Guest Column: Fight Fire with Fire by Paula Lehner, Director, Riverton Land Management Council

Riverton Daily News

June 9

1

Here’s an alarming number: $2 billion, the amount the U. S. Forest Service spends each year on wildfire suppression. No one is claiming that we should stop fighting these fires, but there is a scientifically proven way to limit their spread: by setting controlled, or prescribed, burns. These smaller fires, which clear accumulated dead or diseased plant life from forests and other areas, are far less hazardous than the uncontrolled wildfires that are increasing in frequency. By regularly burning up decaying vegetation, smaller fires eliminate that potential fuel for much larger fires. Less

plant-matter fuel on the ground helps slow the progress of unwanted fires before they ever start.

2

In addition to causing fuel buildup, wildfire suppression has other negative consequences. For example, wildfires can purge insect infestations. In nature, small fires normally thin the population of insects in an area, but in the absence of those fires there is little to stop insect populations from increasing to unnaturally high levels. Further, many plants developed their life cycles in response to periodic natural fires from lightning strikes and other sources; these plants need fire if they are to remain healthy. Burning, as opposed to wildfire suppression, also helps create ash, which returns nutrients to the soil and can help new seeds germinate.

3

Certainly, there will always be fires that we have to fight. People and their homes have to be protected. But the fact that more and more homes are being built near wilderness areas, many right here in Riverton, means that the burden on land management agencies and their brave firefighters is increasing. We need the right tools if we are going to continue to do our jobs effectively, and those tools include prescribed burns.

4

There is no way around it. We have to fight fire with fire.

Letter to the Editor: Prescribed Burns

Riverton Daily News

June 11

5

I found Paula Lehner’s opinion piece about prescribed burns nothing less than horrifying. In her zeal, she neglected to mention even one of the many criticisms of prescribed burns. First, consider this appalling statistic: one in every 500 prescribed burns gets out of control, and while that may sound like a small fraction, just imagine if that one raging fire were the one Lehner had decided to set near your house. In 2009, a “controlled” fire set in Yosemite National Park was intended to burn 91 acres; instead it consumed 5,000 acres.

6

As for her ridiculous idea that “controlled” fires are needed to rid areas of wildfire fuel, doesn’t she realize that fire isn’t the only way to eliminate unwanted plants? Has she not heard of mechanical and chemical thinning—in simple terms, the use of power tools and herbicides?

7

Finally—and this is the worst omission of all—she did not mention the costs to the surrounding area of the fires she wants to set. Riverton has, in the past year, hit all-time high air pollution levels, and smoke from Lehner’s fires would only worsen those numbers. Has she bothered to research the number of allergy and asthma sufferers in our region? Does she know that, nationwide, the incidence of allergies and asthma is rising? Is she planning to personally hand out face masks to affected individuals, or does she have some exciting new smoke-containment technology at her disposal?

8

Ms. Lehner should do more research before recommending a dangerous path for our community. We must fight the fire, not add fuel to it.

Roy Rodriguez, resident

Riverton

Which conclusion is supported by

Rodriguez’s letter?

A. Prescribed burns have caused damage to residential areas.

A.

Prescribed burns have caused damage to residential areas.

B. The size of prescribed burns and the smoke they create are difficult to control.

B.

The size of prescribed burns and the smoke they create are difficult to control.

C. Mechanical and chemical thinning are more successful than fire at eliminating unwanted plants.

C.

Mechanical and chemical thinning are more successful than fire at eliminating unwanted plants.

D. Inventing new smoke-containment technologies would increase the effectiveness of prescribed burns.

D.

Inventing new smoke-containment technologies would increase the effectiveness of prescribed burns.