.e., taxpayers. The situation mirrors the responsibilities of homeowners and businesses who choose to settle in flood, hurricane, tornado, and earthquake zones. Get replacement cost insurance covering the cost of all known local hazards. Build a house or commercial structure that reflects best practice for surviving the hazard if it strikes, or at least minimizing its damage. In the case of structures proximate to forests, that means a roof covered with fireproof materials and including chimneys and ventilation pipes covered with screens to prevent embers falling into the house.

Click here to go to yesterday’s post (“Deregulation is Trump’s great contribution to US economy beside tax bill, but trade policy threatens both economy and security strategy”)