The Lahaina fire on the Hawaiian island of Maui offers some insights into why the current U.S. Forest Service policy of focusing on fuel reduction is misguided.
The wildfire began in grasslands and, driven by near hurricane-force winds, the blaze rapidly ignited wooden homes in Lahaina. The fire then mushroomed into a house-to-house blaze. Since burning structures emit more heat than wildfire, a domino effect followed that consumed at least a thousand homes.
First, like the blazes that destroyed parts of Marshall, Colorado and Denton, Montana, the Lahaina fire started in grasslands. About half of all wildfires are burning in non-forested habitats like sagebrush, grasslands and chaparral, for which logging/thinning has no effect.
But the biggest problem is that extreme fire weather, particularly blazes driven by high winds, is impossible to stop. Since nearly all large blazes that threaten communities occur under extreme fire weather, it behooves us to ask whether the current public policy of fuel reductions is effective.
The answer is no amount of fuel reduction is effective under wind-driven conditions. Embers lofted by winds even ignited boats on the ocean in Lahaina’s harbor. If the sea with zero fuel isn’t an effective fire break, reducing the trees by logging won’t preclude wildfire spread.
Even if fuel reductions did work (a questionable assumption), one cannot predict where a fire will occur. Thus, wildfire only encounters about 1% of all fuel reduction.
Consequently, we get all the negatives from “active forest management” and no benefit regarding fire severity reduction.
Collateral ecosystem damage from fuel reductions includes the spread of fire-prone weeds, disturbance of wildlife, removal of biomass, loss of carbon storage and the creation of roads, which, among other impacts, increase human access and ignitions. Some 95% of all human ignitions occur within a few hundred feet of a road. More roads. More wildfire.
After agriculture, logging has reduced carbon storage more than any other human activity. On-going logging emits carbon that exacerbates climate warming, thus increasing the likelihood of wildfire ignition and spread.
In Europe, most homes are built of bricks, concrete, stone and other fire-resistant materials. Building with steel, brick, adobe and other materials is superior to exposed wood in new construction.
We know we don’t want wildfires burning communities. Fire prevention efforts should focus on homes, not forests. Instead of spending billions on logging the forest, that funding should be redirected toward reducing home ignition.
Renovating homes by installing metal or other non-burnable roofing material, screening vents and removing vegetation immediately next to the structure can significantly enhance the house’s survivability.
Encouraging non-wood home construction could further enhance community safety.
In the end, fuel reductions (other than immediately adjacent to homes and communities) are ineffective policies. We should shift the fire policy to focus on the house and work outward.
George Wuerthner of Durango is an ecologist who has published numerous articles and several books on wildfire ecology.
