We need a more sensible forest fire policy

By this time of the year, the annual Southern Oregon wildfire season is long forgotten. With the current wave of cold weather, instead of fighting fire, cozying up next to a fire (perhaps with a book and a hot cup of cocoa) is more on the mind. However, some very important decisions are currently being made about the future of wildland fire fighting in the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest that deserve our attention.

Despite what Smokey Bear has taught us, many forest fires are beneficial. Fires that burn through our forests help clear out vegetation, often burning in a mosaic pattern that sustains some of the most diverse forests in the world here in the Klamath-Siskiyou region. In many forests, however, fire suppression has altered normal fire cycles and led to a dangerous build-up of fuel.

We have put a dent in the problem by reducing fuels with thinning and brush removal and restoring forests with prescribed fire. But the need is far greater than our ability. And mechanical treatments are very expensive, costing over $1,000 per acre. With over 2 million acres of federal land in southern Oregon, the costs are too great to treat everywhere. We understandably should focus our fuels reduction efforts close to communities where the risks are higher.

One important way that land managers can maintain and restore healthy forest conditions in backcountry forests far away from homes is to take advantage of natural wildfires, under the appropriate conditions. The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest is currently planning changes to their fire policy, which would allow fire managers this option. This would greatly benefit fire fighters and land mangers, while saving millions every year in fire fighting costs.

It works like this: there is essentially a flowchart, whereby if certain weather, fuels and topographic conditions are met managers can monitor a fire instead of fighting it. They may decide it is best to only fight certain part of the fire or corral the fire and push it toward a desired area where it would consume fuel on the forest floor and enhance wildlife habitat.

The current Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest approach to all unplanned fire is aggressive suppression, regardless of location, weather conditions, or risks to fire fighters. This leads to a massive mobilization around every fire, regardless of its actual threat to communities or forests. And the costs are mounting. Between 1999 and 2007, Forest Service firefighting costs exceeded $1 billion in 6 of the 8 years. When the Forest Service goes over budget, some of the money has come from borrowing from other programs, leaving little money for recreation, wildlife enhancement or fuels reduction efforts.

Other national forests around the country have successfully employed "Appropriate Management Response" to fire, but the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest is required to change its plan to enable allow managers to use fire. The Rogue River-Siskiyou will join its forest neighbor to the south the — the Klamath — and many national parks, such as Crater Lake and Yosemite, that have very active wildfire use programs.

We can't wait until next fall to think about fire. Fire use should be one tool in the toolbox. Federal land managers will obviously need to suppress fires near homes and communities while focusing on fire prevention and fuels reduction. But, federal land managers also need the choice to use fire. If not, we will continue to fight every fire despite contributing to the unnatural buildup of fuels, spending millions of tax dollars in the process.

Joseph Vaile is director of campaigns for the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center.