As thousands of BC and Alberta residents have become environmental refugees due to forest fires, a biologist argues that these fires are the result of management for timber and cows instead of for forest diversity.
by Brian L. Horejsi
As the Lost Creek fire darkens the skies of southwest Alberta and the wind washes the land with an air of power and wildness, it’s not easy to realize that the origins of this fire go back over half a century. Back to the 1930’s when the provincial government began co-management with the Federal government of what was then the Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve.
These seemingly vast tracts of the Rocky Mountains had been set aside for watershed protection, but it was not long after the province got into the act (1930 Natural Resources Transfer Act) that they began to think dollar signs. The big fires that roared through the Rocky Mountains around the 1930’s prompted construction of the forestry trunk road (Waterton to Hinton, beginning in 1948), built almost exclusively to provide access to the forests for forest fire “prevention.” The Forest Service took on their new role as fire fighter with a vengeance, and by that measure they have done a heck of a job .
The result is a massive buildup of fuel brought about by almost complete suppression of the multiple smaller fires that historically occurred in these areas every few years. In other words, the Lost Creek fire is a mess of the Forest Service’s own making.
As is inevitably the case with bureaucratic bungling of this magnitude, someone gets stuck with the tab, and that’s almost always the taxpayer. And just as dastardly, innocent people lose their property, have their lives disrupted, and suffer unbearable stress.
Our mountain and foothill forests evolved with frequent fire, but the Alberta Forest Service decided not to manage for the nature diversity of forest landscapes; instead they chose to fight the design and processes of nature. No fires! The reason, of course, was to protect “timber,” not forests.
Part of the strategy of “preventing” wildfire was to log those old forests like hell and graze like hell, because old growth trees, grass and under story shrubs were viewed as stepping stones to forest fires. So were born two strong Forest Service constituencies: the timber industry and the forest reserve/public lands’ livestock industry. We cannot expect them to acknowledge that their propaganda, that logging and grazing are good for the forest and would prevent “destruction by fire,” was wrong. This fire most assuredly debunks that nonsense, just as the big fires in the US in the late 1980’s debunked the same propaganda in that country.
The ecological costs of this Log, Graze and Fight Fire policy are immeasurable: virtual eradication of old growth forests, degraded fish and wildlife habitat, mass upset of biological diversity, massive watershed restructuring, total disappearance of vast stretches of wilderness, an oppressive network of roads and trails, erosion, rampant weed problems, and on and on!
When I look at this fire, I see reflections of an outrageous waste of money, an organization that fabricated a (false) aura of sound management and invincibility (this fire has punched that full of holes), an organization that falsely fuels the public apprehension about fires, an organization that resisted public accountability, and an organization that is in dire need of reform.
What do I mean, “resisted public accountability?” The Forest Service could not continue to serve their historical constituencies and still listen to the modern public, because the public had started to talk about protecting wilderness, fish and wildlife, biological diversity, visual landscapes, wilderness, and that elusive “ecological integrity.” Basically, the public was saying, “We want to be part of the process; these lands belong to us!” Instead of responding to the will of the people, the Forest Service insulated themselves from public input.
But even the Forest Service could see that the forest industry was withering away; after all, the cheapest trees to cut and mill, the large old trees that we call old growth, are essentially gone. What would happen to this massive bureaucracy that planned clearcuts, built roads, and flew an army of planes and helicopters on watch for that evil monster, fire? Could off-road motorized invasion of public lands be a substitute constituency? A perfect fit for continued industrialization of the Rocky Mountains!
It would be naive to think that humans will not use some parts of public lands for activities that are essentially destructive to natural systems. But there would be widespread tolerance for these uses if the ecological, social and economic costs did not exceed the limited benefits and if, and it is a critical if, they took place within a well regulated framework that did not permit the destruction of other values and the abuse of other users.
What is going on, however, is indifference and disregard based on “I don’t care what the other guy is doing as long as I get my piece of the action!”
What about the Lost Creek fire? As is so typical of Alberta government organizations, the Forest Service is provincial (as in narrow minded), poorly informed, inward looking, and resistant to information and outside experience. The fires of Yellowstone taught people that a fire like the one we have now — huge fuel buildup, perfect burning conditions — is invincible. The hundreds of dumps of retardant and water have simply squandered tax dollars and endangered lives.
The solution is to concentrate organizational “firepower” (sorry for the pun) when and where there is an imminent threat to property.
And there is a message here for Forest Service partners in crime, the municipal governments that promote development in forest areas. “Get your lawyers lined up” is what they may have to do! But more importantly, the public is going to have to significantly curb the power of municipal governments to approve developments that are at high risk of destruction by fire.
And finally, another battle looms: salvage logging, during which the Forest Service will strive once again to serve its favourite constituency, the timber industry.
The Lost Creek fire, and those yet to come in many parts of Alberta and our national parks, are the results of cumulative mismanagement of public lands. But perhaps, out of the ashes will rise a rose. It would be history in the making if Albertans were to look upon these fires as the start of something good. Ecological renewal in our forests, a process that has been suppressed for half a century, could begin if it is not “managed” to death. There are great days ahead for wildlife populations, whether you are a watcher, dreamer, or hunter.
But the most shining opportunity is rarely presented to any society. We have a once-in-a lifetime chance to impose the rule of democracy, and reform the Forest Service, or eliminate it and start over with a Natural Resource Conservation agency that is legally accountable to the people of Alberta to manage public lands for native biological diversity, water, wildlife, wilderness protection, a gentle- on-the-land mix of recreational options and some commodities.
I am not prepared to believe that it is utopian to expect that public lands should be managed for this and future generations as places that have all the parts and all the processes of naturally viable landscapes. I hope Albertans will come to the same conclusion.
***
B. L. Horejsi is a forester and wildlife scientist, and a former Crowsnest Pass resident. Photos Provincial Emergency Program and http://castanet.firewatch.net/
[From WS September/October 2003]