A paying proposition for the public, taxpayers and landowners There are a number of views about forest health and the role of wildfire. Many have argued that the nation’s forests should be restored to pre-European conditions. With such a view, all management or regulatory strategies are evaluated for their ability to return to the past.

However, it is not socially or ecologically possible to restore forests and other landscapes in Washington to the condition they were in prior to European settlement. Past evolutionary processes still have modern-day implications, but things have changed–– including the climate and the impact of people and their values. These interactions guarantee that the future will be substantially different than the past and a return to the historical situation simply is not feasible.

Adaptive strategies, not restoration, are the best pathways to improve current forest conditions. Adaptation acknowledges fundamental ecological process in a context that has changed and will continue to change. Such an approach to wildfire protection and forest health is more likely to succeed because adaptation reduces both risks and costs to the public, communities and landowners.

If avoided costs and who “really pays” are considered, then total net costs to taxpayers, the public and landowners can be reduced while forest health is improved and risk is reduced. Certain investments in forest health and fuels management can make forests safer, both today and tomorrow.

The key to effective and efficient action is in understanding the dynamic links between forest health risks and wildfire risks.

Please open the PDF below to read the complete text

Forest Health and Wildfires