Near Lake Tahoe, a homeowner sprays water on his dwelling and nearby vegetation to deter wildfire. Photo © Brad Horn, Nevada Appeal
For decades, Smokey Bear has been the face of the U.S. Forest Service firefighting effort, even though his well–known slogan, “Only you can prevent wildfires!” ignores the fact that many wildfires are started by lightning. So in addition to chastising humans for carelessness in the woods, Smokey is poised, with a shovel and ax, ready to eradicate the smallest spark that threatens to grow into a major wildland fire.
The suppression ideology has fueled the fire program for years, but as wildland firefighting costs reach into the billions, it may be time to think about fires in the same way we think of other natural phenomena: they happen, so be prepared.
For most of the past century, the Forest Service claimed that fighting wildfire was essential to saving forests. Now that many ecologists recognize fire as an integral part of the landscape, the agency has shifted its emphasis from protecting forests to protecting homes in forests.
The Forest Service spent more than $1 billion annually—about a third of the average budget—from 2003 to 2006 protecting people and property from fire, according to a 2006 Department of Agriculture audit report. And Mark Rey, undersecretary of agriculture, said in written testimony this spring that the total number of homes lost to fire in the wildland–urban interface is decreasing, down from 4,500 in 2003 to 750 homes in 2006. (For comparison, the Red Cross estimates that 350,000 homes were destroyed by the 2006 hurricanes Katrina and Rita.)
While you could make the argument that spending money to fight fires has saved a lot of homes, research suggests it would be more cost–effective for homeowners to fireproof their property, rather than relying on federal agencies to stop wildfire in its tracks.
According to Cato Institute economist Randal O’Toole, the agency estimates that the nation’s wildland–urban interface extends to 98 million acres—including 8 million acres of federal land. Less than 6 percent of those acres have significant potential fuel hazards. Treating those acres would seem logical, but as the Angora Fire illustrated, clearing fuels from public land is not enough to prevent ignition of wooden homes surrounded by flammable vegetation.
In some areas, home–owners are taking matters into their own hands.
“People who live in the [wildland–urban interface] are taking action,” says Tim Love, a district ranger in Montana. “Every fuel mitigation project we work on, there are [homeowners] next to it working away.”
If people who live near flammable forests recognize the importance of fireproofing their property—and if insurance companies start demanding defensible construction in fire–prone areas—the agency could be looking at a shift in public perception, and at lowering the bill when it comes to wildland firefighting.
Love says his district focuses on fuel reduction projects near homes. “On a per acre basis it’s a lot less expensive,” he says of the cost of fuels mitigation as opposed to fire suppression.
Roger Kennedy, former director of the National Park Service and author of Wildfire and Americans: How to Save Lives, Property and Your Tax Dollars, believes that the wildland fire problems are not a question of good or bad firefighting policies, but of people living in fire–prone areas. Kennedy says government policies foster growth in the wildland–urban interface and taxpayers pick up the tab, including firefighting costs.
A flame zone atlas, similar to a flood zone atlas, would encourage responsibility and education for those seeking rural living, he says.
“You and I like to know if we’re moving on top of a nuclear waste dump. We like to know if it’s likely that every five or ten years we’ll be flooded. We currently don’t know the frequency of fire, the likelihood of fire, the increased trajectory of fire due to global warming.”
The public isn’t quite ready to embrace the idea of saving money by letting fires burn unchecked, as they did for centuries, but fire historian Stephen Pyne says that the agency has begun to lean in the direction of returning fire to the landscape through policies—such as prescribed fires and wildland fire use—that monitor fires, rather than control them.
“It’s like Smokey Bear’s dark twin,” he says, referring to the let–it–burn mentality. But as long as fire is perceived as a threat, and as long as there are tools and people willing to fight it, allowing fire to regain its status as a natural part of the landscape will be yet another battle.