[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 110 (Wednesday, August 1, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1482]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           RETHINKING FIRE IN THE WAKE OF FIREFIGHTER DEATHS

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. TOM UDALL

                             of new mexico

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 31, 2001

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, on July 10, 2001, four of 
Washington State's young firefighters died battling a forest fire on 
the Okanagan National Forest. As I have had time to reflect on this 
tragic event, I have come to realize that wildland fire suppression 
continues to be a dangerous and risky operation.
  As in previous tragedies such as the Mann Gulch fire in Montana and 
the Storm King Mountain fire in Colorado, our hearts pour out to the 
families, friends, and colleagues of those who perished fighting 
wildland fires. The deaths of Tom L. Craven, Jessica L. Johnson, Karen 
L. Fitzpatrick, and Devin A. Weaver is a disturbing reminder of Mother 
Nature's powerful forces and unrelenting risks faced by our dedicated 
firefighters. Although seventeen firefighters lived, as did two campers 
caught in the explosive fire, I am grieved by the deaths of these four 
young people and I do not want this to happen again.
  Their tragic deaths raise significant questions--questions that may 
likely go unasked in the Forest Service investigation: Could these 
deaths have been prevented through a different systemic response to 
fire? Should the Forest Service have been expending hundreds of 
thousands of dollars and risking the lives of dozens of firefighters to 
fight a fire in a remote canyon that threatened no houses or resources? 
Would a fire management plan have ensured that the fire would have been 
handled differently?
  The Okanagan fire started in remote backcountry adjacent to a 
Wilderness Area. The nearest house was at least ten miles away, the 
nearest town twenty miles away. While the cause of the fire is not yet 
known, we do know that the fire began in a designated roadless area. If 
the forest had a fire management plan in place--as is required by 
countless agency directives--it is likely that such a plan for the area 
would have provided alternative strategy options for the Forest 
Service.
  The Okanagan fire underscores the need to re-examine our nation's 
approach to forest fire and to reframe the terms of debate. In the wake 
of this fire will come calls to reduce fire risks through aggressive 
thinning and full funding for fire preparedness. However, this approach 
merely perpetuates the culture of fire suppression that operates with 
few fiscal or social constraints. It also serves to exacerbate the 
risks of fire through fire exclusion. It perpetuates the illusion that 
we can and should control all fire, regardless of location and 
ecosystem. These suppression efforts make little sense fiscally or 
environmentally. A different approach would have the agency stop 
putting out fires in remote backcountry.
  Last year, Congress allocated $1.6 billion to the Forest Service for 
implementation of its national fire plan. In addition to working with 
homeowners to reduce vegetation around their homes, these dollars 
should be spent on returning fire to its natural role in the ecosystem. 
We can do this through targeting thinning, prescribed burns, and fire-
use policies. We also should be spending
  Putting out all fires regardless of location and ecosystem simply 
puts off the inevitable. The West's forests have burned for thousands 
of years and will continue to do so. We must learn to live with fire, 
rather than stepping up the assault on what is still perceived by many 
as ``the enemy.'' We must stop sacrificing our young people in this 
futile effort.
  I would like to enter into the record the following op ed from the 
Portland Oregonian that highlights these issues:

              [From the Portland Oregonian, July 17, 2001]

          Dead firefighters were sent where they didn't belong

                            (By Andy Stahl)

       I write this not long after four young men and women died 
     battling the Thirty Mile fire in the remote Chewuch River 
     canyon of the Okanogan National Forest.
       Tom Craven, Karen Fitzpatrick, Devin Weaver and Jessica 
     Johnson were sent by the Forest Service to do a job. They 
     died in the performance of that duty.
       But was the job they were doing worth their lives? Did this 
     fire, in a steep, remote canyon that threatened no houses or 
     valuable resources, need to be battled? During its 
     investigation into these tragic deaths, the U.S. Forest 
     Service had better answer these questions.
       The Thirty Mile fire started in roadless, backcountry land 
     immediately adjacent to the remote Pasayten wilderness. 
     Perhaps the fire started from an unattended campfire; the 
     investigation has yet to pin down the cause.
       The fire began in a designated Research Natural Area, at 
     6,000 acres, one of the largest RNAs in the nation.
       This is important in what happened next: It appears fire 
     managers did not even know the fire was in a Research Natural 
     Area. Had they known, they would not have aggressively 
     attacked the fire with aerial retardants and firelines, which 
     are banned in RNAS. Instead, they would have held back and 
     taken a more cautious approach to fighting this fire--an 
     approach that sought to allow the fire to mimic natural 
     processes within this fire-dependent ecosystem.
       Admittedly, hindsight can be 20-20, but it is worth 
     considering that a more cautious approach to fighting this 
     fire might also have saved lives.
       The Thirty Mile fire exemplifies the need to take a hard 
     look at our nation's approach to wildland fires. A century of 
     aggressive fire suppression, combined with logging of the 
     biggest and most fire-resistant trees, has damaged ecosystems 
     throughout the West. Continuing to put out every fire in the 
     remote backcountry makes little sense economically or 
     environmentally. We must carefully restore fire to its 
     prominent role as nature's cleansing agent in our public 
     forests.
       Last year the Congress allocated a record amount, $1.6 
     billion, to the Forest Service for its national fire plan. 
     The first priority should be to help private homeowners who 
     live near fire-prone national forests to manage the 
     vegetation within several hundred feet of their houses. 
     That's where the biggest difference is made between a home 
     burning up in a forest fire and a home surviving. The next 
     priority should be to return fire to its natural role in the 
     environment.
       Putting out all fires simply puts off the day of reckoning. 
     Burn today or burn tomorrow, the West's forests have burned 
     for thousands of years and will continue to do so.
       We must learn to live with fire just as we live with the 
     weather. And we must stop sacrificing our best and brightest 
     young people in this futile war against an implacable enemy.

     

                          ____________________