The Alleged Benefits of Wildfire

[Fotoware58]

In the interest of expanding knowledge and warning of ongoing disaster, here is a primer on why wildfires are ALWAYS bad for our forests, our environment and our people. The government claims their Let-Burn policy has "resource benefits" but, I have yet to see any of them and they just don't want to explain themselves.

http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2009/05/30/the-alleged-benefits-of-wildfire/

Currently, the Forest Service wants to expand their destructive Let-Burn policy but, they have to wait for lightning fires to start in the areas they want incinerated. These areas can be up to 100,000 acres (156 square miles!) and can include private lands, whether the private landowner wants it burned or not. Also, due to this Let-Burn policy, state and local fire agenicies are choosing to deny the Forest Service "mutual aid" help because their budgets have been severely depleted, due to both the economy and the fact that these Let-Burn fires will escape into their jurisdictions.

Anyone care to chime in on just what those wildfire "resource benefits" are?!??

[XemaSab]

1. .

:popcorn:

[Blue_In_AK]

2. We don't have any choice but to "let burn" here in Alaska.

Every year millions of acres burn (in 2004 and 2005 along over 11 million acres were consumed). Alaska simply doesn't have the resources to control lightning fires in our state (an area 1/5 the size of the rest of the U.S.) Here fires are monitored and then actively fought if they threaten villages or other settlements.

I have been into the burn areas in years following, and although the landscape is altered, it does recover. New ecosystems are created and life goes on.

[Fotoware58]

5. Non-catastrpohic

Yep, in Alaska it is easy to let fires burn but, as you can see in the picture, there was VERY little fuel to burn. In all the other western states, we've seen crowded unhealthy old growth forests burn completely to the ground in chunks up to a half million acres. Luckily, Alaska doesn't have those extreme fuel loads.

[John Q. Citizen]

3. Wildfire is the natural state of Western forests. When you suppress them we get heavy buildups

of brush that act as ladders to crowns. That meants that big trees are burnt in stead of fire passing through and acting as a regenerative agent. Have you been to the Yellowstone lately? You should check it out.

They don't let fires burn that threaten people or buildings. We are talking wilderness here.

What is destructive is putting out every fire everywhere, like the forest service did for 100 years. That's just insane.

Some pine species require fire to regenerate. They don't grow new trees unless there is a fire.

[BeFree]

4. Fires are natural

But the slash cuts are not. After the loggers cut and run debris is left on the ground. It will burn hot. In a mature forest ground fires take away the undergrowth on a somewhat regular basis. Usually these fires are relatively cooler. Leaves the big trees standing.

In a cut forest there are no big trees.

In an uncut forest deadfalls on the ground soak up and hold moisture. Standing dead snags make homes for wildlife.

What burns me up is the maintenance fires in public parks. If they just let it grow the overstory will shade out all the undergrowth and dead snags can stay. In too many parks now I have seen deadfalls burn and snags cut down and hauled off. Too much money spent doing the wrong things. Damned pyromaniacs.

Wilderness areas should be left alone: let them burn. The forest can handle the fires. In cut areas that are for production purposes some fire suppression is called for because of its altered state.

Any saving of cabins etc. is socialism. Just like roads and parks.

[Fotoware58]

6. No wildfire benefits?

Since there are VERY few forests outside of designated wilderness areas and National Parks that are "pristine", the overwhelming majority of our public forests have indeed been logged and altered into thickets of overstocked and highly-flammable trees. The combination of bad logging practices in the 70's and 80's and unmanaged stands of unnaturally-thick forests make for an explosive mix. It is no wonder that fire sizes and intensities have shot off the scale. Sadly, people want to preserve these stands in their flammable glory freeing up their ancient carbon in catastrophic wildfires. When will we wake up and smell the smoke, see the erosion and see that these burned forests won't come back in our children's lifetime?

Here is an excerpt from an enlightened scientist that should help people decide that we do indeed need to do "something". Dr. Helms, testified to Congress using these facts but, Congress has chosen not to listen.

"Wildfires are driven by both fuel and temperature and are made particularly devastating when combined with low humidity and high winds. Modeling shows that, in general, changing climate will likely result in more wildfires. However, fires won't burn without fuel, and fire intensity increases with fuel loading. A prudent steward of forest lands would therefore reduce hazardous fuel loads and remove a portion of trees that provide ladder fuels that enable flames to reach the canopy.

The amount of fuels in a forest can reach 15-70 tons per acre (Sampson 2004) and this fuel loading cannot be removed by prescribed burning without incurring substantial risk. Therefore some preliminary mechanical treatment is required. This could be cost-effective if the smaller-dimension biomass could be used for cellulosic ethanol production and the larger material converted into wood products that store carbon. A major hurdle on public lands is to make this material available through long-term contracts that provide a sufficiently stable investment climate that will enable industry to construct the necessary processing plants for both ethanol and wood products...

...Wildfires are indeed increasingly hard to fight and release 75-80 tons CO2 or more per acre (Sampson 2004). Fires that can be several hundred thousand acres in size are clearly emitting millions of tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Once forest stands are restored to more natural density levels, prescribed fires can be used which emit about 18-20 tons CO2 per acre (Sampson 2004).

Decisions to permit natural fires to burn are based on diverse criteria that assess the risk to private property, ecological systems, and societal values. The Wildland Fire Use approach is commendable, however one must accept the likelihood that, initially at least, some ecological and societal values will be damaged and air quality will be affected. This points to the importance of providing the public with quality information regarding the goals, risks, and benefits of the program...

In general, rates of germination, establishment, and growth of trees after wildfires are slower than those of shrubs and grasses -- in particular sprouting shrubs and hardwoods. It is therefore common for pioneering shrubs and grasses to rapidly colonize and dominate burned areas for many decades. This is less true for the "fire-type" conifers such as lodgepole pine that have serotinous cones evolved to open from the heat of fires. Forestry research and experience shows that vegetation growth after fires varies from brushfields to successful tree regeneration depending on such factors as the availability of seed. Surveys in California's Sierra Nevada have shown that mature true fir forests having no shrubs in the understory can have 2 million viable seeds of shrub species per acre that remain dormant in the soil until heat from fires cracks their seed coats and stimulates germination. In contrast, tree seeds do not commonly remain viable in the soil after two years and seed crops have periodicity from one to seven years.

After a wildfire, a prompt assessment is needed of post burn conditions to determine the likelihood that desired vegetation of diverse species will become established. The desired mix of vegetation cover needs to be defined and the timeframe in which preferred conditions of tree cover, habitat, and soil cover should be attained needs to be identified. Experience has shown that those areas likely to become brushfields or have high potential for erosion need to be promptly planted to return them to forest conditions. Brushfields often have conifer seedlings underneath them, but it can take 50-100 years for the trees to overtop the brush and form a forest canopy. Burned areas that may regenerate satisfactorily to the desired species mix without treatment or are ecological reserves not needing treatment should be identified in the post-burn assessment.

In all cases, the post-burn analysis should identify the costs, benefits, and risks associated with action or no action. Decisions should ensure that society is best served by using treatments where necessary to rapidly restore the preburn mix of forest values, habitats, uses, and watershed protection...

Healthy forests and their associated wildlife habitats and watersheds are priceless assets providing the nation with critical values and uses. The sustainable management and conservation of forests is crucial to societal welfare. When forests are allowed to become overly dense the trees lose vigor and become susceptible to insects, disease, mortality, and fire. This is exacerbated under conditions of overall rise in temperature, drought, and storms. It is therefore in society's best interest that, apart from ecological reserves, wilderness or similar areas, forests be sustainably managed to maintain forest health and provide the balance and diversity of values and uses that society needs.

The argument that forests, especially national forests, should be left unmanaged and that "nature knows best" is understandably appealing. However it does not recognize that the condition of our national forests is far from "natural"...

The challenge is how to accomplish this in a socially acceptable and economically feasible way. Societal acceptance can probably only be achieved through a combination of Congressional leadership and science-based information outreach. In particular, decision-making processes are needed that emphasize stakeholder common interests in restoring healthy forests to reduce wildfires, mitigating the effects of climate change, and striking a balance among competing values and viewpoints. The overall policy goal should be to restore and sustainably manage the nation's forests for the welfare of society at large. Since fuels treatments and thinning are costly, it is critical to explore ways and means by which these costs can be offset by utilizing the biomass in the form of energy or renewable wood products. The desirability of this option becomes apparent when one appreciates that using wood can reduce carbon emissions where it is used in place of alternative materials that life cycle analyses show have higher energy requirements in manufacture.

I used the word "responsible" in my testimony in the context that failure to restore forest health and reduce impacts of wildfire and insects on wood supply, wildlife habitat, and water supply is to abdicate current society's responsibilities to present and future generations..."

So, will we use science to save our forests or will we continue to ignore it and lose more and more old growth, wildlife, water quality, air quality, cultural sites, nest trees, rare plants, etc.....etc......etc???? In the case of the Biscuit Fire in Oregon and the Yellow Fire in Idaho, there will be 900,000 acres (1400 square miles!!) that won't be growing back for decades or maybe even centuries. Soils have been "cooked" to the point that they can no longer grow large trees. Brush will grow back instead and we will have to wait until natural processes can rebuild the soil to support old growth forests again.

Are YOU progressive enough to envision true forest restoration and what that will take?

[BeFree]

7. Its all about manage

Look at that word: Manage : Aged by man. Controlled by man.

Natural forests are not controlled by man. They are not managed. If they were they wouldn't be natural. What is managed in natural forests are the activities of man. They are very limited. Very.

What we have is a land now nearly full of man aged forests. They must continue to be managed. The way they will be managed depends on a lot of factors. But we must do better.

What we really need is to grow the number of acres of natural forests. Do only those things that, over time, will return them to a natural state.

Otherwise man will continue to mess things up and the forests will burn, baby, burn.

Are you progressive enough to realize what true natural forest restoration requires?

[Fotoware58]

8. Misconceptions

Actually, you are helping me make my point. Managing "unnatural" forests is exactly what is needed. However, you seem to think that most of our public forests are "natural". This brings up yet another issue. Do we restore forests to pre-European conditions or do we return forests to pre-Man conditions (before man crossed the land bridge in Alaska)? The trouble is, we don't know what pre-Man forests looked like.

Probably 95% of our public forests have been logged at one time or another. Restoration of these human-altered forests will require a large quantity of thinning to return stocking levels to "natural" levels. That seems to be the sticking point for most people who prefer no management at all. Many of those people think that merely removing tiny trees and using controlled burns will "restore" forests. As Dr. Helms says, those practices alone cannot return forests to a "natural" condition.

"What we really need is to grow the number of acres of natural forests. Do only those things that, over time, will return them to a natural state."

Can you be more specific in just what those "things" are? It isn't a one-size-fits-all situation. Each forest is different and requires different techniques and treatments to restore them to natural ecosystem function. Unfortunately, restoring burned forests will take longer than people will like. Average fire seasons now burn 8 million acres with much higher intensities than are "natural". They are also forecast to rise to 10-12 million acres during the next decade. Do we act or do we let it happen? Science has the answer, folks. Let's listen to modern science.

[BeFree]

11. Heh

Who said you weren't making the same point as I?

If you can't see a natural forest then you have a lot of learning to do. Of course, you prob are young and the loss of natural forests in just in my days has limited such possibilities. Keep looking.

Every forest is different. So having congress decide what to do about each forest is asinine. And the science is in the same boat.

What I want to see is forests - as many as we can afford - left alone so that one day those become as natural as can be. To do that we have to manage to keep our bastardly hands out of those forests.

The rest of the forests will just stay agricultural lands. For profit and for use, but we must greatly (and expensively) manage man's activities thereon so they don't become deserts.

[Fotoware58]

13. "Natural"??

You are going to have to give me your own definition of "natural". Forests that have had their species composition so radically changed cannot be considered "natural". Ponderosa pine was the preferred species of loggers and true firs, as well as cedars have a MUCH larger chunk of the forest in logged forests. Fires used to clear out those species but, since we started putting fires out, those species have now grown much bigger to raise the stocking levels to "unnatural" numbers. My 20+ years of forest experience in many National Forests in many different states qualifies me to bring my observations and opinions here. My knowledge of forests and science should encourage you folks to listen to me. We all want the same "desired future conditions" but, we differ in how to get there and how fast we get there.

We've already seen what happens when fires rage through unmanaged and unnatural forests. Do we really want brush-choked public lands where old growth once dominated for centuries??!?

[BeFree]

15. Well

I want old growth to dominate again in something like 50% plus of our public forests. It won't happen in my life time, but our grand kids may see such beautiful sights. But we must start today.

I see you keep using the word "stocking" is that as in livestock? As in commercial interest? As in what we can produce for cash?

In 20 years, probably 50% of old growth forests have been cut. That is not a proud legacy, is it?

Oh: natural means not managed. Men managed, yes, but not the forests.

[XemaSab]

16. "In 20 years, probably 50% of old growth forests have been cut."

What 20 years are you talking about? :shrug:

[Fotoware58]

17. Sorry but....

old growth is disappearing at an alarming rate, due to wildfires today. As long as the powers that be continue to ignore science, we'll continue to see catastrophic wildfires ravage our public forests and kill old growth. If you haven't noticed, it is impossible to remove man's influence and stupidity from our forests. The solution is to make our forests resistant to drought, bark beetles and fires, through active forest management.

Stocking means how many trees per acre or how much "basal area" (the amount of land per acre covered by growing stems). Those figures are determined by how much rainfall there is on that particular piece of ground, and a few other factors. Current stocking levels are WAY above what is "natural" and historically-recorded.

"In 20 years, probably 50% of old growth forests have been cut." The is patently wrong. As a matter of fact, there is a ban of the cutting of trees that are 30" in diameter or greater in our National Forests within California. Many other National Forests have had other diameter limits for cutting trees. Where I live, the average cut tree diameter is at 14" with the vast majority of trees falling between 10" and 18" in diameter. This has been going on since 1993 but, some people tend to completely ignore such facts.

The best minds in forest ecosystems, including Dr. Jerry Franklin, Dr. Thomas Bonnicksen and Stephen Pyne all agree we have to intervene or risk losing the rest of our forests. That means managing our forests back to a more "natural" state so we can reinvent fire into the great tool that the Indians used so expertly.

Yes, the logging practices of more than 20 years ago were horrendous but, the inaction of the last 2 decades has tied our hands in limiting the options available to us. We can watch millions of acres burn every year or we can use science to restore those forests to what we were blessed with 500 years ago.

AND, we have barely touched upon the mega-impacts of these firestorms. I keep waiting for someone to explain the benefits of Let-Burn fires, like the Biscuit. What about the massive tonnage of GHG's from firestorms? What about the loss of one third of Oregon's Spotted Owl habitat, because we didn't deal with the fire when it was small? What about the loss of old growth? What about the smoke that injures and kills people? What about the huge dollar costs to our government to put out these firestorms instead of acting when the fires are small? What about the bark beetle blooms that kill the fire's survivors?

Forest management deniers seem like they will say anything to keep science out of our forests.

[BeFree]

18. The nation enjoys

...just 10% of the old growth forests that we had 200 years ago. It was around 20% 20 years ago. Thanks to all the experts in the FS we are losing our last remaining OG forests. It is a shame the spotted owl had lost so much habitat, so that one fire would cause so much harm to its survival, but it was the logging that really ruined the owl's habitat.

How, one simply has to wonder, did the OG survive without man's 'management'.

This idea that looking at forest profundity as 'stocking levels' is looking at the forests for the cash potential. Lose that $$ way of thinking and, over time, the forests will become more natural.

That is the first step.

Basically tho, the forests of yesteryear are extinct and as long as man thinks he can manage anything but its own actions, they will remain extinct.

Stop the logging, remove the roads and let restoration happen. It's cheaper, its long lasting and it's the right thing to do.

I know several land owners who are sorry they ever let the loggers on their land. Their money is gone and so are their forests.

[Fotoware58]

19. Sorry that you choose to ignore science, bud

Nothing you have said has much scientific truth to it. Yes, logging in the distant past wasn't a good thing but, people like you will not listen to our best scientific minds who have spent their lives studying forests. Even some of those learned folks had it wrong less than 5 years ago but, they've swallowed their pride and changed their minds. Your numbers just aren't accurate and I question your motives. You question my motives and have determined, despite my never mentioning dollars, that I want to cut old growth in exchange for money. Without th innings, whether it was by Indians in the past or by today's humans, old growth trees will never reach the sizes and healthiness of pre-European forests. I have no monetary interest in forests because this is my home. I also have no interest in lumber mill profits, either. I truly think that it should be the mill's "patriotic duty" to merely break even on Forest Service projects.

Stocking levels deal solely with how many trees for how much water. We've clearly seen the disaster that happens when there isn't enough water to go around. Indians reduced stocking levels during their time on this earth through anthropogenic fires. Stocking levels are to make sure that reductions in tree densities don't result in a loss of ecosystem function and impact endangered species.

You can choose to question science but, ignorance of science is just plain dangerous and deadly for our forests and our planet. Deadly for wildlife, Deadly for humans. Deadly for plants. It is sad that forests are dying because people choose to disregard science. Forest restoration requires sound science to be successful and we need to follow the science. Obama promised he would "follow the science". I have yet to see that.

[BeFree]

21. Eh?

Are you saying natives are responsible for OG? That they 'managed' the forests and the result was OG?

There have been a lot of words here but I still don't get what it is you are trying to say. It seems you are in favor of intensive forest management. Obviously, I am not. But we must manage what we allow man to do in our forests.

The science is all over the place. There are arguments that are contradictory. So, then we examine the sources. One source is from the extractors, the other source are from the more conservation minded. One source is special interest minded and the other ecologically minded.

Have you ever seen the giant redwood stumps in the middle of a high desert -Florrisant Beds(?)- in Colorado? Guess what happened to them.... they ran out of water. Giant redwoods. In the desert. Things change.

The change that modern man has brought to our forests in 200 years is not something to dismiss lightly. To continue to do the same things and expect different results is insane.

We must become but visitors to our forests: take nothing but pictures and leave nothing but footprints.

[Fotoware58]

24. Natives ARE responsible for making those trees big and old

Their burning practices eliminated the fire-adapted pines' competition and allowed them to dominate the landscape. Active forest management doesn't have to be clearcutting and high-grading. We CAN improve our forests through restoration activities and intelligent policies. We CAN return our forests to the resilient majestic forests that greeted us as we moved westward.

Above all, you would make our forests as "unnatural" as can be by removing man. Yes, forests evolved with man actively managing them and you propose to eliminate that concept. Forest management need not be "intensive". Returning tree densities to "natural" levels is essential. Today's fires turn tree densities to almost zero. You can choose to ignore all the impacts of catastrophic wildfires but that doesn't mean the impacts aren't there.

I still have yet to see anyone present any benefits to today's wildfires. (other than padding firefighters wallets) Like it or not, firestorms will continue to destroy forests and add to climate change unless we intervene, using the latest and greatest science. History will look back and wonder what lunacy caused us to burn down our forests in the face of climate change, loss of endangered species and a catastrophic loss of the precious ecosystem services that healthy forests provide.

The one thing that the Obama Administration, the Bush Administration and the eco's agree upon is that we need to let forests burn. The Bush folks discovered they could harvest more timber if it was burned. Salvaging dead old growth just isn't sustainable because, eventually, all the old growth will be gone.










I'm WAITING!!!! (tap, tap, tap).............for someone to explain to me the benefits of wildfires

[XemaSab]

10. That is not even close to the etymology of that word

n/t

[Dogmudgeon]

20. Aged by Man?

The word manage is from French, and it means "handiwork". It's not a modern concept, but one from the age of artisanry and pre-industrial culture.

The idea is that with management, wisdom of the craft (in this case, woodcraft) would be used as best as we know how. Before the modern age, most forests were not abused. Sure, there were exceptions, but today the abuse of nature is universal.

We know pretty well how to manage the woodlands in the small scale. Our problem is that everything we do has been supersized and amplified. So I'm generally on your track -- we need to do a lot more understanding and a lot less exploiting.

I'm not going to hold my breath until that happens, though. It usually takes some serious agony before people wise up, and we're in line for a whole lot of wisdom.

--d!
Green Grammar Nazi. Sorta.

[BeFree]

22. Aged by man

Quite the twist, eh?

In forests that have been managed their age has been determined by man.

'Age of forest' is a much used term in describing forests. OG has never been man aged. A freshly cut over forest tho, has now been born anew. One year old. Aged to year one by the hand of man doing his handiwork.

[Fotoware58]

23. Little known fact

Not many people know that clearcutting in California's National Forests have been banned since 1993. Same for high-grading. These actions were not ordered by a court but, were voluntary necessities implemented by the Forest Service on its own. Also, uneven-aged management has been accepted and implemented long ago, again because it was the right thing to do. Just because destructive logging still happens on private lands doesn't mean that the Forest Service does it too. Now the Forest Service is destroying forests by letting them burn to a crisp and releasing their ancient carbon. Also released in massive quantities are deadly pollutants that do kill people. Yes, wildfires kill people, if you didn't know.

Indians did actively cultivate and manage old growth by setting fires. Trees cannot get that big when competition for scarce water is so high. Many people in eco-groups have a secret fear that foresters are right in their dire predictions. What about the "Precautionary Principle"? Why do we go against it when the warning signs are so big and so clear?

[Fotoware58]

26. Scientists ARE changing their minds

At the Bonn meetings setting up for Copenhagen, international scientists ARE advocating hands-on management of forests at risk. I fully expect that American preservationists will attempt to minimize and/or eliminate this idea, as it doesn't match the agenda they covet. Will Obama listen to the worldwide scientific community or will his Administration continue to support their campaign contributors?

Yeah, yeah.....I know....it's just "politics" but, the President also promised he would "follow the science", didn't he?

[XemaSab]

9. Most of the areas burned in the Biscuit fire are growing back just fine

n/t

[Fotoware58]

12. Lots of brush

I'm sure there's LOTS of brush growing back in those areas that burned at high intensity. That brush will probably dominate for decades because the soils have been damaged by the high temperatures, losing nitrogen and carbon from soils levels as deep as 3 feet below the surface. What is left is a soil which has lost micro and macro nutrients, as well as a serious loss of moisture-holding capacity and a hydrophobic surface layer that prevents rainfall from penetrating into the ground.

http://westinstenv.org/ffsci/2008/10/19/intense-forest-wildfire-sharply-reduces-mineral-soil-c-and-n-the-first-direct-evidence/

This is a peer-reviewed study that started before the Biscuit Fire, so that pre-fire conditions were studied and documented indepth. There is no doubt that the Biscuit Fire was ultra-destructive and the effects will not be gone for decades, and maybe even centuries. That being said, I'm sure that out of almost a half million acres you would be able to find one area that is recovering well. Please read the study and see just how high fire intensities destroy forests in many other ways. I've seen a large portion of the Biscuit Fire and walked among big chunks of old growth that had 100% mortality. I have pictures of this and it proves that fires are not beneficial to public forests. There is also more damage to come, as only 4% of the burn had any salvage operations to remove the dead fuels. Additionally, the very late salvage efforts prevented the removal of highly-flammable smaller diameter trees which are essential in rehabilitation efforts. The large diameter snags are far less flammable and more valuable as wildlife habitat (as well as for making boards that sequester carbon). Future fires will feed upon the remaining dead fuels, just as the Biscuit Fire raged through the earlier unsalvaged Silver Fire of 1987.

[XemaSab]

14. You must have been to a very different area of the Biscuit than where I was

The parts I went to looked like they were regenerating happily. :shrug:

[Fotoware58]

25. The TRUE costs of wildfire

While there are NOT any benefits to wildfires for our forests, there certainly are BIG costs associated with them. People NEED to know what these huge costs are before they advocate the government's Let-Burn policy. Where is the wisdom in turning a $3000 lightning fire into a $100,000,000 highly destructive firestorm?!?!?



The True Cost of Wildfire in the Western U.S.

Introduction

The millions of dollars spent to extinguish large wildfires are widely reported and used to underscore the severity of these events. Extinguishing a large wildfire, however, accounts for only a fraction of the total costs associated with a wildfire event. Residents in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) are generally seen as the most vulnerable to fire, but a fuller accounting of the costs of fire also reveals impacts to all Americans and gives a better picture of the losses incurred when our forests burn.

A full accounting considers long-term and complex costs, including impacts to watersheds, ecosystems, infrastructure, businesses, individuals, and the local and national economy. Specifically, these costs include property losses (insured and uninsured), post-fire impacts (such as flooding, erosion, and water quality), air quality damages, healthcare costs, injuries and fatalities, lost revenues (to residents evacuated by the fire, and to local businesses), infrastructure shutdowns (such as highways, airports, railroads), and a host of ecosystem service costs that may extend into the distant future.

Day-lighting the true costs of fire highlights opportunities to use active management to curb escalating costs. Unhealthy forests can increase the risk of fire. Investing in active forest management is therefore valuable in the same way as investing in one’s own preventative health care. Upfront costs can be imposing, and while the benefits may seem uncertain, good health results in cost savings that benefit the individual, family, and society. This analogy helps to highlight the importance of fostering resilient ecosystems before fires occur, as a tool for reducing the costs associated with suppression and recovery as well as extending benefits to a far wider circle of individuals than might be initially expected.