Fighting fire with facts
Written by:
Rich Fairbanks
I live in the Little Applegate. I use fire to manage my own land. I worked in fire management for many years. I have grown frustrated with the misinformation around fire. Since I follow the research pretty closely, I thought I would share the best available science on a topic that concerns Westerners.
We have solid science and decades of experience managing western wildfires. Yet fire policy is becoming as politically charged as the spotted-owl timber wars of the 1980s and 90s—ideology crowding out evidence at exactly the moment when getting this right matters most. So here, briefly, is what peer-reviewed research actually tells us.
Fire seasons are getting hotter and drier throughout the West. Since records began in 1895, July maximum temperatures in Medford have risen by two degrees. Two degrees sounds small—we just nudge the thermostat—but for a forest, it is a powerful drying force. Of the 20 largest wildfires in California’s recorded history, 13 have occurred since 2002. The 2014 National Climate Assessment projected that by the 2080s, the area burned in the Northwest annually could quadruple. More fires, and more intense fires, are coming regardless of what we do today.
What doesn’t help: large-scale salvage logging. After the 1987 Silver Fire, burned areas were logged and replanted. When the 2002 Biscuit Fire returned, those replanted plantations burned more severely than areas left alone—young conifers are not fire-resistant forests, but neatly arranged future fuel. Legislation that “streamlines” Forest Service rules also misses the mark: only 31 percent of the 2000 fire season’s burn area was on National Forest land. Wildfires don’t read ownership maps. And since fires thrive on small-diameter material—needles, twigs, branches under three inches—removing large trees actually substitutes fire-resistant timber for flammable brush.
What does help: thinning and prescribed burning. At least a dozen studies confirm that selectively removing smaller trees, managing surface fuels, and retaining the oldest and largest trees significantly slow wildfire spread and reduce severity. Thousands of southwest Oregon landowners already practice this method—thin, pile, burn—to create defensible space. It works. So does reintroducing low-severity prescribed fire. Research shows that after a controlled burn, subsequent wildfires spread more slowly and damage vegetation far less, even under severe conditions. Roughly 50-60 percent of the Rogue Basin is mixed-conifer forests—all of it a candidate for this approach.
Building codes and zoning matter enormously, too. Southern California and southern France share the same Mediterranean vegetation and the same seasonal dry winds. France loses fewer than ten structures per year to wildfire; California lost 8,400 in one recent fire season. The difference is policy; France enforces strict zoning and fire-resistant building codes in high-risk zones. Screens on soffit vents and metal roofing—simple, affordable changes—make a measurable difference in whether a home survives.
The evidence points clearly in one direction—thin the understory, conduct prescribed burns, update building codes, and create real defensible space. These are not partisan positions. They are the findings of decades of peer-reviewed research. We cannot apply 20th-century solutions to 21st-century fire. The people living in fire country deserve a policy based on what actually works.
[Full citations available on request. Research sources include Abatzoglou & Williams (Univ. of Idaho); Cal Fire / NY Times 12-6-17; Miller et al., Ecosystems DOI 10.1007/s10021-008-9201-9; 2014 National Climate Assessment; Thompson et al., PNAS doi 10.1073/pnas.0700229104; Pacific Biodiversity Institute; Agee & Skinner, Forest Ecology and Management (2005); Brodie et al., Fire Ecology 20:17 (2024); Kocher & Butsic, Land 6(2):24 (2017).]
Rich Fairbanks