History of wildfire suppression in the United States

In the 1960s, policies governing wildfire suppression changed due to ecological studies that recognized fire as a natural process necessary for new growth.

Native American use of fire in ecosystems are part of the environmental cycles and maintenance of wildlife habitats that sustain the cultures and economies of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas.

According to sociologist Kari Norgaard: "Indigenous peoples have long set low-intensity fires to manage eco-cultural resources and reduce the buildup of fuels – flammable trees, grasses and brush – that cause larger, hotter and more dangerous fires, like the ones that have burned across the West in recent years.

Over a century of policies of fire suppression have created the conditions for the catastrophic, high-intensity wildfires we are seeing today" according to the Karuk Tribe of Northern California's Climate Adaptation Plan.

[2][3] Because many Indigenous groups viewed fire as a tool for ecosystem management, education, and a way of life, such suppression would lead to decreased food availability and breakdown of social and familial structures.

[4][5][6] It has been argued by numerous scholars that such suppression should be seen as a form of "Colonial Ecological Violence," "which results in particular risks and harms experienced by Native peoples and communities.

"[7][8] Eventually, without small-scale managerial fires set by Indigenous peoples, wildfires would grow in size and severity because of buildup of vegetation on the forest floor in combination with Climate change.

[10][11] In the eastern United States, with its significant rainfall, wildfires are relatively small and have rarely posed great risk to life and property.

The worst loss of life in United States history due to a wildfire occurred in 1871 when the Peshtigo Fire swept through Wisconsin, killing more than 1500 people.

[14] The Great Fire of 1910 had burned 3,000,000 acres (12,000 km2), destroyed a number of communities and killed 86 people, and this event prompted various land management agencies to emphasize wildfire suppression.

Fire would help clean out the understory and dead plant matter, allowing economically important tree species to grow with less competition for nutrients.

Native Americans would often burn woodlands to reduce overgrowth and increase grasslands for large prey animals such as bison and elk.

[25] As early as 1924, environmentalist Aldo Leopold argued that wildfires were beneficial to ecosystems, and were necessary for the natural propagation of numerous tree and plant species.

[25] The policy began to be questioned in the 1960s, when it was realized that no new giant sequoia had grown in the forests of California, because fire is an essential part of their life cycle.

They cited several direct and contributory causes of the fatalities including fire behavior, personnel profiles, and incident management procedures.

The South Canyon incident led to the first comprehensive review and update of federal wildland fire policy in decades.

Use of fire presently varies in various federal agencies, partially due to differing influences such as land proximity to urban areas.

[33][34] Bill Tripp, working directly with policy for the Karuk tribe, has noted more education and growing awareness of indigenous practices can lead to promising alternatives to modern-day fire suppression.

[34][36] Fielder’s proposal aims to reduce the threat of wildfire, as well as return more oversight of land management to indigenous people.