Opinion
The 15,323-acre Dixie Fire just east of Dixie, Idaho is not being completely suppressed by the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest. A Type 1 Incident Management Team and over 500 personnel will be tied up for an extended amount of time on that incident with their time spent as follows — 15% monitoring, 30% confining, 35% point protecting, and 20% suppressing the fire. Resources assigned include 8 hand crews, 16 fire engines, and 4 helicopters for a total of 522 personnel. The same team is managing the nearby 898-acre Jumbo Fire. (map)
Other fires in the Northern Rockies Geographic Area that are less than full suppression on July 12, 2021 include:
-
-
- Trestle Creek Complex, Idaho
- Jumbo, Idaho
- Storm Creek, Idaho
- Shotgun, Idaho
- Goose, Montana
- Trail Creek, Montana
-
The forecast for wildland fire potential issued July 1 by the National Interagency Fire Center predicts that California and virtually the entire northwest one-quarter of the United States will have above normal fire potential in July and August. So far that is proving to be true.
It is mid-July, the traditional time for the beginning of the busiest time of the Western fire season. The nation is at Preparedness Level 4, Level 5 is the highest, and resources are already being rationed among 50 large uncontained wildfires. More than 12,000 fire personnel are actively suppressing most of them. Many requests by Incident Commanders for additional personnel and other resources are being UTF’ed, Unable to Fill.
Part of the problem is that the U.S. Forest Service and some of the other Federal land management agencies have hundreds of vacant firefighting positions due to difficulties in hiring and retaining firefighters, who are labeled “Forestry Technicians”. This can be attributed to ridiculously low pay, very frequent travel, miserable working conditions, sexual harassment, a crippled hiring process, and poor benefits.
The Snake River Complex and the Dry Gulch Fire not far away in Idaho and Washington have a combined 109,457 acres and no helicopters. Do we have the luxury of hoarding a Type 1 IMT, over 500 personnel, and 4 helicopters while the U.S. Forest Service babysits a fire all summer? How are they going to explain their decisions to the downwind residents who might be exposed to smoke for months?
As a member of an interagency incident management team that specialized in less than full suppression wildfires, I learned that it is extremely difficult to allow a wildfire to successfully burn for weeks or months with little or no suppression. It requires highly skilled and long-experienced firefighters in key positions to make it work. Another ingredient that is necessary, which can’t be entered on a Resource Request, is luck. All it takes is one or two days of very strong winds and you can find yourself in a nightmare scenario. A less than full suppression fire which goes on for months will probably encounter a wind event. After the fire quadruples in size, changing the strategy to suppression is not a situation an Agency Administrator wants to find themselves in.
Selecting this strategy at the beginning of the fire season is, to put it bluntly in clear text, stupid. Especially when the fuels are extremely dry in early July and the summer looks like it could be full of fire. It would make more sense a month before the average date of a Season Ending Event brought on by heavy rain or snow.
The National and Regional Multi-Agency Coordinating Groups need to be proactive in moving and assigning fire suppression resources where they can be most effective. They can also make use of a rarely used tool, Area Command Teams. The national and regional fire staff of the agencies also need to inject some common sense into what we are seeing at the beginning of this summer. If they do not have enough funding to support their fire organizations and provide homeland security at the levels needed in this decade, they need to have the COURAGE to speak truth to power. Congress needs to take action.
While they can be constructive, there have been enough strongly worded letters, committee hearings, and discussions about legislation. It’s time to sh*t or get off the pot.
I know I am late to the party, but in light of now being at PL5, some thoughts.
There is already both critical demand and shortages of resources this year.
As we get into the part of the season with more starts and fires going big, there certainly will not be the resources to initiate full suppression strategies for everything. Then what you get is an even more unrealistic scenario of trying to do full suppression with a shortage of everything, putting firefighters at even greater risk from being stretched too thin.
At least with a mixed strategy of management the ICT’s can pick and chose their battles and focus on the values at risk. An example of this was the Gunbarrel Fire between Cody and Yellowstone in 2008. The resources went into point protection all along the highway, and resources were not wasted trying to suppress a fire that was in steep, dense bug kill, and was just burning up the side drainages into Wilderness with rock and ice at the top.
Obviously each situation is different. But to declare a blanket “full suppression” policy because of a prolonged drought, and a shortage of resources, and early severity, quite frankly wouldn’t work even if you wanted it too.
I think we talking about the full (and immediate) suppression as our new strategy after this fire season ends (whenever that is). Your right, too late for this season.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_1910
Need more be said about 2021 fire season
Let er buck ! Suppressing WF doesn’t work anymore. Defend your home and property by quadruple defensible space guidelines… as those guidelines are as outdated as wildfire suppression…… or move to the Middle of the city if you’re worried about losing your home to wildfire(still not safe). As for the insane fuel loading and beetle kill epidemic that is present on every forest ecosystem in the west…A clean slate is what we need. Logging ain’t the answer (I am a logger/ contract faller, spent 10 years on a hotshot crew blah blah blah ) unless thousands of mills open up and a thousand logging companies put down in the woods. There is just too much biomass. Hanging it out there, boots on the ground and aircraft ain’t the Answer either, unless we are ok with dead firefighters /pilots. I imagine there are plenty of pipe hittin firefighters on this site that have lots of good ideas, so I will save the pontificating to them. Maybe we should start funding the hell outta Fuels crews and Rx Fire .. sorry if you don’t like smoke in the air that’s the way it is out west, move if you can’t handle it, or stay inside. 7 dead pilots this year and I’ve heard of more close calls than I can remember ever. Foot off the throttle or deal with The carnage. Current fire suppression tactics are antiquated . Even big box firing ops seem to fail these days a lot of times. Armageddon.
Stay “safe” out there to all of you on the line .. and as DM( RIP) said it best … “never trust a fat man in a clean yellow”
JC
Matt from CT, I like your comparison to the military. I’ve worked for the NPS, FS, Air Force, and Army. Do you know what the biggest difference between the NPS/FS and Air Force/Army (besides their budgets)? The Air Force/Army see a problem and they fix it. They don’t cover it up. Maybe the NPS/FS can learn something from the military.
Many moons and possibly a different username since I last commented here…
One thing to add, even fixing the pay and other issues I worry there will still be trouble recruiting and retaining firefighters for many reasons including:
Shifting demographics to a more urban population leading to lower interest and/or needing to figure out how to recruit from non-traditional demographics.
Obesity, just like the military worries about. I look back at photos from 35 years ago I was the “big” guy 18 year old on the volunteer fire company, where I’m no longer active due to my weight…today I’d be middle of the pack which doesn’t bode well for how long those young bucks will stay active, never mind that they’re already impaired today compared to fit individuals. The military currently figure 70% of young adults are unfit for service, obesity being the largest factor. That’s the same pool of young (theoretically fit) adults you pull public safety workers from.
For many years it hasn’t just been volunteers having difficulty recruiting — listen to career police and fire bemoan how small their candidate pools have become over the last 20 years, and EMS in certain areas seems to be fraying unable to attract or retain paid staff.
Add to that the “Bowling Alone” shifts in community/civic involvement, long term school de-emphasis on vocational skills, and facing a very significant chance of a severe labor crunch in the U.S. over the next decade (The concerns about a labor shortage pre-date Covid — https://conference-board.org/blog/podcasts/LaborShortageChallenges ), the entire emergency services sector in the U.S. — municipal, wildland, volunteer, career — is facing unprecedented staffing challenges.
I’d agree that we need to take a more holistic approach to resource allocation at the regional and national levels utilizing something like the Area Command Teams mentioned. We also need to take a big-picture look at the weather and climate impacts (e.g. drought severity) when it comes to deciding on full suppression versus something else.
But, and this is a huge but, we do NOT need to vilify WFU and managed fires all of the time and I’m afraid from many of the comments above that’s exactly what we’re doing. Part of our current problem is climate change and part of it is the legacy of a hundred years of active full suppression with the resulting fuel buildups that we simply cannot or will not handle physically (i.e. mechanically). Fire is the only relevant tool available to manage many of these fuel loads appropriately.
Given the current drought widespread in the west I’d advocate for a fairly aggressive suppression strategy whereas under more “normal” conditions, I’d prefer a lot more WFU and prescribed burns. But we have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to full suppression versus managed wildland fires.
Some keep saying that fire suppression over the decades has lead to increased wildfire activity, but it is really decades of clear-cutting that has made the forests more flammable at this time. All the millions used for thinning and prescribed burns should be used for planting and protecting old growth forests instead. At this time, there is so much flammable land it is better to suppress immediately…and slowly but surely allow old growth forests to make a comeback.
Thanks for offering that perspective.
That is an overlooked factor because it contradicts the argument that more logging can save us. At the same time, it disregards the fact that many of our largest fires are not burning forestlands, are starting below forestlands, and/or are burning through a mosaic of forestlands, woodlands, brush, and grasslands.
Where actual timberlands are in question, the “dense” conditions that are now considered desirable where actually desirable in the 20th century. Forest managers actively sought to convert slow growing old growth with more vigorous young second growth, resulting in upper canopy loss and a lower canopy with live fuel much closer to the ground and producing a larger annual fine fuel ground layer. In both cases wide scale overstory removal has greatly contributed to the current situation.
There is also the factor of misappropriation of lands. Too much marginal to unsuitable eestern forestland was classed as and managed as timberland merely due to existence of some large timber species trees on site, especially in Ponderosa forests.
I agree the best long term solution is to protect existing old growth and facilitate more of it.
Thanks for that info. Yes, it looks like the “authorities” want young flammable forests instead of high canopy old growth forests. And, logging does not deter wildfire! I have seen many wildfires sweep through patchwork clear-cuts with plenty of vigor. Case in point is today’s picture of the Dixie fire near Paradise… https://www.facebook.com/ButteWxSpotter/photos/a.588394064578632/4141362475948422/
According to NIFC’s July 12 Sit Report, the Dixie-Jumbo complex is not on the list of fires being managed for less than full suppression; although that list also adds the criteria of the absence of a Type I or II IC team. It also shows 100 people pulled from the fire in the last day.
The latest InciWeb report for the Dixie Fire states they are “developing an aggressive suppression strategy.” This could be because recent burn scars are not providing a barrier to fire spread. https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/7608/
Don-
On the July 12 and 13 Situation reports the Dixie fire was designated in the “Ctn/Comp” column as “Comp”. This means it is being managed with multiple strategies. In addition, on the Northern Rockies July 12 “Active Incident Summary Spreadsheet” updated at 2329 July 12, 2021 it is described as I said in the article: Monitor (15%), Confine (30%), Point Zone Protection (35%), Full Suppression (20%).
Here is a link to a document that decodes the Sit Report.
I agree with Bill 100%. Many great points made from readers.
First, there are many great Incident Commanders out there, but they must bow to the local ranger and meet his/her every demand which in most cases is uneducated, ill informed and plain ridiculous.
Second you cannot manage a fire with the formula Bill explained in the Dixie fire. How in heck do you do that math? You need a college scholar to keep it straight in terms of effort applied.
Third when you have infrastructure, lives, and homes on 2 to 3 sides of a managed fire and expect the public to just accept breathing smoke for weeks and then bug out in an evacuation order when it blows out is just criminal.
And finally I have been to community meetings as a fire leader from another wildland agency and watched as Federal leadership politely tells the public that this is Federal land and we will do what we want with it. You are basically inconsequential to us.
This year in the West is no time to achieve burned acres stats.
“On top of it all, ICs close fire areas for miles in every direction, and local sheriffs remove any witnesses from the area by force.”
Jeeeeebers, Frank, what are you smokin’ there?
Loggers know how to manage resources? What a joke. Ever heard of the Peshtigo and other huge Midwestern fores of the 19th century that followed the trail of cut and run timber mining? How is a prediminately young forest with limbs close to the ground more resilient than a forest dominated by veterans with burn scars to prove it?
Furthermore, much of the acreage burning out west every year is not even forested. Most of the acreage that burned in Arizona this year was woodland, brush, and desert vegetation types.
Good points. The decision to go with anything less than full suppression needs to be made immediately and be well reasoned. In a period in which staffing is screwed up and in short supply, limited suppression in remote places makes sense. Limited suppression should be just that…limited. It should entail point protection, limited mitigation and monitoring- not a place to keg up resources. The very designation of limited suppression should mean limited staffing. Keeping in mind what part of the fire season the ignition takes place-if we can’t manage it as a limited suppression fire, we should put it out. In spite of our individual priorities-remote places are always going to take a back seat to more populated places when stuff is on fire and we have limited resources.
I wish some people inside the land management agencies would have the courage and conscience to speak out strongly against “managed” fires. The smoke is not only killing people, it’s causing tremendous suffering.
But if we don’t let fires burn all summer, how are we going to defraud the taxpayer by charging everything on the district to that fire code?
I’ve sat on fire all summer that were contained in all but name only in order to charge time, equipment, project work, fuel costs, etc. Hell, I’ve seen office folk glance at a column on their way into the office and charge their entire day to that fire code. The managers see an open fire code an start salivating like a pig at a trough.
Run an audit on all Type 3 incidents that have local control. I bet you’d find a ton of waste there.
Spot on!! Add in every dispatch office, pre-position out of region resources, and 12 hour days for 14 days, to get two days off that are paid. P # abuse is rampant. Look at the Middle fire on the Tonto for an example——type 2 team on it for days, no fire behavior, and massive mechanical treatments on the Districts roads. Team said they could put it out, but AA’s wouldn’t let them.
Those days are over with budget “modernization”.
Thanks for sharing. Respectfully, a reframing
1: We (meaning Federal land management agencies perhaps excluding nps) are and have been in a full suppression strategy for some time now regardless of how we communicate that strategy. This strategy is often contrary to federal fire policy, confusing to the public, and confusing to ground resources all at once.
2: If we loose a fire during initial attack, which at times we do, we must employ indirect strategies and tactics utilizing logical closest features such as ridges, roads, and historical fire lines. This should be done regardless of federal land use designation such as wilderness in particular if no logical confinement feature exists on the land use boundary.
3: Although self evident to many, planning for this can and should be done before a fire and spatially described to expedite a common operating picture for all involved including stake holders, IMTs, and ground resources.
4: Hazardous fuels treatment and NEPA efforts should be aligned with making these indirect logical features viable for both wildfire confinement and prescribed fire implementation.
5: Lines need to be prepped and the door closed via offensive firing as soon as tactically viable based on environmental conditions. AAs often fail to incentivize this action nor does the public clearly understand why we would. We can do better on public land in particular.
6: This strategy and implementation timing should be vetted by ground resources and supported by gaccs with commitment of resource duration.
7: Delegations of authority should incentivize a bias for common sense action vrs inaction and discussed before an emergency exists.
8: Managers should strive for and communicate resource objectives to ground resources and let them do their job.
9: Direct attack where safe to do so within logical confinement features should always be on the table if conditions permit and such activity is vetted and supported by ground resources and the gacc regarding resource support.
10: Not sure our environmental or fuel conditions at least west of the Rockies nor public opinion warrants terminology such as “managed” fire anymore. It’s probably time to re frame the conversation.
You mean we can’t tie our line into the wilderness boundary anymore? lol.
You have outlined some very straight forward and logical bullet points to address the issue. IMO, aggressive IA is still first choice, but when an area is overwhelmed with new starts, you have to make decisions, which they do. There are some very experienced and knowledgeable fire managers (ICs, OPSC, FMOs, etc.) that should continue to make sound, justifiable decisions on when to not aggressively suppress large fires. There is also the opposite, which is where we run into trouble. Hopefully the Dixie fire is taken care of with relatively little effort, but Bill has a point, that valuable resources are being used when they could be helpful elsewhere. It just doesn’t pass the smell test. Odds are better for success later in the season.
I still like the old fire suppression strategies of confine, contain, or control.
You nailed it, Bill!!
I agree with the others who have pointed out that the full suppression mentality is self defeating, not just because that’s one of the major contributors to our current situation. I’ve been in this job long enough to have gone through multiple “suppress all fires” seasons, and every one of them ended with multiple large team fires across multiple regions fighting for resources. Also, if you look at the numbers we are doing our darndest to suppress as many as we can. According to the sit report we have had 33,000 wildfires in the US this year. If we assume that 500 have become large resource gobblers and smoke producers (I haven’t tracked all the large fires that are now contained and no longer on the sit report so this number is just an estimate), that means that 1.5% got large – or 98.5% were stopped small, which tells me we are still a pretty suppression oriented group. And I get it, the big ones are much bigger than they used to be and have a much greater impact on the public and the landscape, but again that’s in large part due to our suppression mindset in the past. There is no one size fits all approach in this job – R5 goes suppression heavy pretty much all the time because of their public impact potential, yet they still have plenty of fires crank each year.
This is a huge point that you have pointed out, I work for the FS and in region 2. And yes R2 hoards resources like none other, but I have been stuck home now since the beginning of the season, and we have stopped all fires from getting big. This is over 15 just locally for me, not including all the other zones on the forest. Completely understand about the large fire concept and that jazz with full suppression, but as being a DIVS, these experienced agency crews are not being allowed out and then your stuck with contact resources being the only thing arable for large fires, you can only do so much with dull tools in the shed people. And when you only have dull tools to choose from, there isn’t a whole hell of a lot you can do when you have over 70 people on your DIVS, teaching people how to put in a complex hose lay on a 5 acre spot that currently moving doesn’t work. People nowadays that have the common sense, their common sense tells them to not do this job because of a lot of the topics discussed. Some of these people simple don’t hack it, which in turn makes management make some of the decisions they do today. “Trust the boots on the ground.”
Hmm, I work for a contractor. Last IA…Four days ago. Our side held the shot side blew out. And the jumpers were impressed with the amount of work completed.
Not all crews are exceptional each season.
Frank, do you have any documentation such as briefing videos, fire reports, statements from AAs, or any other source to back up your assertions about the agencies intent on those R3 fires? I’ve worked in R3 my whole career and was on almost every fire you mentioned. There were certainly some questionable decisions made by DOs and teams but with a lot of firing operations it always seemed like it was the only viable option in the face of really aggressive fire behavior. I also don’t buy that the agency would want fire in a lot of that country besides the mogollon rim and pinal peak. The pondo and juniper makes sense but the Sonoran ecosystem isn’t fire adapted and the only reason it’s carrying fire is due to invasive grasses. I’d have a hard time believing that intentionally introducing fire for resource purposes in a desert ecosystem except to prevent further fire spread would pass the test of most reasonable agency administrators. I’m willing to be wrong but I do require proof.
Being from the days of the “10:00 A.M. Control Policy”, based on what I’ve witnessed in the last decade, I think we’re on the wrong path. But, after 37 years in many different fire positions. I’m now a guy with “six Saturdays and one Sunday.” We all know that means we no longer understand the new, modern Forest Service or suppression tactics..?
Boy, that’s a FACT !
First of all, we’re in this mess, because of piss poor management. One word neglect.
1) The FS neglects the land. FS should be doing more to manage the land – more prescribed burns. This idea that the FS should wait for a wildfire, so that they don’t have to do NEPA is ridiculous, dangerous, and in my opinion, criminal. I also think Congress should stop rewarding this mismanagement and the EPA should fine the FS for not properly managing the land.
2) The FS neglects it’s cutrent employees. Poor pay. Wage disparities between race and sex is ridiculous. Sexual Harassmentis is rampant. “Accidental” Deaths…Suicides – They need to stop NOW!!! I could go on and on low moral and huge safety concerns, but I will stop here.
3) FS neglect former and future employees. The hiring process is ridiculous…there are at least 50 postings right now on USAJobs that noone can get, because of the way that the hiring managers have posted them. Wake up FS. We know what you are doing!!! It’s illegal. The only reason you are getting away with it is because the EEO/MSPB process is completely broken right now. This idea that there is a shortage is ridiculous. There are hundreds of us waiting to work…reinstate us!!! Anyway, suppression is a reaction. The FS should be proactive, so I call for better management of the people and the land, please do more prescribed burns, so that we can reduce wildfires.
You obviously are very well informed on the fuels management process and the workings of NEPA. Thank you for commenting in such an informed way! I am embarrassed to admit, with nearly 15 years of service in the Forest Service in both suppression and fuels management, it had never occurred to me to just go burn more. I guess we have just been short sighted in our approach, i.e. following the NEPA process (turns out its law, who knew!) and understanding the seasonality of prescribed fire in the west (I noticed there aren’t a lot of prescribed fire acres accomplished in the Northern Rockies in Dec-Feb, opportunity perhaps?). I take solace in the fact that we as land managers have experts like you to lean on in these hard times, I truly stand on on shoulders of giants!
Use the best line, not just next line. Putting firefighters through unnecessary risk should not be an option.
Clearly this has sparked some good debate. Thanks Bill!
We should not call these “managed” fires, that can be misleading…these are wildfires not under our control by any means. If we’re indirectly suppressing fire by addressing values at risk and allowing it to burn towards natural features that will eventually contain the fire than say something like that, at least that’s true.
Exactly. It WILL burn eventually. It’s what fire managers from the 80s and 90s can’t understand. You can’t exclude fire from an fire prone ecosystem forever. It doesn’t matter how many VLATs you have. Full suppression gets harder every year. And potential fire effects get more destructive every year. Next year the fuel loading will be higher, the beetles will have killed more trees and the weather will likely be hotter and drier. The curve is exponential. If we want trees in the western U.S. by 2100 managed fire is the only way.
Also, it’s easy as hell to armchair quarterback but I don’t know any forest FMOs or type 1 ops who are “stupid.”
Mr. or Ms. Crispy-
Don’t misrepresent what I wrote. No person was called “stupid”.
A few contrary comments regarding this issue and comments.
1. Bill for the most part is right on – but for one thing. How do you predict when the end of fire season will occur as usual. The first wildfires that I
recall that were “let go” early on were the Black, Corral, and Chicken on the Payette National Forest in 1994. The Black and Corral were the first to
start and a group of fire behavior experts recommended protecting the communities threatened (including McCall) and letting the head go with
strategic actions taken where needed for “point protection. All based on a fire season ending event occurring by early September as normal. The
only problem is that “event” did not occur until later in October. The Chicken was initially let go as it was thought it would stay in the Frank
Church Wilderness Area. Wrong again.
2. And as regards to Type 1 vs Type 2 crews. Yes, it is nice to have experienced T-1 crews, but with good, solid overhead (Crew Bosses, Task
Force/Strike Team Leaders, and Division Sups) much can be accomplished by T-2 crews. I was a GS-4 Fire Guard in Alaska in 1956 with one day of
fire experience. I was only assigned to two fires that summer – the first s small couple of acres and the other a 60,00+ acre behemoth. One the first
fire had 4 pick up FFs of the streets of Fairbanks with no fire experience or training. On the second I had 20+ FFs with no or little experience and
no training – again off the streets of Fairbanks (it did include a couple of the ones on the first fire). I’m sure things would have gone better if I had
more experience, but they all buckled down, worked hard, and took great pride in themselves – and deservedly so.
3. Jump ahead to 1977 when I am the Fire Boss/Incident Commander on the 177,000+ acre MarbleCone Fire. My zone was the entire west side of the
fire. We built line and fired out over 50 miles of line over a three week period. My crews – all farm labor crews except for two T-1 crews. Any
problems? Only with one of the T-1 crews. We had strong line OH from the Line Bosses/Ops Chiefs to Div Bosses, Sector Bosses, and Crew Bosses.
They were all well experienced, knowledgeable, hard working, and conscientious employees. That was my experience throughout my career – good
leadership was the key. MacArthur was correct – during peace time you can reduce the number of foot soldiers, but you must retain your officer
corps.
Well I could go on, but if you just grasp these simple concepts you will be well served. Thanks Bill for raising this critical issue.
Who are we kidding? Like full suppression is really all that effective. The harder we fight the worse it gets. We’re not in control of these fires, and our decisions are mostly moot, except in our own delusions. Make good decisions and come home alive.
Active land management is not a luxury, and neither is intelligent decision making on wildfires where risks and potential for success are weighed. Managed wildfire is a risk-informed decision and makes perfect sense for short-and long-term objectives in many cases. Dixie, for example, is pinched between recent burns, most likely will be heavily moderated to the south, west, and east. The north could be where it affects developed assets and suppression resources could be efficiently concentrated there. For too long in this country we have assumed that full suppression, at any cost, is the most likely of our many choices to succeed.
That is good information on the recent burns. Everybody complains about the lack of RX fire without ever considering how much fire has been prescribed without our approval in recent years.
But how recent are the burns? With record low fuel moisture both live and dead across much of the West, how effective are recent burns in moderating?
No! The concept of “managed fires” must be taken off the table for now; no exceptions. Clear, unambiguous direction on this matter cannot be overstated. The goal must be to put out every fire immediately for the foreseeable future. The practice of “managed fire”, especially in the western part of our country, is a huge gamble that can quickly accelerate to an “escaped fire.” This has become all too common in recent years, regardless of good intentions. And, regardless of weather and all the other “fire factors,” the practice of “managed fire” requires far too much knowledge and authority by the person making this immediate call; it’s not a fair fight. There are simply too many factors at risk. The unpredictability of the fire and its destruction in the current time and place will always win. Smoke is also a killer. We must keep it to a minimum.
It not an “escaped fire” it’s just a wildfire. Risk to firefighters may dictate indirect or modified suppression strategies.
Thank you Bill. There is also the concern of damage to the environment. In California many of the burn scars are not reseeding with desirable species, but reverting to brushfields. In this time of terrible drought a managed fire creates far more risk than reward.
While the Dixie fire is tying up resources in a less than full suppression management mode, what would it take in terms of resources to fully suppress it? Would full suppresion even work?
Part of fire management is making hard decisions often with limited information. Yes, you don’t know for sure a less than full suppresion fire won’t have a wind event. Yes, it involves luck at times just as full suppresion at times does.
Yes, type 2 eastern and especially contractor crews have a stigma from many overhead. Problem is there is a huge difference between the quality of judgement available in a type 1 crew and a type 2 crew that may have never even worked together before.
Management making the hard decisions on UTF or using resources on a less than full suppresion fire are doing their best in a hard situation given what they have.
Resources are always In demand. The problem is there are not enough. Putting all fires out everywhere all the time is certainly not the answer…that has essentially gotten us where we are today.
Excellent question
Answer: HELL NO!
50,OOO PEOPLE DIE EVERY YEAR FROM SMOKE.
I think there is an excess of people, both within and outside the agencies, that are confused over the terms “prescribed fire” that is managed under stipulated conditions, vs “managed wildfire” which may be illegal, and is most certainly ill advised. Why? Because it allows a wildfire to cause further degradation of watersheds; spends untold mllions of the public’s money, as if they had a blank check; prolongs firefighter recovery and exposes them to greater risks; often devastates Critical Habitat for Threatenef & Endangered species, both animal and plant; and is most likely spending Congressionally Appropriated dollars for “other than” suppression, as intanded.
Heres 2 more things to ponder as everyone sees fit
1) This shows again but as always noone in a power position seems to take notice and use the lesson learned- you cant throw money at every problem to fix it-
2) There are multiple T2IA crews run by state agencies in the eastern and southern regions twiddling their thumbs right now. They are not being called because the stigma or “holier than thou” attitude common among much of the overhead in place on these western fires that if its not a T1 crew they suck. Maybe some effort needs to be put into breaking down that stigma before UTFs are passed out so freely…..
UTF comes from the home unit or the sending region, not the receiving unit.
There is a lot to be said about all of this but also too there is a lot of contract resources that are setting wondering why they are not being called and fires in Colorado Idaho Montana the regions that these contractors have contracts in with multiple single resources are setting and wondering why they are not getting called
Always appreciate another point of view. I understand where you’re coming from but I’m curious your thoughts about mixed conifer fires with a heavy dead and down component? Seems like there is a big risk versus reward consideration on these fires. If you can catch them small, heck yeah it’s worth the exposure, but trying to go direct once these fires get over a few hundred acres has a very low chance of success, as do firing operations, indirect, etc…Seems like we get the most out of point protecting values at risk, taking advantage of targets of opportunity, checking with aviation as much as possible, and Fire front following when things eventually get beyond our control. This ends up looking like less than full suppression, but it is the most risk adverse way to fight these fires.
I agree with Frank. Seen to many early and mid season fires that poop along until critical fire weather happens and then it is damaging watersheds beyond critical percentages , private property and likely requiring lots of personnel that could / should be available for initial attack in priority areas.
South Canyon in ’94
Rattlesnake in ’53
To name just two.