Are Controlled Burns Good or Bad?

Fire, like water and numerous other things in our lives, can be good or bad. We all understand that fire is good for cooking food or providing warmth, but fire is bad when it burns out of control. Many Americans have watched in awe as well as fear and concern as numerous fires have burned out of control in recent months. Who can forget the fires that burned a large part of the Los Angeles area just a few months ago? Many homes and burnings were lost as well as too many lives.

Victor Joecks a columnist for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, recently published an article at The Daily Signal in which he discussed the fall out of the Dragon Bravo Fire at the Grand Canyon that started on July 4 from a lightning strike. A few summers ago, he and a friend took their sons to the North Rim of Grand Canyon National Park. He considers the North Rim to be “more breathtaking than the heavily trafficked South Rim.” He was impressed with the “historic Grand Canyon Lodge.” 

Naturally, Joecks was dismayed when “the National Park Service announced that the Dragon Bravo Fire had destroyed the lodge and dozens of other structures.” However, he rejoiced that “all guests and staff had been evacuated, and there were no fatalities.”

The “North Rim” will be closed for the rest of the year, but Joecks believes that the “political fallout from this fire will likely last longer.” Joecks reported that the federal officials’ decision to manage the fire was a mistake because “Unexpected wind gusts spread the fire rapidly.” In addition, firefighters were forced to retreat because chlorine gas was leaking from the water treatment plant, resulting in "devastating loss of this landmark.”

Politicians in Arizona attacked the actions of the federal government. Arizona’s Senators – both Democrats – Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly sent a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum questioning “why the fire was allowed to continue burning.” Joecks stated that searching for answers about this fire would be productive, but it would “be destructive to use this tragedy as a reason to limit controlled burns in the future.”

Forest fires are natural. There are two primary ways to respond to this uncomfortable reality. The first is to proactively use good fire – prescribed burns – to eliminate the buildup of dead vegetation and obtain other ecological benefits. Intentionally setting fires is especially common in the Southeast. As of mid-July, more than 1.3 million acres have burned in Georgia from more than 61,000 controlled burns. It’s had less than 23,000 acres burn from wildfires, according to federal data. It had similar numbers last year. The downside is what happened in Arizona.

In contrast, forest fires in the West are usually suppressed as soon as possible, the second response. The benefits of this policy are obvious. You stop fire as soon as possible and avoid high-profile failures like the one at the North Rim. But there’s a long-term cost. The fuel that controlled burns would have eliminated builds up over years or decades….

The original Grand Canyon Lodge opened in 1928, but burned down in a 1932 kitchen fire. It was rebuilt, as this one should be. Once it reopens, officials should proactively use controlled burns to protect it.

The fact is that fire only burns when it has something to burn. Using controlled burns is one way to starve future fires. In Alaska, wildfires are allowed to burn unless they threaten life or property. Many of the fires start from lightning strikes and are located in wilderness areas. Such fires are watched even though they are not actively fought, and they usually burn out before threatening life or property. Of course, fires closer to civilization are actively fought as they should be. By allowing most fires to burn, the fuel for future fires is naturally controlled.