|
2003
|
Save or Print a PDF
copy of Fact Sheet #21
This study focused on the role of fire both as a perceived
threat and a management tool of NIPF and Tribal forestland
owners/managers in two counties in northeastern Washington
state. Using qualitative social research methods, we identified
distinct categories of landholders with different reasons
and strategies for holding and managing their forestlands.
We found similarities in categories of landholders/managers
in each county, ranging from those who actively manage for
timber production and forage to residential and recreational
users who manage for wildlife, aesthetics, or fire safety,
and those who don't manage at all. There were differences
between landholders in the two counties over the perception
of fire as a threat and measures taken to reduce the threat
of fire, and the use of prescribed fire (broadcast burning)
as a management tool. Additional differences appeared in the
level of trust landholders have in public land management
entities. These county differences can be related to landholders'
experiences with fire (wild and prescribed), land tenure,
financial and physical restraints, and their reasons for owning
the land.
|
 |
The control of fire has been a concern for as long as people have
attempted to co-exist with forests (Pyne 1995, Schama 1995). In
the Inland West of the United states, longstanding management practices
and recent events have converged to place fire once again front
and center on the public lands policy agenda. The suppression and
exclusion of lightning and traditional Native American ignitions
and a variety of other influences have brought about a decline in
forest health and changes in species composition, fire regime, and
fuel loading (Clark and Sampson 1995). The replacement of open forest
stands of fire-resistant species and size classes by closed, dense,
fire prone stands has resulted in a corresponding change in fire
regimes from frequent, low intensity ground fires to less frequent,
stand replacing fires. Not only do these large-scale, high intensity
fires threaten water, plant, and wildlife resources on public lands,
they also frequently pose a threat to private and tribal lands and
to rural forest landholders and residents. While much public attention
and debate has focused on the role of fire as a natural process,
a threat, and a management tool on public forestlands, less attention
has been focused on fire in other forestland ownership categories.
The primary purpose of the project reported here was to develop
a better understanding of the role played by fire both as a potential
threat and a potential tool in the management strategies of non-public
forest landholders in two counties in northeastern Washington. The
two categories of forestland were non-industrial private forests
(NIPF) and Native American tribal forest ownerships. Although fire
was the topic of ultimate interest for this study, we wished to
understand where fire fits in the complex of issues forest landholders
face. Therefore, the inquiry was structured in such a way as to
attempt to elicit what, if anything, landholders saw as significant
threats and risks to their forest and the place, if any, which fire
occupied in the boarder constellation of threats and risks as perceived
by landholders.
NIPF landholders own 25% and 4% of forestland in Stevens and Okanogan
counties, respectively. These private parcels are intermingled with
those of state and federal agencies with the result that NIPF lands
are affected by what happens on adjacent lands. Two tribal entities,
the Spokane Tribe of Indians and the Colville Confederated tribes,
together control 5.9% and 7% of forestland in Stevens and Okanogan
counties, respectively. Tribal forestlands include lands held in
common by the respective tribes in a trust relationship with the
federal government, and a portion held by tribal individuals and
families as allotments, which are technically also held in trust.
In addition, forestlands within the reservation boundaries also
include parcels owned in fee simple by native and non-native individuals
and timber companies.
Previous research suggests that NIPF landholders comprise a diverse
group with a range of management objectives, ranging from timber
production to rural home ownership (Blatner et al. 1991, Bliss and
Martin 1989, Bliss et al. 1994). Forest landholders in eastern Washington
share in this diversity. Many NIPFs face the same forest health
problems and management challenges as those found on public lands:
small diameter, overstocked stands, insect and disease problems,
unnaturally high fuel loads, poor past harvesting practices, and
a changed species composition. Some NIPF landholders think that
public land management agencies can learn something from them and
the silvicultural treatments applied to private lands (Findley et
al. 2000).
The threat of wildfire is not the primary factor
affecting forest management decisions for many landholders. Economic
objectives (other
than avoiding fire losses, which themselves have economic implications)
are often more pressing. The forestry professionals interviewed
claimed that landholders base their management decisions on what
will bring a return on their investment and what fits their management
objectives. Fire hazard reduction treatments or improvements in
forest conditions through the use of fire are not, in many cases,
seen to meet either the first criterion or the second. Forest consultants
and WSU Extension Foresters also appeared to support this conclusion
when they stated that landholders do not form management or ownership
objectives around risk or threats. Instead, their management actions
are based on what will give them the most return for the least
amount of expenditure, and that usually eliminates the use of
fire as a
management tool. Said one landowner, "Economics dictates what
I have to do as opposed to what I want to do." Further, the
barriers to prescribed burning are formidable and the fear of
an
escaped fire coupled with the resulting liability make it a non-option
for many landowners.
The implications of this research on the use of prescribed fire
by NIPF landholders include a need for change in liability laws
related to "escaped fires", technology transfer on the
methods and application of prescribed fire, and additional study
on smoke issues.
The fear of an escaped prescribed fire and the resulting liability
are the biggest concerns for landholders with an interest in using
prescribed fire. If policy makers want to encourage landholders
to thin and prescribed burn to reduce wildfire hazard and/or improve
forest conditions, making changes in state liability laws would
likely be necessary. Liability laws would need to be changed to
limit landowner liability for escaped prescribed fires or to allow
for more public/private cooperative efforts. The interest in using
prescribed fire exists among some groups of landowners, but the
knowledge to implement prescribed fires generally does not. This
void is an opportunity for Extension Agents to develop inclusive
programs for landholders. Such programs would cover fire ecology
as well as the techniques and applications of prescribed burning
for small parcel owners (e.g. the lifestyler who wants to burn pine
needles or improve wildlife habitat) as well as large, active landholders
who want to use fire as a thinning tool.
Landholders in this study were not highly concerned about smoke
problems. However, smoke from prescribed burning may be an issue
for their neighbors and has the potential to affect urban areas
where residents may be more vocal in their opposition to smoke.
One aspect if this may be different levels of smoke tolerance by
rural and urban populations as well as Native American and non-native
populations. Another aspect may be the acceptability of smoke from
"natural" fires versus from forestry or agricultural burning.
If there is a single, take-home message from the interviews conducted
with a wide variety of forest landholders in this study, it is that
"one size does not fit all", either in terms of the extent
to which wildfire or the specter of wildfire is important in influencing
management decisions or in the possibilities of using fire more
extensively as a forest management tool. Not only is there the complex
interaction of qualitative and quantitative risk assessment factors,
different biological conditions and fire regimes in the two counties
along with social and cultural differences in land management practices
and objectives between Native Americans and non-natives influence
decisions and risk assessment. Finally, the economic and institutional
constraints of using a particular practice or tool play into the
decision making matrix. Given this, it would be unrealistic to expect
a uniform response by forest landholders to the threat or promise
of fire.
References:
- Blatner, K.A., D.M. Baumgartner, and L.R. Quackenbush. 1991.
NIPF Use of Landowner Assistance and Education Programs in Washington
State. W.J. App. For. 6 (4): 90-94.
- Bliss, J.C., S.K. Nepal, R.T. Brooks Jr., and M.D. Larsen. 1994.
Forest Community or Granfalloon? Do Forest Owners Share the Public's
Views? J. For. 92 (9): 6-10.
- Bliss, J.C., and A.J, Martin. 1989. Identifying NIPF Management
Motivations with Qualitative Methods. For. Sci. 35 (21): 601-622.
- Clark, L.R. and R.N. Sampson. 1995. Forest Ecosystem Health
in the Inland West: A Science and Policy Reader. American Forests
Forest Policy Center, Washington, DC. 37pp.
- Pyne, S. 1995. World Fire: The Culture of Fire on Earth. Henry
Holt Co., New York. 379pp.
- Schama, S. 1995. Landscape and Memory. Vintage Books, New York.
652pp.
|
