"Prepared" fire

[Fotoware58]

Please read and discuss this controversial but scientifically-sound article advocating active forest management in the desert southwest. In my 20+ years of working out in the woods, I can surely verify that what Wally Covington is saying is true; That fire alone CANNOT restore our forests and that we WILL need a "re-invented" timber industry to save our ponderosa pine forests from catastrophic fires. Only fires where the land has been "prepared" for fire will be beneficial. Today's Let-Burn fires selectively kill the oldest trees and destroy forest ecosystems.

"Wally Covington, who has spent a quarter century reshaping the debate about forest management, leaned forward excitedly across the boundary between his biggest disappointment and his dearest hope.

On one hand, lush grass and scattered flowers swayed in the dappled sunlight in an open forest dominated by widely spaced, ponderosa pines.

On the other side of a wire fence huddled a dark, thick forest, with the smattering of grand old trees besieged by tangles of spindly saplings — the ground covered by pine needles rather than grass.

The contrast between those two patches of forest underlies his unsettling conclusion that the forests of the Southwest sway at the edge of ecological disaster, which can only be averted by a politically unlikely reinvention of the timber industry to thin millions of acres as a prelude to restoring fire to its rightful role."

http://www.paysonroundup.com/news/2009/aug/07/saving_pine_forest/

[zipplewrath]

1. Troubles of scale

It is difficult to see how this can be accomplished on a large scale. The timber industry will be glad to help by cutting down timber. But how will he get them to "carefully" clear the brush around old growth trees and pile it up for a controlled burn? And who will do the controlled burns after that every 4-5 years on millions of acres?

[phantom power]

2. "but obviously can’t afford to take that approach on the millions of acres of unhealthy forest."

I question that assumption. Who says "the govt" can't afford it?

[Fotoware58]

3. A year ago...

I would have contested that statement, as the costs of $1000 per acre seems rather low to me. An acre of plantation overgrown with manzanita surely would cost more than a grand per acre. However, with the billions and even trillions of dollars flung far and wide by this Administration, money seems to be no issue at all, these days. Additionally, we can't, and probably shouldn't, try to "treat" every acre of public land. Indeed, steep terrain, nesting habitat and riparian zones are three types of forestlands that should maybe be low on the priority list. The biggest hurdle still seems to be a political one, with both sides of the aisle opposing meaningful forest restoration and rehabilitation. The government's Let-Burn program (initiated by Bush) is still very much in force. The Sierra Club still opposes any harvesting of merchantable trees (essential to restoring historical stocking levels and helping to pay for non-commercial treatments). Agencies like the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have had their timber programs downsized and qualified foresters are retiring en masse (with no one to fill in behind them). Timber salvage sales continue to be litigated against despite the fact that re-burns are often as catastrophic as the original fires.

What it WILL take is for us to use every tool in the forester's toolbox in order to economically restore our forest ecosystems to their historical function and resilience. Personally, I still think we cannot escape this three stage ongoing disaster. The massive overstocking is what is killing our forests, and climate change is making it even worse. Fire intensities will "cook" the soils so that they can no longer support bigger trees. A new study has shown that the intense heat of catastrophic wildfires change soils characteristics for decades, if not centuries, including increased flooding when soils become hydrophobic. Damaged soils also impact wildlife, due to dried up springs, when rainwater does not penetrate through the hydrophobic soil layer.

I see a parallel with climate change deniers. The science overwhelmingly shows the damage that today's intense wildfires do, yet many choose not to see it. Those in power not only deny the damage but, accelerate it with their short-sighted agendas.

[phantom power]

4. One thing that sets off my alarm bells...

is when I hear anybody saying that private industries, especially extraction industries like for example the timber industry, are "the only way" to solve some problem X involving public resource management.

I have absolutely no doubt that private timber companies would love to "help" us solve our forest management problems. I do my best to keep an open mind about such things, but I can tell you that if anybody decides to let them in the door, it had better be under strict supervision and regulation. It's really easy for me to see somebody sponsor some legislation about private undergrowth harvesting, and then the timber industry sets up some sweetheart deals so they get to harvest with tons of loopholes, and we end up with a bunch of clearcut federal forest land.

Now, that aside, the article was pretty interesting, and Covington sounds like he has conducted some good experiments to arrive at his conclusions. At least, it all looks good to my code-monkey self.

[Fotoware58]

5. Supervision and regulation

Being a former Harvest Inspector and Timber Sale Administrator, charged with overseeing the on-the-ground activities of lumber mills and their contractors, I'd say we already have plenty of rules, laws and policies to control the timber industry. Here in California, we've gone through 16 years of a ban on clearcutting and high-grading with no problems at all. The average diameter of a "cut tree" in the fuels reduction projects I have worked on is around 14" in diameter. No one is going to buy into the idea of clearcutting or high-grading in order to "save our forests".

Each contract is quite complex with boilerplate provisions that follow NEPA to protect the forest environment, even going as far as covering littering. At each "pre-op" meeting, I used to have a bit of fun by telling the loggers and the mill's foresters that I was a "certified tattletale", and that I look at every single acre within the project. Basically, that truly IS the job of a Harvest Inspector but, I'm also supposed to help facilitate the economic removal of timber volume and completion of all contractual items within the project, in an environmentally-responsible and safe manner. Truthfully, some loggers and mill foresters weren't used to having to strictly follow the contract, and some would get pretty angry when I forced them to comply with the contract they all signed.

A small log lumber mill is kind of similar to a biomass plant, in that it needs to be "fed" an amazing amounts of logs that never seems to be enough. The foresters who run such mills tend to be pretty demanding and confrontative, and when they don't get their own way, they tend to go over your head to get what they want. Those types never seemed to realize that their hostile style was counterproductive and only served to draw greater scrutiny.

I've also worked with smart loggers and dumb loggers. Luckily, with the reduction of timber sales, most of the dumb loggers simply went out of business because they weren't knowledgeable and efficient. The smart ones were pretty hard to keep up with in doing the required inspections but, their work was usually acceptable under the contract. Most loggers are simply private contractors, hired by the mills to do the work on Federal projects. Sometimes it is hard to get the mills to supervise their own contractors, especially when their loggers make BIG mistakes out in the woods. Usually, the supervision and enforcement would fall to me, as well as contractual explanations.

Both the Forest Service and the BLM have a shortage of people with this contractual and environmental experience. I see this situation getting worse as the years go by. This isn't something you can learn in a year or two.

[phantom power]

8. How do you see a large-scale thinning effort playing out...

in a scenario where the Forest Service and the BLM have a shortage of people with the necessary contractual and environmental experience.

[Fotoware58]

12. Large scale thinnings

(Hmmmm, interesting side note: As I started to write this, two airtankers just flew over)

With a shortage of qualified people to do this kind of work, the Feds will simply do what they have done in the past. They will hire people off the street, give them a few days of training and then hand them the paintgun. In my long career, I've made mistakes while learning, as well. We seem to be doomed to repeating those mistakes with brand new people. With increased third-party scrutiny and lawsuit research, mistakes will come to the surface much more often than in the past. That is a good thing, although it hinders the amount of work in the forests. If the USFS is going to do the work, we need to make the "walk the talk". I find it awful that timbermarkers are often required to be certified as timber cruisers but, not certified to mark the "right trees", in the first place.

Today's thinning projects cover vast amounts of acres, with the board feet per acre dropping to low levels. Lumber mills are fine with this, as they just want the logs, and lots of them, in the small sizes that they want. The increased acreage requires a lot more footwork for the Timber Sale Administrator. Many old timber "dinosaurs" feel that they don't have to walk every acre on a timber sale to see a representative sample of the logger's work. THIS has to change!! If one can't physically walk the ground, then one should not be doing that job. Another option is to hire Harvest Inspectors, who can walk the ground for them and report back. If the logger or mill forester knows that there will be a high level of scrutiny, they will think twice about cutting corners in the contractual provisions.

Whether it is a green sale or a salvage sale, the potential for logging damage is always there. In fact, it is to be expected, discovered and mitigated, as logging is not an exact science. The Timber Sale Administrator (and Harvest Inspector) can be very proactive in his/her approach to avoiding logging damage by keeping contractual control and near-obsessive documentation. During my career, I have also found that I can get an excellent job out of a logger by also documenting their good work. All too often, they get continually bashed with non-compliance reports and having to slow down their operations in order to go back and fix their mistakes. When they get "contractually-complimented", it makes them want to do more good work. I made sure the workers on the ground saw the good report, as well.

Some loggers seem to just LIKE to fight over contractual details and "alternate methods". Some would rather argue than to just go and do the work, as the contracts says they must. This is where experience and savvy comes in for a Fed. We need people who will be "fair and firm", with a rare combination of environmental expertise, interpersonal relations, impartial flexibility and, sometimes, sheer stubbornness. It takes many years to develop all of those traits, and it is hard to become certified as a Timber Sale Administrator.

If contractual projects are ramped up in the BLM and USFS, the manpower shortages will be dealt with by using unqualified people, just like they have always done.

[Fotoware58]

6. New fire

In less than 24 hours, a wildfire in the Santa Cruz mountains of California has grown to over 1000 acres, burning in old growth and thick brush. A lack of forest management is to blame for the rapid growth of this terrible crown fire. Flames are towering over 300 feet tall, burning old growth pine and douglas fir. The video footage is particularly dramatic, as the intensity and rapid spread of this fire is astounding. The fire-driven winds are having a major effect and increased winds are expected in the advance of a low-pressure system off the coast. BAD combination!

[Fotoware58]

9. Fire Update

The Santa Cruz fire has now grown to 2300 acres in less than one day. 2400 people are now evacuated and there is zero containment. Winds are expected to increase this afternoon and tomorrow. Such inevitability is often ignored and most people still think that such fires can be extinguished with enough engines, hand crews and airplanes. The extreme fire activity is certainly causing extreme damage and tragedy. This is what happens when the forests are left to "let nature take its course".

[Fotoware58]

10. Fire Map

img src=

This one is going to be UGLY!! The fire intensity is incredible, with towering flames completely incinerating ancient trees. 2400 acres burned on the first day is pretty scary. Even though this fire is very close to the ocean, fire behavior is causing damage far beyond what environmentalists claim is possible. The damage to soils will be causing extreme erosion when the coastal rains return. Rainwater won't be able to penetrate through the hydrophobic soil layer and will be concentrated into an impressive erosional force. Sometimes this area can get up to 20+ inches of rainfall in a 24-hour period.

[Fotoware58]

11. Not "prepared"

The Lockheed Fire is a perfect example of a forest not at all ready for fire. Ancient Ohlone Indians used to manage these forests for their own use and sheer survival but, the white man has eliminated those beneficial practices and allowed the forests to become overgrown with both dead AND live fuels. The knobcone pines, for example, are trees they knew to be dangerous to them, with their extreme flammability.

The fire is up to over 6000 acres and is only 30% contained, with drier and hotter conditions returning. The media wrongly portrays this area as "remote pristine wilderness", although there is a Starbucks within 15 miles, as the crow flies. Other mal-informed people are advocating a let-burn strategy, except where houses are nearby. They don't know how easily fires are recharged with extra burning energy when conditions are right. This is the time of year when weak cold fronts come in off the Pacific, with no rain but changable, and potentially high winds.

They expect at least another week before they can get possible containment and a lot can happen between now and then. Other fires have popped up in Caalifornia and the demand for fire units is piling up. This is also the best time for lightning storms in the California mountains, and many young firefighters will be returning to school soon.

The stage is set and our forests are NOT "prepared" for fires. Fires could rage well into Novemeber, folks!!

[PavePusher]

13. This begs the question...

"This is what happens when the forests are left to "let nature take its course""

How did everything manage to survive without people to "manage" it for so many thousands of years before we got here?

If it's a natural fire, let it burn.

If it's caused by man-made arson or accident, put it out.

How is this difficult?

[Fotoware58]

14. Ummmm....

The Ohlone Indians managed those lands for those thousands of years, bud. They carefully tended and burned for their own livelihoods and even their sheer survival. When the white man came, he eliminated both the Indians AND their practices. We allowed the knobcone pines and manzanita to grow thick and intensely flammable.

In fact, there is no chance of a "natural fire" burning because the forests themselves are "unnatural", from multiple impacts and processes.

"How did everything manage to survive without people to "manage" it for so many thousands of years before we got here?".... This is the catch-phrase for people who don't know anything about history, as well as putting the blinders on to what is happening here in the West. How is it that we have 7 million acres of dead and dying forests today, clearly NOT surviving, in spite of your rhetoric.

What about fires which ignitions are "undetermined"? What about fires that end up burning hundreds and thousands of acres?? Clearly, we cannot trust the firefighters to decide which fires to fight and which to let burn, as they will act to reap the overtime and hazard pay that comes with 45 day Let-Burn fires. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse, eh??

Please read the other thread and the link to a paper written by Dr. Stephen Pyne about lack of scientific wisdom of letting fires burn. The scientific consensus calls for us to MANAGE our forests back into health, structure, resiliency and vigor before we can allow "free range fire". Only through education can we save our forests from wildfires but, if the powers that be refuse to learn, what can be done? In the meantime, destructive wildfires continue to burn, destroy and kill, with your blessing.

[Fotoware58]

15. "Let nature take its course"????????

I'm currently on a mission to convince people that "letting nature take its course" is definitely NOT the thing to do, in this day and age. Posting pictures here means they will be available to me to post in eco-forums. A picture is worth a thousand words and, since I was once a "Freddie", my words are automatically tainted. Soooo, I think that posting pictures of the mess our forests are in will go a long way towards convincing people that our forests DO need human intervention and that they are NOT "doing just fine for the last 10,000 years without humans".
.
Here is a picture of the Lake Tahoe area behind Kings Beach, during the early 90's drought and bark beetle emergency. Environmentalists and misguided people stopped much of the salvage efforts and most of the dead trees you see in this picture have fallen over and lie in wait for the next inevitable lightning fire. In this dry summer environment, wood simply doesn't decay into soil. It BURNS!

img src=

Eco's always try to say that wildfires are "beneficial" and "low-intensity". This shot of Oregon's Biscuit Fire shows, without a doubt, that fires indeed cause forest destruction and very longterm damage. Even with a minimum of ground cover, due to rocky terrain, the fire burned with such intensity that it killed almost every single tree.

img src=

Here is another picture in the same area of the Biscuit Fire. For as far as you can see in the distance, the fire killed trees and burned up spotted owl nesting sites, and habitat. The areas that weren't salvaged, due to them being within Spotted Owl "circles", are now doomed to burn again, causing hellish fire intensities near the ground and sterilizing soils for decades into the future. They will no longer be able to support the large trees that were once there.



Here is a dramatic picture of a burn area in the Bitterroot National Forest, where mortality looks to be about 90%. The wood became unusable due to litigation against the Forest Service and now, this area is also doomed to burn again, at high intensity. The original fire is clearly NOT "beneficial", and the land will suffer for decades.

img src=

Here is an example of a "biological wildfire", where bark beetles have overwhelmed every single pine in the area of Camp Seeley, near Crestline, in the San Bernardino National Forest. A lack of scientific forest management allowed this forest to become overstocked with trees, causing it to be ultra-sensitive to even minimal drought. As the drought worsened, the entire forest became completely stressed and the bark beetles "bloomed" into an unstoppable force and the forests had no defense against them.

img src=

[Fotoware58]

16. The Station Fire

This fire has been burning in lands that have seen no fuels reductions. Last night, the fire doubled its size, along with 2 fatalities. Many homes burned up and the many antennas on Mt. Wilson are about to be incinerated. The fire has now ballooned up to 134 square miles! This is a perfect example of "letting nature take its course". Along with the Yosemite "goof", we are seeing how the eco's preference for dealing with nature have failed miserably.

But WAIT!! This situation isn't over by a LONG shot! We have another 2 months of prime fire season left to endure, along with the health hazards that the intense smoke brings. (I can verify the health problems from the smoke. Several neighbors had the same symptoms of smoke inhalation that I had two days ago. 100,000+ people in the Reno/Tahoe area had the same health alert, from the Yosemite Fire)

[Fotoware58]

17. Once again...

just WHERE are the supposed "benefits" of wildfires?!?!!?







OH.....Yeah.....I forgot.......Firefighters are making TONS of money, at the expense of the environment!!

[Fotoware58]

7. Congressional testimony from Dr. Covington

These are excerpts from his testimony to Congress way back in 2002. Maybe if we had heeded his science-based warnings, we would have seen a LOT less forest mortality than we have seen since then. Why did Congress and America disregard his learned recommendations?? Now, we are stuck with this ongoing disaster that is radically degrading our environment and draining our checkbooks of billions of dollars. Even now, people are fighting to eliminate all forest management, despite the overwhelming evidence that eco-lawyers litigations are paralyzing our ability to respond to this disaster. This sure seems like suppression of science by our government to me!

"Chairman Bingaman, and members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on a subject of personal importance to me and of critical importance to the health of our nation’s forests and the people and communities that live within them.

My name is Wallace Covington. I am Regents’ Professor of Forest Ecology at Northern Arizona University and Director of the Ecological Restoration Institute. I have been a professor teaching and researching fire ecology and restoration management at NAU since 1975. I chair Arizona Governor Jane Dee Hull’s Forest Health/Fire Plan Advisory Committee and am a member of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry.

I have a Ph.D. in forest ecosystem analysis from Yale University and an M.S. in ecology from the University of New Mexico. Over the past 27 years I have taught graduate and undergraduate courses in research methods, ecological restoration, ecosystem management, fire ecology and management, forest management, range management, wildlife management, watershed management, recreation management, park and wildland management, and forest operations research. I have been working in long-term research on fire ecology and management in ponderosa pine and related ecosystems since I moved to Northern Arizona University in 1975. In addition to my publications on forest restoration, I have co-authored scientific papers on a broad variety of topics in forest ecology and resource management including research on fire effects, prescribed burning, thinning, operations research, silviculture, range management, wildlife effects, multiresource management, forest health, and natural resource conservation.

My testimony will focus on the implementation of the National Fire Plan and the urgent need to increase the pace and size of forest restoration treatments to reverse the trend of increasing catastrophic wildfires. I will outline a three-step approach to help achieve this goal…

It is an unfortunate set of circumstances that have led to this hearing. Scientists have predicted the current forest crisis for the last 75 years. In 1994 I was senior author on a review paper in which I stated that we could anticipate exponential increases in the severity and extent of catastrophic fire. It is not a prediction I ever wanted to come true. In that same paper, I also suggested that we have a narrow window of 15-30 years to take preventative actions to restore forest health, minimize the loss of civilian and firefighter lives, and the mounting damage to our nation’s natural resources.


Although scientists have long foreseen the increase in fire size and severity in ponderosa pine ecosystems, the scale of the fires we have seen so far this year is staggering. Years of neglect are coming home to roost. The Rodeo/Chediski fire in Arizona consumed 469,000 acres and is Arizona’s largest wildfire to date. Prior to the 1960s a fifty-acre crown fire was considered a “large fire”. In addition, the fire behavior these fires are exhibiting make suppression efforts exceptionally challenging—demonstrating that there are limits to our ability to fight them. The Heyman Fire in Colorado and the Rodeo/Chediski Fire in Arizona are major wakeup calls to all of us.

Clearly, we have to do something quickly on a larger scale to reverse the trend of exponentially increasing fire suppression costs, increases in fire severity, and destruction of what should be a healthy legacy for future generations. Thus far, the National Fire Plan has not resulted in the implementation of large-scale, comprehensive restoration treatments that are required to prevent catastrophic fire. In addition, implementation must focus on the greater landscape as well as the wildland/urban interface to achieve success.

Why forest restoration treatments work

We have been in open revolt against nature in the dry forests of the West since settlement. It is time to start managing in harmony with natural tendencies. Science-based forest restoration treatments are consistent with natural tendencies. Comprehensive restoration is superior to forest thinning alone for one significant reason—restoration treatments simultaneously improve forest health (the underlying cause of catastrophic fire) while reducing fire risk. Restoration treatments permit the safe reintroduction of fire and present a long-term strategy for fixing forests.

Research across the Intermountain West has shown that restoration treatments substantially reduce fire hazard by thinning trees to decrease tree canopy density, break up interconnected canopy fuels, raise the crown base height (the distance from the ground to the crown), and then reduce accumulated forest floor fuels and debris with prescribed fire. Fire alone in the unnaturally dense forests that dominate so much of the West today is inadequate. Without thinning, prescribed burning is an exceedingly dangerous way to get the amount of thinning done that is needed and it can lead to increased mortality, especially among old growth trees. Furthermore, the probability of a prescribed fire escaping its planned burn area are increasingly likely as fuels continue to accumulate.

There is abundant scientific research that began in the 1890’s and continues today that provides a sound scientific framework for implementing the science and practice of restoration. We have solid information about forest conditions prior to Euro-American settlement, changes in fire regimes over the last century, deterioration of overall ecosystem health, and ecological responses to thinning and prescribed burning—the key elements of any attempt to restore ecosystem health in ponderosa pine and related ecosystems. We know that current overcrowded stands of trees do not sustain the diversity of wildlife and plants that existed a century ago. We know this by examining the data of early naturalists and scientists. We also know this to be true from primary research. Scientists that have compared biological diversity of overstocked stands—stands that have had decades of fire exclusion–with open, park-like stands that have not had severe fire regime disruption, have found greater plant diversity, greater insect diversity, and greater bird diversity. Similar studies have also found greater old-growth tree vigor and resistance to insect attack in open, park-like stands—stands similar to those present before settlement. We also know that stopping ecologically based forest restoration that includes thinning, is not saving the forest as some would like you to believe, but only contributing to its demise and causing severe losses to the wealth of species that depend on it…

I have been advocating forest restoration over the past 20 years, but my sense of urgency has greatly increased. We need to break the logjam that impedes progress. A logjam that is rooted in distrust, personal preferences and a legal process (NEPA) that should contribute to the design of solutions but is sometimes used to obstruct them. I believe that with thoughtful action, adequate resources and public and private leadership we can solve this logjam and emerge victorious from our current crisis. The three key steps are:

1. DESIGN TREATMENTS STARTING WITH SOLID SCIENCE AND SET STANDARDS FOR EFFECTIVENESS. Ideological issues have been impediments to advancing treatments. Research to date indicates that alternative fuel reduction treatments (e.g., diameter caps for thinning) have strikingly different consequences not just for fire behavior but also for biodiversity, wildlife habitat, tree vigor and forest health. Treatment design should be based on what the forest requires to maintain health and reduce catastrophic fire. Science-based guidelines should be developed and become the foundation for treatments. In addition, they should be the criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of treatments. Guidelines will help guide managers and provide a base of certainty to those that are distrustful of land management agencies. The standard should be clear—if a treatment does not permit the safe reintroduction of fire and simultaneously facilitate the restoration of the forest it is not a solution.

2. REDUCE CONFLICT BY USING AN ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK TO DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT A SERIES OF TREATMENTS. We can wait no longer. Solutions to catastrophic wildfire must be tested and refined in a “learning while doing” mode. Two of the barriers preventing the implementation of landscape scale treatments are the unrealistic desire for scientific certainty and a fear that once an action is selected it becomes a permanent precedent for future management. Scientific certainty will never exist and the past century of forest management demonstrates the need for applied research and active adaptation of management approaches using current knowledge. We should expand our environmental review process to provide approval of a series of iterative treatments, provided they are science based, actively monitored and committed to building from lessons learned and new information.

3. REBUILD PUBLIC TRUST IN LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES. SUPPORT A BROAD VARIETY OF PARTNERSHIP APPROACHES FOR PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING RESTORATION-BASED FUEL TREATMENTS. The lack of trust that exists between some members of the public and land management agencies is the genesis for obstructionist actions. The only way to rebuild trust is to develop meaningful collaborations between the agencies, communities and the public. There are emerging models of various forms of collaborative partnerships working to reduce the threat of fire while restoring the forest for its full suite of values. Their success depends on respectful community collaboration, human and financial resources and adequate scientific support to make well informed management decisions. Congress, federal agencies, universities, and non-governmental organizations must support these communities to help them achieve success. STEP ONE: DESIGN TREATMENTS STARTING WITH SOLID SCIENCE AND SET STANDARDS FOR EFFECTIVENESS

If we wanted to destroy our ponderosa pine forest landscapes, we could hardly come up with a more devastating plan than what we have done and continue to do—make a series of management mistakes and then engage in lengthy ideological debates instead of rolling up our sleeves and working to solve the problem. The fires of this year, and the past several decades, have forged a consensus that the problem of catastrophic wildfire is severe. Almost everyone agrees that restoration is the most scientifically rigorous and environmentally and economically reasonable way to proceed. Nonetheless, there is a lot of poorly informed speculation about how it should be applied, by activists, members of the lay public, and even some within the academic community. Some of the arguments are founded on differences of opinion about desirable ecological conditions for western forestlands. Others stem from differences of opinion about whether public lands should be used for consumptive resource use, especially by wood products or grazing interests, or for individual uses and/or non-consumptive uses.

We are now at the point where we must move beyond ideologically based rhetoric to apply restoration fuel treatments in such a way that we can simultaneously work to solve fire problems and restore ecosystem health.

We have a solid body of scientific information to design and test large-scale forest restoration that will protect people, communities and the forest. This knowledge should be synthesized into management guidelines that are scientifically solid and immediately useful to managers and others who want to work to solve the crownfire problems of the West…

We are at a fork in the road. Down one fork lies burned out, depauperate landscapes—landscapes that are a liability for future generations. Down the other fork lies health, diverse, sustaining landscapes—landscapes that will bring multiple benefits for generations to come. Inaction is taking, and will continue to take, us down the path to unhealthy landscapes, costly to manage. Scientifically-based forest restoration treatments, including thinning and prescribed burning, will set us on the path to healthy landscapes, landscapes like the early settlers and explorer saw in the late 1800s."