Once labeled arsonists, the Karuk Tribe will perform burns for wildfire resilience and ecosystem enhancement. Plus, why tribes and scientists are pushing regulatory reform.
Wonderful job exposing the opportunities that now exist with streamlined regulations and the inclusion of the Karuk tribe members doing burns. Thank you!
This is fascinating work, there is so much here to read & understand, thank you for researching and compiling all of this. It seems there's more and more momentum around the acceptance and use of 'good fire', here in the Midwest as well. Hopefully as indigenous groups like the Karuk gain the sovereignty to truly implement their cultural knowledge, it just might accelerate that momentum.
That TNC aerial shot with annotations speaks volumes!
I know I go a little nuts with my links. I hope people do take the time to read some of this material before taking a stance on some of these important, life-saving solutions.
Knowledgeable fire management has its place, as the Karuk are doing. In Australia, native aboriginal tribes have done the same. It's sad that people who use tried and true methods through the centuries are demonized for it. May now in California that is changing.
Timing is crucial to the success of a controlled fire. So Cal has firestorms and areas that have not burned in 50+ years. Topanga is one place ready. All a matter of time. Then the recent Palisades fire. Arsonists will stick lighters were found. Copy cat animal that want to destroy. Air here is a problem and knowledge of winds. I believe it can be done.
Thank you madam Royal, for your alchemical presentation of an environmental effort that this White House might actually embrace. The magic word is “deregulation.” In this case - smart deregulation.
I’m so glad you wrote about this. I had no idea our environmental laws were hindering controlled burns and indigenous ancestral practice. I did not realize the extent that these clearings / logging / smaller burns helped prevent a dangerous situation, nor that so many species rely on them. Thank you for educating me.
Interesting. I am reading very conflicting things that most environmentalists and foresters did not support Fix our forests and that the thinning being proposed there and by other means by Trump and his appointees is more of a lumber company free for all and will do more to endanger the integrity and health of many forests and may also further jeopardize old growth. It was proposed by a Republican in AR, who also has a bad environmental track record and narrowly passed w very few democrats voting for it in the house. Env organizations are asking the senate to vote no. I wrote about it from these perspectives. What sources were you referring to on these topics. I am not a forester but this one seems pretty important to learn about the nuances. Not combating but really wanting to engage w other environmentalists about it. I’m sure foresters could speak more to journal data.
Thanks for reading and commenting. I would just say that there's a lot of misinformation being spread by very partisan groups and that the support for the bill has been underreported. Wildfire prevention is a very serious and dire issue, especially in the American West. If this is an issue you care about, please read up as much as you can about it. I've included further reading and lots of links in the article as well as the footnotes. Fix Our Forests does not rewrite NEPA. It simply expands the size of projects that are excluded to 10,000 acres. People are complaining about that. When one wildfire can consume 200,000 acres of forest in one month, this seems like quibbling to me. People are equating logging and thinning, when there's a lot of nuance there. Small trees need to come out to reduce wildfire severity. Decades of science have shown this to be an effective method, combined with prescribed fire, for reducing wildfire severity. That being said, both NEPA and CEQA have been suspended by a Democratic governor and a Republican president (whom I do not support in any way but this) because of the need for wildfire prevention projects to move forward without further interference.
I think there is a difference between responsible thinning and what is being advocated. Also composition of forest matters and some ecologists are focusing just as much on importance of trees for restoring hydrology.
Other orgs I am seeing speak out against it
-Wisconsin Environment
-Center for Biological Diversity has published against it at both levels of congress
Thank you. Please see my comments in that article and conversation with Will. A lot of people are talking about this without providing any recent science. The most recent science supports thinning plus prescribed fire. Sierra Club has a very outdated mentality. They often sue and lose to stop very commonplace and helpful thinning projects. Not that I don't think corruption and greed exist, but I don't see the anti-thinning naysayers coming up with anything approaching a solution to the millions of acres burning in the West each year, the poisoned air and water we have to live with, the air our children have to breathe, the forests and endangered species habitat lost. They just want to say "no" and point to nonexistent science. It says a lot to me that tribes support Fix Our Forests.
The way I see it and correct me if I am wrong Indigenous fire management has altered the climatic ecological maximum stability of many regions where instability is now an inherent aspect, hence we use the same practice of indigenous fire as a moderator of this instability instead of tracking the regeneration of these regions toward their evolved climatic ecological maximum with the inherent stability that it provides. In the best cases it is a preventative measure and in the worst it is continuing the decline of the whole system toward a more unstable state. Most of the species that allow for prolonged precipitation and water capture to bring about hydrological change have been severely impacted by the high repetition of man made fire to the point of total regional extinction or severe marginalization and a slow roll back of this at the same time as prescribed burns would offer the best long term stability through a move back toward a climatic ecological maximum.
I appreciate your point of view and distrust. It's a harsh reality. I know that in particular in the PNW, where the forests are wet, there's still too much logging that is infuriating. Here in California, it's hard to communicate the scale of destruction and the reality facing us, which is that it will ALL burn down if we don't do something. Restorative thinning is definitely not a PR trick. I've traversed hundreds of square miles on foot, bike and skis over several decades, and have seen thinning successfully save forests and communities. The fact is that the anti-logging folks have not been able to put forth solutions to the wildfire crisis. They say we need more prescribed burning, which we do, but they won't let go of the regulations, delays, and costs that are stifling the prescribed burns. Plus, as I say, it's usually not safe to go in with a prescribed burn without first at least some work to take out the small trees, cut the lower branches, gather the debris and pile them. It's silly to call this logging but that's what the anti-logging PR has done. And I know there will be abuse of any new system. Unfortunately, we will lose forest either way. I've lost a lot. I'm going to grieve the rest of my life for some trees that burned in Caldor Fire. How could we allow the same to happen to our national parks and old-growth? We can't just stand by.
Wonderful job exposing the opportunities that now exist with streamlined regulations and the inclusion of the Karuk tribe members doing burns. Thank you!
🙏
Many thanks for sharing. Fire management is a vital tool in the management of these areas, and indigenous peoples are often the best managers
Thank you!
This is fascinating work, there is so much here to read & understand, thank you for researching and compiling all of this. It seems there's more and more momentum around the acceptance and use of 'good fire', here in the Midwest as well. Hopefully as indigenous groups like the Karuk gain the sovereignty to truly implement their cultural knowledge, it just might accelerate that momentum.
That TNC aerial shot with annotations speaks volumes!
I know I go a little nuts with my links. I hope people do take the time to read some of this material before taking a stance on some of these important, life-saving solutions.
Knowledgeable fire management has its place, as the Karuk are doing. In Australia, native aboriginal tribes have done the same. It's sad that people who use tried and true methods through the centuries are demonized for it. May now in California that is changing.
Timing is crucial to the success of a controlled fire. So Cal has firestorms and areas that have not burned in 50+ years. Topanga is one place ready. All a matter of time. Then the recent Palisades fire. Arsonists will stick lighters were found. Copy cat animal that want to destroy. Air here is a problem and knowledge of winds. I believe it can be done.
Yes, and our windows for conducting such burns are shrinking due to climate change.
Thank you madam Royal, for your alchemical presentation of an environmental effort that this White House might actually embrace. The magic word is “deregulation.” In this case - smart deregulation.
I’m so glad you wrote about this. I had no idea our environmental laws were hindering controlled burns and indigenous ancestral practice. I did not realize the extent that these clearings / logging / smaller burns helped prevent a dangerous situation, nor that so many species rely on them. Thank you for educating me.
Interesting. I am reading very conflicting things that most environmentalists and foresters did not support Fix our forests and that the thinning being proposed there and by other means by Trump and his appointees is more of a lumber company free for all and will do more to endanger the integrity and health of many forests and may also further jeopardize old growth. It was proposed by a Republican in AR, who also has a bad environmental track record and narrowly passed w very few democrats voting for it in the house. Env organizations are asking the senate to vote no. I wrote about it from these perspectives. What sources were you referring to on these topics. I am not a forester but this one seems pretty important to learn about the nuances. Not combating but really wanting to engage w other environmentalists about it. I’m sure foresters could speak more to journal data.
Also reducing the process for NEPA review is seen as environmental affront.
Thanks for reading and commenting. I would just say that there's a lot of misinformation being spread by very partisan groups and that the support for the bill has been underreported. Wildfire prevention is a very serious and dire issue, especially in the American West. If this is an issue you care about, please read up as much as you can about it. I've included further reading and lots of links in the article as well as the footnotes. Fix Our Forests does not rewrite NEPA. It simply expands the size of projects that are excluded to 10,000 acres. People are complaining about that. When one wildfire can consume 200,000 acres of forest in one month, this seems like quibbling to me. People are equating logging and thinning, when there's a lot of nuance there. Small trees need to come out to reduce wildfire severity. Decades of science have shown this to be an effective method, combined with prescribed fire, for reducing wildfire severity. That being said, both NEPA and CEQA have been suspended by a Democratic governor and a Republican president (whom I do not support in any way but this) because of the need for wildfire prevention projects to move forward without further interference.
I found the stuff about the Karuk tribe very fascinating!
Thanks for dialoging about it.
Here is one article, most coverage I am seeing on the issue from environmentalists seems more like this https://open.substack.com/pub/morethanjustparks/p/the-national-forest-logging-scamand?r=3iuwiv&utm_medium=ios
I think there is a difference between responsible thinning and what is being advocated. Also composition of forest matters and some ecologists are focusing just as much on importance of trees for restoring hydrology.
Other orgs I am seeing speak out against it
-Wisconsin Environment
-Center for Biological Diversity has published against it at both levels of congress
-Environment America
-earth justice
-Sierra Club
In fact 137 environmental groups oppose it!
https://community.citizensclimate.org/discuss/viewtopic/3284/39652
So what I am seeing most is that it is a deceptively framed bill promoted by the timber industry.
You might find this article interesting, and from a very reputable source, High Country News: https://www.hcn.org/articles/wildfire-does-thinning-work-for-wildfire-prevention/
Thank you. Please see my comments in that article and conversation with Will. A lot of people are talking about this without providing any recent science. The most recent science supports thinning plus prescribed fire. Sierra Club has a very outdated mentality. They often sue and lose to stop very commonplace and helpful thinning projects. Not that I don't think corruption and greed exist, but I don't see the anti-thinning naysayers coming up with anything approaching a solution to the millions of acres burning in the West each year, the poisoned air and water we have to live with, the air our children have to breathe, the forests and endangered species habitat lost. They just want to say "no" and point to nonexistent science. It says a lot to me that tribes support Fix Our Forests.
The way I see it and correct me if I am wrong Indigenous fire management has altered the climatic ecological maximum stability of many regions where instability is now an inherent aspect, hence we use the same practice of indigenous fire as a moderator of this instability instead of tracking the regeneration of these regions toward their evolved climatic ecological maximum with the inherent stability that it provides. In the best cases it is a preventative measure and in the worst it is continuing the decline of the whole system toward a more unstable state. Most of the species that allow for prolonged precipitation and water capture to bring about hydrological change have been severely impacted by the high repetition of man made fire to the point of total regional extinction or severe marginalization and a slow roll back of this at the same time as prescribed burns would offer the best long term stability through a move back toward a climatic ecological maximum.
I appreciate your point of view and distrust. It's a harsh reality. I know that in particular in the PNW, where the forests are wet, there's still too much logging that is infuriating. Here in California, it's hard to communicate the scale of destruction and the reality facing us, which is that it will ALL burn down if we don't do something. Restorative thinning is definitely not a PR trick. I've traversed hundreds of square miles on foot, bike and skis over several decades, and have seen thinning successfully save forests and communities. The fact is that the anti-logging folks have not been able to put forth solutions to the wildfire crisis. They say we need more prescribed burning, which we do, but they won't let go of the regulations, delays, and costs that are stifling the prescribed burns. Plus, as I say, it's usually not safe to go in with a prescribed burn without first at least some work to take out the small trees, cut the lower branches, gather the debris and pile them. It's silly to call this logging but that's what the anti-logging PR has done. And I know there will be abuse of any new system. Unfortunately, we will lose forest either way. I've lost a lot. I'm going to grieve the rest of my life for some trees that burned in Caldor Fire. How could we allow the same to happen to our national parks and old-growth? We can't just stand by.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. 🙏😔