Time to Take Action
Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.


Seven Myths about Forest Fires

by Dr. Thomas M. Bonnicksen,PhD, Professor Emeritus, Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, Texas A&M University May 3, 2016

The debate over how to protect against wildfires and restore health to our forests , especially in

the western United States , is probably the most important ecological debate of our time. Yet like

so many important issues , the debate is fraught with misinformation.


Forty years of forestry and fire experience have taught me that such misinformation can do as

much damage to forests as any fire . I compiled a list of current myths and their corresponding

realities, which should prove helpful for the average citizen.


Myth 1: All fires are good and forest management is bad.

This argument confuses small, naturally occurring fires with large conflagrations, and calls all of

them good. It blames forest managers for wanting to thin our incredibly thick forests to prevent

their destruction.


Historically, natural fires burned a far different kind of forest than the uniformly thick ,

overpopulated forests we have today. Many forests of the past were resistant to monster fires ,

with open understories, and clearings and patches of open forest that acted as mini-fuel breaks.

So fires were far smaller and less severe than today. These lighter and naturally contained fires

cleared away potentially dangerous fuels.


Fires can’t burn that way in modern forests . They sweep through an abundance of fuel , burn

super-hot, destroy whole forests , and leave a desolate landscape scarred by erosion and littered

with dead animals . Sadly, many of these monster fires also destroy the seed trees needed to

restore a forest, and planting young trees often is blocked by people who think it is unnatural. The

result is brush fields that gradually replace our forests.


This is why forest management, which involves thinning in order to make our forests more like

they used to be, naturally resistant to fire , is so desperately needed.


Myth 2: Wildfires and massive infestations of insects are natural way for forests to thin and

rejuvenate themselves.

On the contrary, “no-cut” policies and total fire suppression have created the overcrowded forest

conditions that enable fires and tree destroying insects to spread over vast areas. The resulting

devastation is not natural. It is human-caused.


We must accept responsibility for the crisis we created and correct the problem .


Myth 3: If management is unavoidable, then deliberately set fires, or prescribed fires, are the best

way to solve today’s wildfire crisis .

Prescribed fire can be an effective tool in some cases , but it is ineffective and unsafe in the

overcrowded forests of today. It is ineffective because any fire that is hot enough to kill trees over

a few inches in diameter, which is too small to eliminate the fire hazard in many forests , has a

high probability of becoming uncontrollable. Many forests are crowded with trees 12-24 inches in

diameter that grew to that size because of over a hundred years of neglect.


Even carefully planned fires can be unsafe , as the 2000 Los Alamos fire amply demonstrated. A

chainsaw would do wonders and it is far less dangerous than setting fires to thin forests.


Myth 4: Thinning narrow strips of forest around communities, or fuel breaks, is more than

adequate as defense against wildfire.

Anyone who thinks roaring wildfires can’t penetrate these narrow barriers could not be more

mistaken . Fires often jump over railroad tracks and even divided highways. In strong winds and

high tempera tures any fuel break less than a quarter to a half mile wide is ineffective.


Fuel breaks are also impractical in many areas because forest communities are spread out, with

homes and businesses scattered over the landscape. And fuel breaks only work if firefighters are

on the scene to attack the fire when it enters the area. Otherwise, the fire will drop to the ground

below the trees and move along the forest floor even faster than in a thick forest.


The 2007 Angora Fire in South Lake Tahoe proves the point. One narrow shaded fuel break built

by the Forest Service failed . The widely spaced trees on the fuel break were saved , but that was

not the purpose of building it. It was supposed to help save the community, but 254 homes were



Myth 5: Defensible space around your home will save it from wildfire.

Again, the Angora Fire and many others not named here, demonstrate how such an idea can

lead to a false sense of security.


It didn’t matter whether homeowners thinned trees on their property or took other

precautions like raking needles to create defensible space. Everyone was vulnerable

because burning debris came from half a mile away and simply fell from the sky on their

houses . After the Angora Fire, I saw houses with metal roofs lying on their foundations

and houses with few trees on the property that were entirely gone. High winds also

blasted flaming pinecones and branches through windows where they set homes on fire

from the inside.


Myth 6: Removing dead trees killed by wind, insects or fire will not reduce the fire hazard.

Can you light a fire in an empty fireplace? Of course not. You need fuel and the more fuel the

hotter the fire . If dead trees are not removed , they fall into jackstraw piles intermingled with heavy

brush and small trees . These extreme fuels become bone dry by late summer, especially during a

drought, and will create a savage wildfire if ignited.


Acting quickly to rehabilitate a wind or insect ravaged forest , or a burned forest, is one of the

surest ways to prevent wildfires or dampen their spread .


Myth 7: We should use taxpayer money to solve the wildfire crisis rather than involve private


The private sector must be involved. A minimum of 73 million acres of federal forest needs

immediate thinning and restoration . Another 120 million also need treatment. Subsequent

maintenance treatments must be done on a 15-year cycle .


The total cost for initial treatment would be $60 billion , or about $4 billion per year for 15 years.

Then it would cost about $31 billion for each of the following 15-year maintenance cycles.

This is far more money than the taxpayers will bear. But if private companies could harvest and

thin only the trees required to restore and sustain a healthy, fire-resistant forest, the tax burden

would be lessened dramatically. In exchange, companies could sell the wood and minimize public

expenditures .


The obvious conclusion: There aren’t any shortcuts. Human intervention has created forests

that are dense, overgrown tinderboxes where unnatural monster fires are inevitable. This means

we must manage our forest to prevent and limit wildfires . Leaving forests alone caused the

problem and it will lead to even greater destruction if we continue this failed policy.


We have to restore our forests to their natural fire resistant and productive condition. Thinning

and restoring forests on a landscape level is the only way to safeguard our natural heritage and

protect people and property.


*Thomas M. Bonnicksen, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Ecosystem

Science and Management at Texas A&M University, and author of the book ”Americas Ancient

Forests. ” Parts of this commentary were excerpted from his testimony before the Committee on

Resources, U.S. House of Representatives.



In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Home Contact


              Page Updated: Monday November 26, 2018 02:07 PM  Pacific

             Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2001 - 2018, All Rights Reserved