get it home page promo

Letting fires burn now needs regional OK for Forest Service

2012-08-10T00:00:00Z Letting fires burn now needs regional OK for Forest ServiceThe Associated Press The Associated Press
August 10, 2012 12:00 am  • 

The U.S. Forest Service is not temporarily abandoning its policy of letting small fires burn in isolated areas, despite reports to the contrary.

Instead, letting the small fires burn as part of a “resource management” tool will need the approval of the regional forester in addition to the individual forest supervisor.

“In recent years, we’ve recognized that wildfires are part of the ecological process and use it as part of our restoration objectives,” said Joe Walsh, spokesman for the U.S. Forest Service in Washington. “This year, everything is tinder right now so we want to be very careful with those small fires.

“This isn’t a change in policy; the regional forester just has a better idea of what’s going on strategically and what (firefighting) resources are available.”

Dozens of wildfires are burning in the West, including the Elbow Pass Complex southwest of Augusta.

For years, the policy has been that supervisors on Forest Service land can opt to let fires burn if they start naturally, usually by lightning strikes, and are not a threat to nearby homes or other assets. Scientists view fires as a natural part of forest regeneration, making room for new growth and also diminishing future threat of larger fires by clearing areas of fuel sources.

But that decision can go wrong. Last August, in Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, a fire that burned slowly at first under the supervision of Superior National Forest managers gained unexpected strength thanks to a blast of hot, windy weather in early September.

The Pagami Creek fire quickly grew out of control, burning about 145 square miles and costing $23 million to fight. It took another month to extinguish, with help from nearly 1,000 firefighters.

Last year, the Forest Service spent a record $48 million for recovery work alone on burned areas. By the end of July, the agency had already spent $28 million on recovery and is on track for another possible record.

The number of fires and total acres burned this year in the West is within range of the last decade’s average, but the fires have been bigger and have burned with more severity. They have also intruded into areas where the potential impact is greater.

“We will continue to do safe, aggressive initial attack as often as possible, when the best suppression strategy is to keep fires small and costs down,” Walsh said.

Phil Sammon, the Forest Service’s media coordinator in Missoula, added that in wilderness areas where there are few structures and accessibility is difficult, chances are that fires there will be allowed to burn.

“If it’s something in the Bob, and the forest supervisor can make a case to the regional forester that it is not a potential hazard to structures and hard to get to, depending on the fire level they could just keep an eye on it,” Sammon said. “In previous years, the decision was more local and they could make that decision on the scene. Now they need to bump it up one level.”


Reporter Eve Byron:447-4076 or or

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(1) Comments

  1. steeline
    Report Abuse
    steeline - August 10, 2012 9:01 am
    Let it burn. It is part of nature. It cost millions if we try to stop a wildfire. Or on the other hand let the humans harvest the renewable resource to make room for new growth. Put humans to work producing lumber that intern creates revenue to the big spenders ie Government and paychecks for humans. We have it all backwards. We have to restore Americas dream.

Civil Dialogue

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters. If you receive an error after submitting a comment, please contact us.

If your comment was not approved, perhaps:

    1. You called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).

    2. You rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.

    3. YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.

    4. You have issues with a business. Have a bad meal? Feel you were overcharged at the store? New car is a lemon? Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns.

    5. You believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. It would be better to write the editor at This is a forum for community discussion, not for media criticism. We'd rather address your concerns directly.

    6. You included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.

    7. You accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.

    8. Your comment is in really poor taste.

    9. Don't write a novel. If your comment is longer than the article you're commenting on, you might want to cut it down a bit. Lengthy comments will likely be removed.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Follow the Independent Record

Great Helena Businesses