A new book says we can stop the cycle of devastating summer wildfires, but how realistic is the solution it offers?

Man, summer! BLM firefighters have become all too familiar with the Columbia River Basin. Photo by Kevin Abel/BLM

Summer is traditionally the time for picnics, vacations, obligatory visits to relatives and griping about the inevitable return to work, school and rain jackets. In recent years it’s also become a time to worry about wildfires.

With triple-digit temperatures forecast across much of the Columbia River Basin in the coming week, we thought it was a good time to ask our resident wildfire expert for his thoughts on a new book—Smokescreen: Debunking Wildfire Myths to Save Our Forests and Our Climate—that’s making the rounds among wildfire experts.

MORE: Smoke is alive says new wildfire study

The book’s author, Chad T. Hanson, is a research ecologist and director of the John Muir Project at the San Francisco-based Earth Island Institute. He’s coeditor of The Ecological Importance of Mixed-Severity Fires: Nature’s Phoenix and his work has been featured in the International Journal of Wildland Fire, Ecosphere and BioScience.

Columbia Insight board member Jurgen Hess spent 34 years with the U.S. Forest Service. As acting forest supervisor, he made the decision in the mid-1980s to allow fires to burn in the Sky Lakes Wilderness in southwest Oregon. He’s been a guest lecturer on public forest policy at Portland State University, a wildfire educator, photographer and consultant for landowners on making their homes fire safe. He’s written editorials objecting to salvage logging of the 2017 Eagle Creek Fire in the Columbia River Gorge and is on the board of Friends of Mt. Adams. —Editor

Bigger, stronger, faster: The Long Draw Fire burned 557,648 acres in southeastern Oregon in 2012. The wildfire problem has only gotten worse. Photo by Kevin Abel/BLM

By Jurgen Hess. June 24, 2021. The title of Chad Hanson’s new book—Smokescreen: Debunking Wildfire Myths to Save Our Forests and Our Climate—appears to clearly state the work’s purpose.

For me, however, the author’s real objective doesn’t become clear until near the book’s end.

A research ecologist and activist, Hanson describes his frustrations working with federal and state agencies on forest fire issues.

These issues include fire suppression, post-fire salvage logging and the issue of whether wildland fires should just be allowed to burn rather than be put out.

He examines the effectiveness of agency polices protecting communities from fire. He offers solutions as to how wildfires and forests should be managed.

I’ve organized my reactions to Smokescreen into four parts: what I agree with, what I disagree with, the overall persuasiveness of Hanson’s argument and a final comment about what I feel is a misleading approach to the book’s title.

What I agree with

There’s much in the pages of Smokescreen with which to agree.

For example, Hanson lambasts President Donald Trump and the Forest Service’s rollback of environmental policies under his administration.

I agree with Hanson that small trees are the most flammable—which is why clear cuts restocked with dense young trees need to be thinned.

Hanson criticizes post-fire salvage logging. Salvage logging compacts soils, destroys natural regeneration and removes large trees needed as snag habitat.

MORE: Sage grouse, pygmy rabbits among wildlife hardest hit by fires

Widely respected University of Washington forest ecology professor Dr. Jerry Franklin agrees with the assessment that post-fire logging tends to be harmful to reestablishing a new forest—as do I. A certain percentage of a forest’s ecosystem always should be in a recently burned condition.

Burned forests provide habitat for, among other species, the three-toed black-backed woodpecker. During a 2018 review of the Blackburn Fire, a Mt. Hood National Forest wildlife biologist told me a large forested area should always have 6-8% in burned condition for woodpecker habitat.

Thin to win: Landscape adjacent to a home shows limbed-up trees and small tree removal to decrease fire hazard around the home. Photo by Jurgen Hess 

Hanson criticizes private timberland management. Private timberlands have a much shorter tree rotation/harvest age (35-45 years) than do federal forests.

In addition, private companies generally use clear-cutting as a harvest method. Clear-cutting impacts wildlife habitat, aesthetics and water quality. New forests after clear-cutting bear little semblance of a forest ecosystem with habitat for all species.

Most house fires that burn as a result of wildfires are started by embers blowing far ahead of the wildfire flames. Hanson sensibly recommends all construction in the wildland urban interface (WUI) use fire-retardant materials and be built to Firewise standards.

What I disagree with

While Hanson makes many valid points, he often veers into unnecessary polemic.

For instance, he demonizes the U.S. Forest Service and organizations such as The Nature Conservancy. Virtually every federal agency and many environmental organizations are swept up in his continual criticisms.

Hanson proposes that new house construction should transition from using wood to using different materials, essentially concrete and steel.

Tree, house: Wildland Urban Interface along the Sandy River in Oregon. Photo by NASHCO

But production of both materials results in a much higher carbon footprint than wood. When forests are managed on a sustainable basis, wood products are a viable building material.

Hanson believes fires should be left to burn, with little to no attempt to put them out.

This might work in a pristine ecosystem. The problem is that for 100 years federal agencies have made an effort to put out all fires. For better or worse, this policy has resulted in an abnormally high fuel loading in most of our forests.

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Too often people living in wild areas expect agencies to save their homes from fires. They enjoy a lifestyle subsidized by firefighting agencies.[/perfectpullquote]

High fuel-load fires burn hotter and turn into high-intensity conflagrations. High-intensity fires tend to burn up all trees, including large tree habitat used by spotted owls and other species.

While I support letting some fires burn, until fuel loading is decreased to natural levels—accomplished by tree thinning and prescribed burns—agencies must fight fires aggressively, putting most out quickly.

Hanson criticizes collaborative teams, which have become popular forest management tools. If you’re unfamiliar with forest collaborative groups, the Cascade Forest Conservancy has a good definition: “In forest collaborative groups, diverse stakeholders including environmental organizations, timber companies, recreational organizations and other interested members of the community come together to discuss timber sales and other proposed projects with Forest Service staff.”

I’ve been involved with forest collaborative teams for many years, including the South Gifford Pinchot Forest Collaborative for 10 years. The first years of that collaborative were full of conflict and dissent. But the team has evolved and now works well together with diverse membership. Hanson should have stuck it out with his collaboratives and built relationships with team members.

Stump speech: Dr. Jerry Franklin addresses the South Gifford Pinchot Forest Collaborative. Photo by Jurgen Hess

Most of the studies referenced in the book come from research that lines up with Hanson’s conclusions. But authorities, such as Franklin, feel Hanson’s science is slanted. His book should also include studies that disagree with his findings. That’s good, rigorous methodology.

Hanson believes thinning forests is bad and shouldn’t be undertaken by federal agencies. But the devil is in the details. Success or failure depends on how thinning is done.

MORE: Hidden threat: How non-native plants fuel wildfires, degrade ecosystems

Thinning should remove small trees and protect large trees, which are the most fire-resistant. A canopy of shade should be left to cool soils. If done properly, thinnings reduce fuel loadings and accelerate the growth of young trees that will become future old growth.

The Ashland, Oregon, watershed is being thinned in a collaborative project by The Nature Conservancy, Forest Service and others. Lots of research shows thinning is an effective way to reduce fire hazards.

Persuasive or not?

Hanson’s book suffers from low-quality photos. And it can be difficult to understand the point of photo captions.

This might seem like a nitpick, but the 1993 book Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Forestry (edited by Bill Devall) changed public opinion with its excellent photography and explanations.

Smokescreen would be more effective if Hanson had more professional diversity. His experience is primarily in California and the Sierra Nevada area.

Preemptive strike: Prescribed burns like this one in eastern Oregon help reduce wildfire risk. Photo by BLM

Offhand comments betray an age prejudice. When he wants to stick a point he describes people with whom he disagrees as “elderly” and “older.” He denigrates researchers of age if he disagrees with their findings. If he’s fortunate, someday he’ll be elderly.

The issue of land-use planning and fires is barely discussed. Society must use planning tools to prevent people from building homes in high fire-hazard areas.

All too often people living in these areas expect agencies to save their homes when fires come. They enjoy a lifestyle subsidized by firefighting agencies.

Protect and enable: Silver City Hotshots superintendent Justin Romero talks with homeowner Jesse Tree during a fire in Oregon’s Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest in 2018. Photo by Kari Greer/USFS

Missing is any discussion of the 1950-1990 era, when the Forest Service was cutting forests at an unsustainable rate, liquidating old growth and violating the Endangered Species Act.

While terrible, this was a defining era for the Forest Service, ending in an upheaval of its mission. As Franklin has noted: “The Forest Service was turning the national forests into timber farms. It went to the dark side.”

New leadership, notably Chief Jack Ward Thomas in the mid-1990s, brought change. The Forest Service is no longer the “water boy for the timber industry,” to quote Kathy Durbin’s Bridging a Great Divide: The Battle for the Columbia River.

Smokescreen makes no mention of Stephen Pyne’s seminal America’s Fires: A Historical Context for Policy and Practice, which was published in 2010. That book helped change attitudes and agency policies about fire.

The real smokescreen

Not until the book’s final chapters does its true message come through loud and clear.

Wood preserver: Author Hanson. Univ. Kentucky Press

Hanson simply wants to stop timber harvesting on public land, including in national forests and Bureau of Land Management land. As Franklin has pointed out about Hanson, “he doesn’t want any trees cut on federal land, (he’d) rather have the forests burn up.”

If that’s your position that’s fine. But I personally found it disingenuous to couch that message in a book that comes wrapped as wildfire scholarship.

MORE: Wildfires pose dire threat to toxic Superfund site in Montana

I can’t recommend Smokescreen.

As an alternate, I recommend The West is Burning, a powerful video featuring Dr. Jerry Franklin and others in wildfire leadership describing the fire situation and what can be done about it. 

The views expressed in this article belong solely to its author and do not reflect the opinions of anyone else associated with Columbia Insight.