To help solve the wildfire problem, we need to return to local District Rangers running wildfire suppression programs, working closely with their communities, with their own budgets and discretion. They need the freedom to innovate with new technology, in partnership with the states, counties, and local fire protection.
Forests used to be managed this way, but not any longer.
If empowered as they used to be, District Rangers can focus on preventing fires through targeted tree thinning and brush removal and actually putting the fires out on the spot.
But the Trump administration is considering a move in the opposite direction with sweeping changes including creating a mega-wildfire agency.
They are proposing to create a massive new bureaucracy to run the nation’s wildfire program, extracting the wildfire program from the U.S. Forest Service and combining it with the wildfire programs within the Department of Interior.
It won't work.
As in all things involving the government, local is best.
The last thing we need is an unaccountable new top-down, national organization that will have little connection to the concerns of local citizens.
No doubt the new administration is trying solve the wildfire problem and is frustrated by past results.
They should be.
Wildfires rage across the nation for a number of key reasons. The Biden administration and many in the wildfire community have been frankly, a little “match happy,” claiming the forests are fire-deprived ecosystems.
It seems that they are at times trying to save the patient by killing her.
Many in the wildfire community leadership have adopted this “herd mentality” that they need to let more wildfires burn up the forest in order to save it.
The recent aggressiveness of putting much more fire on the landscape is for what purpose exactly? A healthier forest? What does that mean?
Is it really worth the tradeoff of losing homes or lives?
As an example, a recent 2022 prescribed burn in New Mexico spread within hours to the largest wildfire in the state’s history and killed three people.
Some small amount of prescribed fire under carefully controlled conditions can be helpful, but the current modus is often neither careful nor controlled.
Then there is the sometimes late and weak initial attack as I can attest to as a retired District Ranger based on what I have seen in the past.
Trying to aggressively put wildfires out by 10:00 a.m. the next morning is still the aspirational policy goal in some places. Yet in other places wildfire staff want people to get used to “living with wildfire.”
Another reason for the wildfire situation is the overgrown fire-prone forest conditions.
Locally driven decisions and more focus regarding where to do more mechanical thinning of trees and as well as brush removal is key to minimizing wildfire damage.
Another reason for our wildfire challenges is that the prevention program is given insufficient attention as to changing potential fire start scenarios, availability of water sources, suppression scenarios, etc.
Local District Rangers need to insist that their wildfire leadership focus on meaningful prevention.
Finally, it needs to be said that even if all of this is addressed – we need to understand that in extreme high wind events for example – sometimes there no effective suppression capability.
Communities could decide to cut the power so we eliminate a potential source of ignition, stop construction projects, etc. Yet for obvious reasons there are significant tradeoffs that need to be evaluated.
Unfortunately, District Rangers today have very limited discretion for decision-making. They don’t manage their own budgets. Their role has become, in some sense, a public affairs job with an inability to deliver timely and meaningful results.
Local District Rangers must provide wildfire program oversight and receive the appropriate training to do so.
Local managers understand local issues such as likely human sources of ignition and air quality issues. They can work with neighborhoods on fuels reduction projects. This is the solution: District Rangers working with neighbors and partnering with local and state government.
Can a big new national bureaucracy better address the wildfire challenge? Unfortunately, not. It is not hard to imagine a future administration with such an unaccountable national wildfire agency. They could decide on a wildfire policy on steroids; including massive landscape burning or just letting many wildfires burn or doing no mechanical thinning of the forest.
God forbid.
What a disaster it would be! If the new national bureaucracy is focused on national team deployment after the wildfire has already spread beyond local capabilities, so be it.
However, the major wildfire damage is almost always done in the first burning period before the national teams arrive to help the local unit.
Any state forester will tell you that wildfire and insects and disease know no boundary between federal, state and private lands. “Zeroing out” these programs makes little sense if we are trying to return control more locally.
If Congress and the administration need to save money, then cut out or reduce a middle management layer. The national forest offices and regional offices would be a much less impactful target if the bottom line is effective wildfire prevention and suppression.
Many of us fondly recall the “Lassie” TV series which ran for 20 years. Ranger Corey Stuart and his faithful companion Lassie were empowered to solve local problems.
In some sense it reflected how the U.S. Forest Service operated in that era. We need to return to those values and norms where the District Ranger oversees the local wildfire prevention, suppression (albeit with the ability to call in support) and fuel reduction programs. This is the best long-term solution for preventing and suppressing wildfires on our nation’s National Forests and Grasslands and beyond.
Gary Schiff is former Carson District Ranger (Carson City/Reno area) – one of the busiest wildfire units in the nation. He also oversaw the US Forest Service for the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee and was the Policy Director for the National Association of State Foresters. He is currently a natural resource and consultant and guide connecting Israel and the U.S.
Image: Pixabay, via Pexels // Pexels License