Chaparral Wisdom
To celebrate the magic and beauty of Nature & the chaparral
The Myth of “Park-like” Forests in the Past
A research paper released yesterday finally did it for us.
“The most profound implication of this study is that the need for forest ‘restoration’ designed to reduce variation in fire behavior may be much less extensive than implied by many current forest management plans or promoted by recent legislation” (Odion et al. Examining Historical and Current Mixed-Severity Fire Regimes in Ponderosa Pine and Mixed-Conifer Forests of Western North America. PLoS ONE 9(2)).
Over the past ten years we have become increasing skeptical of the notion that large, high-severity fires in Western forests are “unnatural” and are completely the result of fuel build-up due to past fire suppression. A comment made last summer by a fire scientist during the Rim Fire in Yosemite that historically in the western Sierra the maximum high-intensity fire patch size was 40 acres with a few acres being the norm was, for me, completely illogical. The press loved it though.
Having read hundreds of research papers, hiked in the Sierra Nevada all my life, having some experience with fire as a USFS seasonal firefighter, watched huge fires move in drought-stressed, low humidity, windy conditions, and observed billions of dollars being spent to “restore” forests by clearing out habitat (i.e. “fuel”), we’ve concluded the conventional wisdom that “forests-are-supposed-to-be-park-like-with-only-surface-fires-clearing-out-the-understory-every-5-10 years,” really needs to go.
Yesterday, Odion et al. released their paper that examined “the historical and current mixed-severity fire regimes in ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer forests of western North America.” The scientists examined a huge landscape-data set (from published literature and information on stand ages from the Forest Inventory and Analysis program) about forests across the entire West.
Their conclusion? The traditional reference conditions of low-severity fire regimes are inaccurate for most forests in western North America. Most forests appear to have been characterized by mixed-severity fire that included ecologically significant amounts of weather-driven, high severity fire.
Some of the findings of the paper particularly struck us.
Read MoreWords Matter: It’s not fuel
Words matter.
We’ve had quite a discussion on our Facebook page this past week over the word “fuel.” It is related to the misuse of the word “forest” for the four national forests in southern California. Habitat is not fuel. Chaparral is not forest.
When a word is used that has the impact of masking necessary details or truth, it needs to be called out for what it is. Yes, shrubs provide fuel for fires to burn. Yes, the four large federal land holdings in California are part of the national forest system. But both words fail miserably in communicating what they are supposedly describing.
Worse, these words minimize and marginalize in the same way ethnic slurs demean entire groups of people. By continually describing the burning chaparral habitat as fuel during the fire in Glendora this past week, NBC was dismissing a valuable ecosystem. It is unlikely it would use the word “fuel” to describe a burning neighborhood or fire victims who ended up in the burn ward.
Why does it matter? Why do we disagree with those who are asking us to “get over it?”
One only has to observe what has happened to word choices as numerous minorities in our country have demanded equality. Words can have powerful impacts and can shape our attitudes and actions.
Calling a person by their real name is powerful. He or she will feel welcomed as theire sense of belonging grows. Others will feel it too. As a person’s name is heard in conversations, people will remember the person’s identity as an individual and will more likely recognize them in a crowd.
It’s time to use the right words and ditch the ones that are dis-empowering or mask the truth.
Speaking of names, it is time to start calling the four national “forests” in Southern California by their right name (see photo below).
Myths persist about wildfires in Southern California
There are a number of serious misconceptions about wildland fire in a 10/27/13 article in the San Diego Union-Tribune (Forests Healing Slowly From Cedar Fire) about the 2003 Cedar Fire.
1. The Cedar Fire was not the largest forest fire in California history. The largest wildfire in California history was the 1889 Santiago Canyon Fire. This is a well known fact in the fire science community and could have been discovered by typing into Google, “largest fire in California.” The Cedar Fire also wasn’t a “forest” fire. Except for a few areas in Cuyamaca, nearly all that burned was chaparral. This is an important distinction because the public has a difficult time understanding that fire acts differently in various ecosystems. More on the Santiago Canyon Fire here.
2. Fires in southern California do not “naturally” burn in a “patchwork pattern.” Chaparral has a crown fire regime. When it burns, especially during Santa Ana wind conditions, it naturally burns intensely, over large areas, and leaves behind little more than a moonscape. The notion that the way the Cedar Fire burned was somehow unnatural, as the quoted State Parks representative believes, is not supported by the last 20 years of research. The papers explaining this can be found here.
Also, the article leads the reader to think that the ceanothus currently growing in Cuyamaca is doing so as some kind of invading, unnatural “monoculture.” This is a value-laden forester’s perspective, one that places greater value on timber than the natural regeneration process of a post-fire environment. It is the same perspective that has led State Parks to conduct extremely damaging “reforestation” projects.
The quotes you used from the USFS representative apply to dry ponderosa pine forests in the southwest, not the mixed conifer forests in Cuyamaca. There is not enough science to support the notion that past fire suppression was responsible for what happened during the Cedar Fire in Cuyamaca. For reference, much of Cuyamaca burned in the 1889 Fire in the same manner it did during the 2003 Cedar Fire. This was long before the era of fire suppression.
It would have been helpful to double check these perspectives with the lead fire scientist you did interview, Dr. Alex Syphard. She has done extensive research on fires in southern California and is quite familiar with the latest science. The suggestion that there is a “fire deficient” in our region or that chaparral is supposed to burn in a “patchwork” is contradicted by what Dr. Syphard was quoted as saying later in the article.
Although it was good that Dr. Syphard’s comments were included, the average reader will likely still come away with the notion that chaparral needs more fire due to past fire suppression impacts. There is zero evidence for such a perspective. In fact, fire suppression has actually protected our native shrublands from too much fire. Dr. Syphard’s quoted statement also supported this. More here.
When it comes to fire, communicating the science properly to the public is essential because misconceptions not only lead to damaging land use practices, but can also encourage actions that increase fire risk in both human and natural communities.
Addendum: Another bit of mythology that you’ll probably stumble upon is the photo below. It is NOT a photo of the Cedar Fire as is often claimed. It’s actually a photo of the 2003 Old Fire, taken by Chris Doolittle from his backyard looking up Highway 330 in San Bernardino.
