This video illustrates well the current problem: development in areas that are at high risk of experiencing wildfire places people and property at risk. Why has this occurred?
Fire has been part of our planet for millions of years, shaping ecosystems through dramatic lightning storms. When humans entered the equation and we learned how to control or keep fire as part of our lives, fire frequency and location shifted based on our needs. There is extensive literature on how native and aboriginal cultures have applied fire to the ecosystems on which they depended. However, the following overview recognizes their role but fast forwards to the past century of wildfire policy.
For the past one hundred years, American wildfire policy has primarily been one of wildfire suppression. This was in part a reaction to major wildfires which swept through the Great Lakes logging communities of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota during the late 1800’s. European settlers intensively logged these forests when they moved to the region, leaving decimated forests in their wake. Sawdust, slash, and other timbering debris combined with drought conditions dramatically influenced the scale of wildfires in this region. For example, in 1871, the logging community of Peshtigo, Wisconsin, witnessed a wildfire which charred 2,400 square miles and killed more than 1,500 people. Other major fires ensued in the following decades, wiping out small towns and taking more lives along the way. It wasn’t until the early part of the 20th century, when heavy logging all but ceased in this region, that wildfire was no longer seen as such a major threat. However, the mental image of wildfires as a menacing force was burned into the mindset of America.
Meanwhile, as settlement continued westward, so the threat of wildfires began shifting. A new combination of factors unfolded: development began to increase, the federal government created what is now the Forest Service under the United States Department of Agriculture (in 1905), and Gifford Pinchot ushered in a new era of forestry and stewardship.
It became the responsibility of the Forest Service to fight wildfires across the expanses of the Great Plains, Rocky Mountains, and beyond. Stretched thin with limited resources and manpower, fighting fires became an exhausting task. It seemed that the best approach was to put out fires as quickly as they started, thus nothing burned out of control.
The South approached wildfire with a slightly different spin. Farmers saw it as a tool for managing cropland, and prescribed burning was seen as a positive concept. But for the most part, the West took the stance that fires must be controlled and extinguished.
The consequences of a diminished threat and an increased sense of control over large wildfires had an effect: the public perceived the threat of wildfire as being low enough to warrant the move into fire prone areas. Furthermore, we expect that the forest service and government should continue to fight wildfires at all costs to protect our property.
Unfortunately, it has become clear that not all wildfires can continue to be controlled. In fact, suppression has had multiple effects: With the absence of fire, forests have been altered; when wildfire does occur, fire behavior is often more intense and difficult to control due to the large amount of dead timber which has accrued over the last century; or, as is the case with Southern California, some ecosystems which rely on fire as a natural process upon which flora and fauan depend no longer burn in the same manner due to human influence.