After New Mexico’s record-breaking fires, the politics of wildfire are morphing into weird configurations.
This is an installment of Landline, a bi-weekly High Country News newsletter on land, water, wildlife, weather, and conservation in the western United States. Read also : First look at Netflix in August 2022. Sign up to receive it in your inbox.
More desert, more… wildfires?
As the West reckons with decades of repression and mismanagement, some politicians are exploiting wildfire policy in peculiar ways.
On June 23, the US House Subcommittee on Public Lands held a hearing on, among other things, a bill that would designate just over 13,000 acres of the Rio Grande do Norte National Monument in the northwestern New Mexico as wilderness areas. I came to the hearing virtually, not expecting much debate: the proposed area is relatively small, inside a national monument and therefore already protected, and has broad local support. If I were a Republican, I would endorse this just to bolster my green credentials and bipartisan bravado.
Instead, Rep. Russ Fulcher, a Republican from Idaho, launched into a soliloquy about the Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon fire, which has so far burned about 345,000 acres elsewhere in northern New Mexico, becoming the registered large in the state. Behind him, huge photos of what he described as the “Armageddon” aftermath of the fire loomed ominously. I watched in dismay, wondering why on earth he was talking about a fire 100 miles away and in a completely different ecological zone than the proposed wilderness. Had his caretaker accidentally sent him to the wrong audience?
But it turns out that Fulcher was there on purpose, to oppose the wilderness bill with the help of pretzel logic and outright falsehoods, using the Hermits Peak fire as a reason not to designate any wilderness at all.
More than that, he used the occasion to insist on a topic of conversation that has gained force this year as wildfires spread from Alaska to Arizona: we have to “manage” our forests, that is, cut them down and thin them and, in In the words of a certain former president, “rake” the forest floor, to prevent catastrophic wildfires like the one on Hermits Peak. This view literally sees a forest in its natural state as “an untended garden: it will grow and grow until it chokes to death and is finally consumed by catastrophic fire,” as Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., put it. a 2021 statement condemning the Forest Service’s practice of sometimes allowing remote wildfires to burn. “The US Forest Service was formed to remove excess growth before it can burn and to preserve our forests in healthy condition from generation to generation. Or more simply, to do a bit of gardening.”
The thing is, you can’t really do this kind of “gardening” in a wilderness area. And that brings us to Fulcher’s argument. “This fire started in the Pecos Wilderness,” Fulcher said, “(and) further validates that failing to mechanically clear covered forest before initiating a prescribed burn is a recipe for disaster. More desert means more wildfires.”
If you slow down, read this carefully, and think about what I’m saying here, you’ll see what I mean by pretzel logic.
Neither the Hermits Peak fire nor the Calf Canyon fire (the two eventually merged) started in a wilderness area to begin with. The Ermitaño Peak Fire began on April 6 as the prescribed burning of Gallinas-Las Dispensas. The low-intensity burn, which had been planned for years, was intended to reduce fuel buildup and reduce the risk of a catastrophic wildfire in Las Vegas, New Mexico. But unexpected and erratic winds caused the flames to spiral out of control into a forest desiccated by climate change. The Calf Canyon Fire started later, when a still-smoldering logging pile that burned in January as part of the same project started its own fire (also outside of the wilderness). And those cut batteries? They were there because, contrary to Fulcher’s claim, mechanical thinning had been done to the area prior to burning.
8,300 acresSize of Gallinas-Las Dispensas prescribed burn and fire treatment area.
5,221 acres Amount of area that was mechanically treated and thinned prior to the April 6 prescribed burn.
3.4 million acresArea treated nationwide with prescribed burning, mechanical thinning, and controlled wildfires in 2021.
As for your “more desert means more wildfires” trope? That’s a bit more nuanced.
By now, even staunch Republicans have to acknowledge that part of the reason wildfires are so intense and catastrophic now is because, more than a century ago, the US Forest Service began extinguishing every fire as soon as it is reported to keep all that valuable wood from going up in smoke. That, combined with the absence of indigenous cultural burning, has led to a “fire deficit” in most western forests, harming ecosystem health and allowing fuels to build up. Warming caused by climate change, atmospheric thirst and drought have dried up those fuels, making them much more flammable and, as Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Arizona, pointed out at the June 23 hearing, “causing the fires become the year of fire.”
In the 1960s and 1970s, forest managers began to recognize that fire was indeed beneficial and that automatic fire suppression was doing more harm than good. So they began allowing some naturally ignited fires to burn in wilderness and other remote areas, a policy also known as “appropriate management response” or AMR, with the goal of erasing some of the deep-fire deficit while reduce risk to firefighters. In this case, as Fulcher pointed out, more wilderness has resulted in more wildfires, but they have been, you know, um, “good” wildfires. A study published last year in Environmental Research Letters found that while fewer fires were ignited in areas without roads, the number of acres burned in them was higher than in forested areas with roads. Another study published in May found that “increasing the management of naturally ignited fires for resource targets can reduce the risk of future wildfires reaching WUI (wildland-urban interface) areas, as well as reduce the severity of fires in neighboring wilderness areas.
In other words, more fires of the kind that occur in the wild is exactly what we need to make our forests and communities more resilient to megafires exacerbated by climate change. Fulcher and company might know this, even if they avoid that kind of nuance during moments of political theater like the one on display at the June 23 hearing. Fulcher and 24 of his fellow Republicans recently sent a letter to US Forest Service Chief Randy Moore, urging him to “use essential tools, including prescribed burns, safely and effectively to restore these landscapes at interval fires.” natural”.
Common sense would tell us that these “essential tools” would include less than fully extinguished, managed wildfires in wilderness and other remote areas. But the policy says something different. McClintock, a source for the aforementioned “gardening” quote and a signer of the letter calling for more prescribed burns, headlined a 2021 press release: “Fire is NOT our friend.” He went on to blame the catastrophic bushfires on “let it burn” policy (which isn’t really a policy) and on “radical” environmentalists for ending “forest management”, i.e. commercial logging.
4.4 million acres The least amount of land burned annually in California before 1800, either naturally or due to indigenous forest management, according to a 2007 study.
2.6 million acre area of land burned in California wildfires in 2021.
9Minimum number of the 20 most destructive California wildfires started by power lines or other utility equipment.
$4.4 billionAmount spent by federal agencies on wildfire suppression in 2021.
It would be one thing if this kind of political posturing was limited to congressional hearings and press releases, but it also tends to seep into land management politics. Last year, after a wildfire sparked by lightning in California broke out and spread into populated areas, California Governor Gavin Newsom, D, condemned the Forest Service for not aggressively attacking the fire early on. Shortly afterward, the Forest Service said it would suppress rather than control all wildfires “for now.” This spring, Forest Service Chief Moore suspended all prescribed burns in the forests for 90 days after New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham admonished the agency for allowing the Hermits Peak fire to burn. Yes.
The hiatus gives Fulcher and his friends an opportunity to promote more gardening. His letter continues: “It is now more important than ever that the agency fully and immediately utilize other tools, such as mechanical thinning, to continue treating the millions of acres of forest land at risk of catastrophic wildfires.” Federal land managers seem eager to comply: Montana’s Bitterroot National Forest is moving forward with a 144,000-acre “forest health improvement” project to reduce fuel buildup and fire risk. The project includes commercial logging on up to 55,000 acres.
Even if the project reduces fire danger, and many conservationists argue it won’t, what’s the point? It will not prevent any homes from burning down because it is far from the communities. It seems the goal here is to spend oodles of taxpayer dollars to cut down the forest so it doesn’t burn and then spend even more money on suppressing any fires that might ignite there. Is Fulcher’s plan to replicate this type of landscaping project on the 193 million acres of Forest Service land?
Climate change, coupled with more than a century of fire suppression, is forcing a new approach to dealing with wildfires. The old paradigm of trying to nip every ignition in the bud for political expediency just doesn’t work. Nor can a herd of gardeners mechanically remove all the fuel buildup in all fire-prone forests, no matter how vigorously they wield their rakes, or even treat it all with prescribed burns. Not even the idea of fighting fires makes sense. To paraphrase pyrogeographer Crystal A. Kolden: We do not try to stop, control, contain, or combat hurricanes. So why do we do that with fires?
It makes much more sense to start with fire hazard mitigation near homes and other structures, whether through building codes, land use rules that prohibit construction in certain areas, or creating defensible space around buildings. communities with the help of thinning or prescribed burning. Resume also the indigenous cultural burning. And, instead of risking the lives of firefighters to extinguish remote lightning-sparked fires, manage those fires as natural prescribed burns that do the otherwise difficult, dangerous and expensive job of reducing fuel buildup. It is time to return the natural rhythm of fire to the land and eliminate politics, and this strange idea of gardening.
Hold the Line: Stories from HCN and elsewhere that are worth your time
A federal appeals court last month rejected an offer by the Apache Stronghold to block a proposed copper mining project at Chi’chil Bildagoteel, also known as Oak Flat, a site east of Phoenix considered sacred by Apache and other tribal members of the southwest. Debra Utacia Krol reports for the Arizona Republic that two of the three judges recognized the Apache people’s ties to the land, but ruled that federal religious freedom laws would not allow the grassroots group to block the project. Apache Stronghold, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said it plans to take the case to the US Supreme Court. To see also : Science Is Great! 8 A European Reference for Scientists. How it will fare there is a toss-up: As Nick Martin reports for High Country News, most of the court has been hostile toward tribal sovereignty. But he favors religious freedom, at least as far as some kind of religious sovereignty is concerned. Will that ethos also apply to indigenous religions? (Republic of Arizona, High Country News)
A long-running bid (a pipe dream, perhaps?) to build a 338-mile pipeline to transport billions of gallons of water from Utah’s Green River to Colorado’s populous Front Range got a financial boost from a new investor, reports Chris Outcalt for the Colorado Sun. Aaron Million has been plotting the project for more than a decade and has so far been stymied by opposition from conservationists and Utah’s rejection of his request for a water right. Million said the Colorado River Compact provides a legal basis for his offer, but appears to be missing the part where the Compact grossly overestimated the amount of water in the river. The project would further decrease flows into Lake Powell, which have reduced the reservoir to critically low levels. (Colorado Sun)
Ahhh, summer, the season to get out on those public lands and enjoy the serenity (crowds), the solitude (traffic jams), the freedom (overworked emergency services), and the quaint local culture (housing prices out). of control, labor shortages and overloaded infrastructure). There probably isn’t much that can be done to limit post-COVID crowds, but gateway cities are trying to better manage them in a way that reaps the economic benefits while mitigating some of the negative impacts. And, as Heather Hansman reports for High Country News, they’re getting help from Utah State University’s Gateway and Natural Resource Amenities (GNAR) Initiative.
Danya Rumore, who started the show, told Hansman, “A lot of the work is going to be about changing the narrative around planning, and right now it’s a very political element. People say they don’t want change, but we don’t have a tool to stop growth, so we have to engage people to figure out what kind of community they want to be.” (High Country News)
Will you be traveling the West in the coming weeks and months? Tell us about the strategies you employ to deal with (or escape) the crowds while visiting public lands during the summer season. And if you live in a gateway community, we’d also love to hear from you about your experience when summer visitors swell your city’s population.
Call Jonathan at landline, (970) 648-4472, or email us at [email protected].
Jonathan Thompson is a contributing editor for High Country News. He is the author of Sagebrush Empire: How a Remote Utah County Became the Battlefront of American Public Lands.
Is it better to go to France in July or August?
Late spring and fall are best, with generally good weather and lighter crowds, though summer brings festivals, lively towns, reliable weather, and long opening hours at the sights. To see also : Across regions, politics, Oregonians share concerns that the future will include more wildfires – Oregon Capital Chronicle.
Is it better to visit Paris in July or August? The best time to visit Paris is from June to August and from September to October. Both summer and fall have their ups and downs. From June to August, the weather in Paris is almost parfait (perfect).
Is July a good month to visit France?
In terms of warm weather and long days, summer is the best season to visit. The months of July and August are ideal for a beach holiday on the French Riviera or in the elegant resort of Biarritz on the Atlantic coast.
Is August a good month to visit France?
The best time to visit France is in spring (April-May), summer (June-August) or autumn (September-October). Spring is pleasant across the country, with fewer crowds and temperatures hovering between 55°F and 68°F.
Is it worth going to Paris in August?
August is one of the best months to visit Paris. The weather is great, and with many Parisians out of town for les vacances, the annual month-long vacation, the crowds are much smaller.
Is food expensive in Paris?
While meal prices in Paris can vary, the average cost of a meal in Paris is €31 per day. Based on the spending habits of previous travellers, a normal meal in Paris should cost around €12 per person. Breakfast prices are usually a bit cheaper than lunch or dinner.
How much does a meal cost in Paris?
Is Paris expensive for tourists?
Paris may be the most visited city in the world, but it’s also one of the most expensive. But for travelers on a budget, there are plenty of cheap, and even free, ways to enjoy the city. Paris may be the most visited city in the world, but it’s also one of the most expensive.
Is everything expensive in Paris?
Paris, the only eurozone city in the top ten, “remains structurally extremely expensive to live in,” the report says. Paris has also proven to be particularly expensive, compared to other cities, when it comes to the cost of entertainment and clothing.
Why do French people vacation in August?
The French even have nicknames for those who go on vacation in the summer! Traditionally, most people went in August, when the factories closed and the country was almost at a standstill. But as the French economy has evolved and manufacturing has slowed, people can now choose which month to go on vacation.
How busy is France in August? August remains always crowded as the weather changes little from the previous month, visitors flock for sunshine, festivals and popular attractions.
Is August good time to visit France?
When is the best time to visit France? The best time to visit France is in spring (April-May), summer (June-August) or autumn (September-October). Spring is pleasant across the country, with fewer crowds and temperatures hovering between 55°F and 68°F.
What do the French call summer holidays?
4 – School holidays and school holidays Dates in France Summer holidays in France: “les Grandes vacances†, July and August, so 8 weeks in total.
