I write this essay with a heavy heart. As a professional forester for 35+ years, I have always professed good forest stewardship backed up by the best forest science. But over the last 20 years or so, forest science has been polluted and degraded by political advocacy of a pernicious and destructive nature, and so too have our priceless, heritage forests been destroyed by horrendous and catastrophic fires.

There is a crisis in our forests and in our forestry schools and those crises are interconnected. Bad forest science, junk or pseudoscience if you will, has sunk to the level of promoting forest destruction. Instead of commitment to saving forests from destruction, our forestry schools now promote that destruction on the most tenuous and disingenuous grounds.

The root cause of both crises is a corrupt political movement that seeks to impose centralized control and oppression, authoritarianism if you will, in the name of environmental protection. But protection is the furthest thing from the minds of the advocates and activists; diminution of freedom and liberty is foremost. The propaganda about environmental protection is a smokescreen, and behind the smoke lays a wasteland of environmental abuse on a landscape scale.

This essay is not about the crass political motivations of the neo-authoritarians, however. It is about catastrophic forest fires and corrupted forest science, and how the two go hand-in-hand.

It is an essay written in grief, grief for the loss of our heritage, our rationality, our institutions of higher learning, and most especially grief for the priceless forests incinerated by exceedingly bad decisions founded on exceedingly hateful and hurtful lies.

The Rape of Forest Science

A case in point: an article in Science Daily dated Feb 25, 2010 and entitled More Frequent Fires Could Aid Ecosystems [here] (unsigned but “adapted from materials provided by Oregon State University”).

The article reeks, of myths, half truths, and out and out lies.

Its ostensible purpose is to promote a conference taking place today at OSU, where the pseudoscientific justifications for forest holocaust will be preached to the public, the paying public mind you, and we all pay for it in more ways than one.

Its actual purpose is promotion of catastrophic and irreparable forest fires.

The pernicious fallacies in the article are numerous, and I shall demolish them one by one. This exercise may be tedious, but I see no other way to thoroughly deconstruct the lies.

The article begins:

With a changing climate there’s a good chance that forest fires in the Pacific Northwest will become larger and more frequent — and according to one expert speaking at a professional conference, that’s just fine.

Lie #1. The climate is cooling, not warming. Worldwide and nationally the climate has been cooling, or at best stable, for the last 15 years.

Lie #2. Forest fire size and frequency have nothing to do with microscopic “changes in climate.” Fires are fueled by biomass, not air temperatures. Biomass accumulates year by year. It is the a-historical build up of fuels and the fad toward un-management that has allowed continuity of accumulated fuels across entire landscapes that have generated the megafires of the last 20 years. It’s the fuels, stupid.

Lie #3. The expert isn’t, but we will not dwell on that.

The article continues:

The future of fire in this region is difficult to predict, will always be variable, and undoubtedly a part of the future landscape.

Lie #4. Forests fires are easy to predict, and prevent. In fact, the catastrophic fires that have decimated forests in this region over the last 20 years were predicted by many, including myself. The future holds more of the same, unless active management to reduce fuel loadings is implemented.

The article continues:

People should understand, however, that fire is not only inevitable but also a valuable part of forest ecosystems and their management, says John Bailey, an associate professor in the Department of Forest Engineering, Resources and Management at Oregon State University.

Bailey will speak as one of many invited experts at “Forest Health in Oregon: State of the State,” a conference being held at Oregon State University. He describes fire as a force that should be understood, often welcomed, used as appropriate and more frequently incorporated into long-term ecosystem management.

Half Truth #1. Fire is inevitable but not always valuable. There are low-burning fires which can aid forest restoration and benefit resources, but there are also intense fires that decimate resources and forest values.

Half Truth #2. Fire in forests should indeed be better understood and used appropriately. “Ecosystem management” is a meaningless term and not among the statutory mandates that guide public forest stewardship today. Statutory mandates are the laws established by Congress that govern and direct federal land management agencies. No law directs those agencies to apply “ecosystem management.”

The article continues:

Forests historically had more fire across much of Oregon, and they would love to have more today,” Bailey said.

Lie #5. Forests are not sentient beings and do not have emotions. Anthropomorphizing forests is a childish and decidedly unscientific thing to do. Dr. Bailey realizes that, but uses emotional allusions anyway in an effort to “simplify” which can be taken only as rude patronizing and arrogance toward the public.

The article continues:

“Burning is a natural ecosystem process and generally helps restore forest ecosystems.”

Lie # 6. Catastrophic fires destroy forest ecosystems, often converting forests to fire-type brush. There is nothing restorative about severe, intense fires that kill old-growth trees of ancient vintage and leave forests in smoking ruins. Historically, over the last 6,000 to 10,000 years frequent, seasonal, low burning anthropogenic (human-set) fires have maintained conditions whereby old-growth trees could develop. So-called “natural” fires of today destroy that heritage of stewardship and alter forest development pathways – often eliminating forests entirely.

The article continues:

“It’s ironic that we spend so much money to stop fire, because we should learn to see fire as more of a partner and not always an enemy.”

Lie #7. It is not ironic that catastrophic fires damage resources to the tune of tens of billions of dollars every year, some 10 to 50 times the amounts spent on fire suppression [here]. It is a travesty and a tragedy that abandoning forests to conditions conducive to megafire have decimated forests, damaged timber and forage values, wildlife habitat and populations (including endangered species and their critically protected habitat), air and water quality, recreational opportunities, public health and safety, private property, local and regional economies, and other resources and amenities important to all citizens.

The article continues:

Many experts are warning that global warming and drought stress in forests may make them more vulnerable to frequent, larger and hotter fires, Bailey said. That may be true, he added, although future predictions can’t be made with a high degree of certainty, and there will still be a wide amount of variation in the types of fires and acreages burned in various years.

Half Truth #3. Many experts, including myself, have been warning that the lack of active management will lead to more frequent, larger, and hotter fires. And we were right. It has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with biomass accumulation. It’s the fuels, stupid.

The article continues:

But the more important point, he emphasized, is that even if some of the more dire scenarios are true, they shouldn’t necessarily be seen as a crisis.

Lie #8. In fact, for the last 20 years we have witness a growing frequency of catastrophic megafires. During that time every state in the West has experienced the largest and most damaging fires in state history. Tens of millions of acres of forests have been severely burned, hundreds of billions of dollars worth of forest resources have been destroyed, watersheds denuded, airsheds polluted, wildlife populations decimated, thousands of homes incinerated, and hundreds of lives lost. It is a crisis, and widely recognized as such by forest experts, elected officials and the general public.

The article continues:

Frequent fire in Pacific Northwest forests will promote forest composition, structure and function that’s more consistent with how these forests grew historically. Prior to European settlement, fires were significantly more frequent, sometimes were started on purpose and rarely suppressed.

Half Truth #4. Historical anthropogenic fire induced the forest development pathways that led to fire- and insect-resilient forests. Those open and park-like forests maintained by frequent, seasonal, deliberate indigenous burning gave rise to the old-growth trees of today. It was not “natural” lightning-ignited fires that gave us old-growth; lightning is too irregular to create the anthropogenic mosaic of prairies, savannas, and open forests encountered by the first Euro-American explorers and pioneers. Irregular and infrequent lightning fires burning in fuel-laden forests are highly destructive of forest structure and indeed of forests themselves.

The article continues:

“Right now we’re spending billions of dollars to prevent something that is going to happen sooner or later, whether we try to stop it or not, and something that can assist us in sound land management,” Bailey said.

Lie #9. Right now we are spending $1 to $2 billion per year on fire suppression to prevent damages to forests, homes, livelihoods, and lives that are anywhere from 10 to 30 (sometimes 50) times more expensive than the fire suppression outlays. Catastrophic forest fires are not inevitable and can be prevented and/or mitigated by sound restoration forestry and active management.

This is important: the advocates of No Touch, Let It Burn, Watch It Rot have caused the infliction of tremendous destruction and tragedy, none of which was inevitable, and most of which could have been avoided. OSU College of Forestry has no restoration forestry experts, no restoration forestry program, and has promoted a hands-off approach. They abandoned “sound land management” 20 years ago, and adopted in its place an anti-forests, anti-forestry, and anti-forester attitude. That has been tragic for the profession and tragic for our forests.

The article continues:

“It may always make sense to put out some fires when they threaten communities, or in other select circumstances.

“But periodic fire has always been a part of our forests, and we need to accept it as such, sort of like how we plan for and accept a very wet winter that comes along now and then,” he said.

Half Truth #5. It makes more than sense to protect communities, forests, and watersheds from catastrophic fires – it is imperative. Such fires are nothing like wet winters, any more than the destruction of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina was common occurrence. The downplaying of wholesale destruction and disaster by implying it is a normal thing is despicable, irresponsible, and insane.

The article continues:

Fire regimes vary widely based on fuel loads, topography and weather in the short term, and forces such as fire suppression, forest management and climate changes in the long term, Bailey said. They can be linked to droughts, insect attack and other factors that are all a natural part of the forest.

Lie #10. Historical fire regimes in North America have been anthropogenic for thousands of years. Dr. Bailey’s “linkages” are the result of poor science and a stubborn blindness to history. The denial of historical human influences is an outgrowth of Victorian racism, the kind that spawned the eugenics movement and horrendous genocides in the 20th Century.

The article continues:

But the key to the future, he said, is accepting the inevitability of fire and learning to manage it as a natural part of the ecosystem.

That may take a substantial culture shift, he conceded, when much of the public and even government agencies have traditional ways of looking at fire and resource loss, consider all forest fire as bad, and even organize large, commercially important systems based around fire suppression.

Half Truth #6. A cultural shift is needed alright – at the OSU College of Forestry. The culture of politicized forest science at odds with reality, the community, and the common good is debilitating to that institution as well as to our forests and to society at large.

It is evident that political advocacy and pleas for cultural modification have replaced good science, but it would be unfair to single out OSU CoF has the only or even a rare case of the corruption of science by politics. The now collapsing global warming hoax perpetrated by politicized elements has all but destroyed climate science. Wildlife ecology, medicine, anthropology, and numerous other sciences have been corrupted by political advocacy, too. Our universities have been captured and perverted by politics, and rational inquiry is the primary victim.

The imposition of strawmen and falsehoods has been long been feature of politicized science arguments. In this case, the non-existent strawmen are those who “consider all fire as bad” and the falsehood is that government agencies have been “traditional” or even slightly competent at evaluating fire and resource cost-plus-loss [here].

The article continues:

Much recent research, however, has explored the ways in which fire helps treat fuel loading issues within stands and across landscapes;

Half Truth #7. Some recent research has been valid and useful [here], and some tainted by preconceived political conclusions. Catastrophic fires do consume some fuels, but they also kill green trees and can leave dead wood fuel loadings far in excess of the dead fuels present before the fire.

It is interesting and perhaps laughable (wryly) that recent studies of post-fire fuels from OSU CoF have concluded that little or no carbon is emitted by forest fires. The implication is that most of the carbon, i.e. the fuels, remains to rot or burn again in few years. The politically motivated researchers want it both ways: they wish the fires to consume fuels but not emit CO2. Basic laws of physics, such the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy, conflict with their desires and their “scientific” conclusions.

The article continues:

reduces competition for moisture and nutrients;

Half Truth #8. Catastrophic fires that kill all the trees do indeed reduce competition. No living trees, no competition. But competition is a natural feature of life, the way the world works, and is not some evil thing. Ask Darwin.

This is another example of political ideology tainting science. Organic competition, a rule of biology, is conflated with capitalist competition in the economy, and summarily rejected by Marxist utopians, despite the fact that notions of “mutualism” and “cooperation” have failed miserably in the latter and are decidedly non-existent in the former.

The article continues:

develops complex forest structure;

Lie #11. Complex forest structures are destroyed by catastrophic fires. “Fire synthesizes its surroundings” – Dr. Stephen J. Pyne. Fire simplifies through combustion, consumption, and oxidation at high heat. Fire leaves a denuded wasteland with dead snags that soon fall over. Tall vegetation, habitat to a variety of creatures, is reduced to short habitat that is home to far fewer species. The ecosystem is reduced in volume and complexity.

The article continues:

helps maintain the health of surviving trees and leaves them better able to resist disease and insect attack;

Lie #12. Fire attracts insects, especially bark beetles [here]. Trees that survive the fire are often killed by bark beetles within a year or two.

The article continues:

and sometimes sets the stage for forest renewal.

Lie #13. This one is truly egregious. Yes, catastrophic fire often kills all the trees, but what grows back is not forest but fire-type brush. The increased loading of dead, dry fuels (as much as 300 to 500 tons per acre) can be ignited by reburns carried by the fine fuels in the newly sprouted brush. Any tree seedlings that may have germinated are consumed in the reburn 10 to 20 years later.

“Forest renewal” is not a goal that anyone ascribes to old-growth forests. Society has decided that old-growth trees have special value due to their antiquity, heritage, and biological rarity. Nobody wants to kill the old-growth in order to “renew” forests. That goal is imaginary and perverse. In the West we have sacrificed so much to retain and preserve old-growth. Now the political advocates who promoted “save the old-growth” hail the imaginary virtues of killing old trees to make room for seedlings.

Shall we destroy 200-, 300, 500-, 1500-year-old trees in favor of seedlings? Why? And if that is the new desire, why not utilize those old trees instead of incinerating them? The entire concept of “forest renewal” is bankrupt: intellectually, scientifically, socially, economically, and ethically. It’s just nuts.

The article continues:

Most burned area within the majority of Oregon fires are not stand-replacement situations, researchers have found. Their structure varies after a fire, usually as a result of pre-fire variability in the fuels, weather fluctuations and sometimes suppression activities.

Half Truth #9. The research in question is questionable, but it is true that within fire perimeters not all trees are killed. Indeed, forest fires often do not burn to established perimeters, because fire suppression is not always (in fact rarely) done by direct attack on crowning trees. But catastrophic megafires are propagated by canopy conflagrations that do kill all the trees within vast tracts. And it is a common fire suppression practice to “burn out” unburned pockets within the perimeters by aerial ignition. That is done to prevent flare ups that could occur after firefighters have demobilized and left the area.

Even when all trees are not killed by the fire, bark beetles invade afterwards and kill the survivors. Post-fire mortality can continue for years. And untreated burns can erupt into reburns within a few years, as has happened in the Tillamook Fires, the Spring/Rattle Fires, the Silver/Biscuit Fires, and in numerous other cases.

The article continues:

But proactive fuel management can lower the importance of suppression efforts.

Half Truth #10. Well duh. Finally a semi-valid statement. Proactive fuels management not only lowers the “importance” of suppression, it can prevent $billions in damages to resources and communities caused by fires in unprepared stands.

Proactive fuels management is most effective if it is done within a carefully planned, landscape scale, scientific restoration forestry program. It is not enough to piddle with tiny trees and fine fuels. It is more appropriate and effective to use the principles of historically-informed restoration forestry.

Unfortunately, as mentioned above, OSU College of Forestry has no restoration forestry experts and no restoration forestry program. This is surprising (perhaps) considering that forest restoration is now a statutory mission of the US Forest Service.

Two laws mandate forest restoration: the Healthy Forests and Restoration Act (2003) and the Forest Landscape Restoration Act (2009). In contrast, there are no such things as the “Ecosystem Management Act” or the “Ecosystem Services Act” or the “Global Warming and Forests Act”. Those missions have been adopted without any Congressional mandate, whereas the mandate for restoration has been all but ignored.

Regardless of that, OSU CoF drags ass. They are far more concerned with political advocacy, in particular with advocacy that is anti-forest, anti-forestry, and anti-forester than with any sensibility toward science and restoration forestry. And that is the situation despite the opportunities that abound for funding of forest restoration studies. Go figure.

I have figured, and what I have concluded is that political elements have taken over the OSU CoF, much to the detriment of our forests, our economy, and the forestry profession.

As long as OSU CoF is more concerned with radical politics than forest science and forestry, they will continue to promulgate egregious pseudoscience and landscape scale disasters via catastrophic fire.

And that is a multiple tragedy for all of us.

To see the original article and  bonus photography: lying with photography, click here.