The rising prevalence of mega-fires indicates that policy changes are needed, say critics of prevailing wildfire-prevention strategy. Fire suppression is not always good, they argue, and pouring ever more money into firefighting is not sustainable.
In California, wildfire response is a fine art. The drills would be an orchestrated thing of beauty, if not for the danger inherent in the task: Firefighters wrestle hoses up steep canyons, planes and helicopters drop water and fire retardant by the river full, backup resources are poised to invade if the wind shifts or embers fly the wrong way, and reverse 911 calls go out with evacuation orders.
But for all the progress made in fighting fires, California and other arid US states are still not getting fire control right, even though research has for almost a decade indicated what changes are needed, according to fire and forestry experts. At the root of the problem, many say, is man's instinct to suppress fire whenever and wherever it appears, coupled with a "hands' off" approach to underbrush management and unwise new development in fire-prone areas.
“We are getting better at expenditures and coordination and strategy and manpower and equipment, but the more we fight, the harder nature fights back,” says Richard Minnich, a geography professor at the University of California, Riverside. “We need to look back a century before all this began. Fires happened regularly and therefore were slower, less threatening, and less damaging. No one thinks about stopping an earthquake or a hurricane. We need to go back and embrace the thinking of doing less.”
Diane Vosick, director of policy and partnerships at the Ecological Restoration Institute, Northern Arizona University, concurs that a different emphasis is needed now. “By ramping up our use of helicopters and air tankers and new technology, we are treating symptoms but not the underlying causes,” she said in a phone interview.
Page 1 of 4