To win the wildfire war we must first win the science debate

Money doesn't grow on trees...
Our mission is public education as it relates to all things forestry - so your contributions matter. Your support means we can continue to bring you the quality of content you have come to expect from Evergreen.
If you appreciate our work, let us know - subscribe, donate, or leave us a tip!

The forests we see today are not the same as the forests of 2001. They are dangerously overstocked and increasingly threatened by drought, insect-born disease and wildfire. Currently, nearly half of our roadless acres - over 28 million - are at high or very high risk of catastrophic wildfire and are in desperate need of treatment.

Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz commenting on Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins' decision to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. The Clinton Administration had placed 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless land into defacto wilderness areas in 2001 without congressional consent.

Congress is hellbent on winning the Wildfire War in the West.

Sort of.

We haven’t heard anyone in the House or Senate argue for the direct connection between winning the Wildfire War and winning the Science Debate.

Until we win the Science Debate, we won’t win the Wildfire War.   

We don’t currently have all the science we need to win the debate. We have some of it but many House and Senate members are very nervous about l-o-g-g-i-n-g in our National Forests.

Some lawmakers understand that thinning is the only way to reduce the wildfire threat but others favor “wildfire for ecosystem benefit” despite the increasing environmental, health and economic risks that “managed” wildfires pose.

The Forest Service lost its public license to manage National Forests in the 1980s because of aesthetic concerns associated with harvesting timber. We thought the agency did a good job of documenting its first Decadal Forest Plans but environmentalists and their lawyers did a better job of undermining the entire planning and management process.

In 1989 – the year before the government listed the Northern Spotted Owl as a threatened species – the Forest Service sold 12 billion board feet of timber. In fiscal 2024 it sold 2.88 billion. That’s a 76 percent decline. With it have come insect and disease infestations followed by killing wildfires that have wiped out dozens of rural communities and killed more than 300 people.

How to fix this problem?
F-o-r-e-s-t m-a-n-g-e-m-e-n-t and l-o-g-g-i-n-g.

Of course, none of this is going to happen until Congress puts some sideboards around the taxpayer funded Equal Access to Justice Act. Environmentalists will litigate Fix Our Forests Act projects because there are no sideboards on the Act.

These delaying actions increase wildfire risks in forests and adjacent communities.

To win the Wildfire War we must first win the Science Debate. But how can we do this now that Congress has zeroed out of the Forest Service’s annual Research and Development budget?

Will these dollars be restored during reconciliation?

We doubt it.

The midterm election is November 3, 2016 and no one in the House – where appropriations bills begin their long journey - wants to be labeled a spendthrift.

When asked about restoring Forest Service R&D funding the standard answer from "Foggy Bottom" is that universities can pick up the slack...?

We have some great forestry schools in the western universities, but their research costs are far higher than Forest Service R&D. We are partners in one project in Montana that will cost us an additional $350,000 if the Rocky Mountain Research Station loses its funding.

Recently Rocky Mountain Research scientists put Lincoln County Montana on their Top 10 List of the most at-risk counties in the nation. They did it because the forest canopy on the heavily forested Kootenai National Forest is closing rapidly. These are the same scientists who built the wildfire risk assessment maps the Forest Service uses to identify and plan restoration projects.

Why?

Because there hasn’t been enough l-o-g-g-i-n-g in recent years to replicate the mosaic patterns and openings that Nature and Native American prescribed fire created for eons.

When wildfires reach these openings they drop to ground and burn more slowly or even burn themselves out. This helps reduce the risk and impact of very large wildfires.

The Kootenai is currently the only National Forest in Montana where tree growth exceeds mortality. In the state’s other nine National Forests trees are dying faster than they are growing.

Canopy closure and wildfire does more than just kill trees. It also kills habitat and food sources for thousands of plant, reptile, fish, amphibian and animal species including federally listed grizzly bears, caribou, Canada lynx, black-footed ferrets and bull trout.

Collaboratively developed Shared Stewardship agreements are another spending casualty. Montana Governor Greg Gianforte recently signed the state’s agreement with the Forest Service

But where will the partners find money to fund projects that could help win the science debate?

The Forest Service’s $8.9 billion Fiscal 24-25 budget isn’t even a decimal point in the Congressional Appropriations bill. The House has approved five of 12 separate measures, but the Senate won’t consider any of them until November, so there is still time to restore the Forest Service’s R&D budget.

Bruce Westerman [R] Arkansas, Chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, is most certainly up to his eyeballs in this mess. Westerman, a Yale University forestry graduate, is the only forester in Congress. He is going to need bi-partisan help in the House and Senate, especially in the Interior West where most rural communities are located.

The political road ahead is steep and there are no guarantees.