The Forest Foundation

March 8, 2005

Restoring Healthy Forests: Myth and Realities -
A forest science experts lists some common misperceptions about forest health

By Tom Bonnicksen

The debate over how to protect against wildfires and restore health to the forests of the San Bernardino Mountains and Western United States is probably the most important ecological debate of our time. Yet, like so many important issues, the debate is fraught with misinformation.

Thirty years of forestry experience have taught me that such misinformation can do as much damage to forests as any fire. Since I love our forests with a passion, I have come up with a list of current myths, and their corresponding realities, which should prove helpful for the average citizen.

Myth 1: All fires are good and forest management is bad.

This argument confuses small, naturally occurring fires with large conflagrations, calls all of them good, and blames forest managers for wanting to thin our incredibly thick forests and remove the fuel for monster wildfires.

Historically, natural fires burned a far different kind of forest than the uniformly thick, overpopulated forests we have today. Forests of the past were resistant to "monster fires," with clearings and patches of open forest that acted as mini-fuelbreaks for fires that were far smaller and far less hot. These light fires naturally cleared away debris, dead trees and other potentially dangerous fire fuels.

Fires can't burn that way in the forests of today. They bite into a superabundance of fuel, burn super-hot, destroy wildlife and watersheds, and leave a desolate landscape scarred by erosion and pitted with craters. This is why forest management, which involves thinning in order to make our forests more like they used be -- naturally resistant to fire -- is so desperately needed.

Myth 2: Wildfires and massive infestations of insects are a natural way for forests to thin and rejuvenate themselves.

On the contrary, "no-cut" policies and total fire suppression have created the overcrowded forest conditions that enable fires to spread over vast areas that never burned that way in their known history. The resulting devastation is not natural. It is human-caused. We must accept responsibility for the crisis we created and correct the problem.

Myth 3: If management is unavoidable, then deliberately set fires, or prescribed fires, are the best way to solve today's wildfire crisis.

Prescribed fire is ineffective and unsafe in the forests of today. It is ineffective because any fire that is hot enough to kill trees over three inches in diameter, which is too small to eliminate most fire hazards, has a high probability of becoming uncontrollable. Even carefully planned fires are unsafe, as the 2000 Los Alamos fire amply demonstrated.

Myth 4: Thinning narrow strips of forest around communities, or fuelbreaks, is more than adequate as a defense against wildfire.

Anyone who thinks roaring wildfires can't penetrate these flimsy barriers could not be more mistaken. Fires often jump over railroad tracks and even divided highways.

Fuelbreaks are impractical because forest communities are spread out, with homes and businesses scattered over huge areas. And fuelbreaks only work if firefighters are on the scene to attack the fire when it enters the area. Otherwise, it drops to the ground, and moves along the forest floor even faster than in a thick forest.

Myth 5: Removing dead trees killed by wind, insects, or fire will not reduce the fire hazard.

Do logs burn in a fireplace? If dead trees are not removed, they fall into jackstraw piles intermingled with heavy brush and small trees. These fuels become bone dry by late summer, earlier during a drought. Any fire that reaches these mammoth piles of dry fuel can unleash the full furry of nature's violence.

Acting quickly to rehabilitate a wind or insect-ravaged forest, or a burned forest, is one of the surest ways to prevent wildfires or dampen their tendency to spread.

Myth 6: We should use taxpayer money to solve the wildfire crisis rather than involve private enterprise.

The private sector must be involved.

A minimum of 73 million acres of forest needs immediate thinning and restoration. Another 120 million also need treatment. Subsequent maintenance treatments must be done on a 15-year cycle. The total cost for initial treatment would be billion, or about billion per year for 15 years. Then it would cost about billion for each of the following 15-year maintenance cycles.

This is far more money than the taxpayers will bear. But if private companies could harvest and thin only the trees required to restore and sustain a healthy, fire-resistant forest, the tax burden would be lessened dramatically. In exchange, companies sell the wood, and public expenditures are minimized.

Unfortunately, there aren't any shortcuts. Human intervention has created forests that are dense, overgrown tinderboxes where unnatural monster fires are inevitable. This means we must manage the forest to prevent fires in the first place. We have to restore our forests to their natural, historical fire resistance. Thinning and restoring the entire forest is the only way to safeguard our natural heritage, make our communities safe, and protect our critical water sources.

Note: Thomas M. Bonnicksen, Ph.D. is a professor in the Department of Forest Science at Texas A&M University, author of "America's Ancient Forests," and a board member of The Forest Foundation. This article was excerpted from his (Sept. 22) testimony before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives.