The Science of Politics
Few can deny that we've made tremendous gains in the application of wildland fire science over the past 50 years. The creation of fire research labs, the extensive use of computer modeling, the introduction of satellites and GIS, and advances in infrared and protective clothing materials have all moved us toward a more efficient and safer operational mode. But in spite of all the improvements that we've made, there is still ample room for more and better knowledge in the science of wildland fire management.
With more than a billion dollars spent annually on wildfires in America and similar amounts committed in Australia, Canada and Europe, politicians show that they are aware of our business and are ready to interject themselves into it when it suits their needs. And if good science doesn't support their positions, then let's redefine that science until it's “politically correct.”
Such a situation recently occurred in Oregon, where a graduate student at Oregon State University's School of Forestry had funding pulled by the Department of Interior when he published a study in the peer-reviewed journal Science that was politically unpopular. His studies on the effects of salvage logging on Oregon's Biscuit Fire area showed that reforestation was not beneficial — and that didn't go over too well in an administration that has appointed a former timber industry lobbyist as its lead player in natural resource management.
So what? This is a timber harvest issue unrelated to fire, except that it deals with an area burned over in a massive wildfire. Well, similar conflicts are surfacing between “good science” and political expediency in the world of wildland fire, too. Just think about the need for defensible space and fuels reduction to protect structures in the wildland-urban interface: Scientific studies are showing that the 100 feet nearest the structure are most critical for the survivability of a building, yet some folks are proposing harvest of large-diameter trees more than a mile away as a valid method of reducing risk in the WUI. Is this desire to cut timber driven by good scientific study or the desire to supply local mills with timber? How about allowing fire to play a more natural role in our ecosystems versus the effects of smoke on a tourist community's economy during periods of high recreation use? Or going out and burning “easy acres” that may not need prescribed fire to meet politically set targets that aren't resource-driven?
All of us involved in natural resources and fire management on public lands acknowledge that the political influence is a viable part of the equation, and sometimes politicians override our best-reasoned decisions. So be it! But in spite of the political factor, as fire managers we still have the responsibility to state our best professional opinions in a free and open forum unimpeded by political pressures to conform to the “political correctness” of the day.
Wildland fire management throughout the world is just too visible to escape the eye of the public and their politicians, but we must never hesitate to base our recommendations and decisions on the best available science and take “the heat” when necessary.
Note: Both the First Fire Behavior & Fuels Conference and the Ninth Safety Summit are history, and were outstanding successes. (See “IAWF Update” on page 10.) Many thanks go out to all of the folks who contributed their time and efforts to make these conferences successful. For anyone interested in helping out on the organizing committees for other upcoming IAWF conferences, contact Executive Director Bill Gabbert at iawf@iawfonline.org.
Contact the IAWF
International Assn. of Wildland Fire
P.O. Box 261
Hot Springs, S.D.
57747-0261
ph: 605-890-2348
fax: 206-600-5113
iawf@iawfonline.org
To join the IAWF, visit www.iawfonline.org
Letters
Send them to:
Wildfire Magazine
330 N. Wabash Ave.
Suite 2300
Chicago, Ill. 60611
Attn: Lisa Allegretti lisa.allegretti@penton.com
