FORESTRY AND THE FIRE HAZARD
THE SLASHING MENACE
The function of fire as an aid to reproduction of the forest in some
instances has been discussed in a preceding chapter. The protection
question is of even greater importance, for whether we consider
mature timber or reforestation, no forest management is worth while
if the investment is to burn up. It can be divided broadly under
two heads, reduction of risk due to operative methods and general
protection. Whichever we consider, the interest of every lumberman
is at stake. The fire question affects him in many ways beside the
danger of direct loss. The sale value of timber in any region is
increased by knowledge that progressive protective methods prevail
among those operating there. Nothing more effectively removes public
carelessness with fire, or lack of helpful sympathy with the lumber
industry in general, than evidence that the lumberman himself is
devoting every effort to safeguarding instead of wasting this great
public resource.
Of operative methods reducing fire risk, one of the most important is
disposal of logging debris. The deliberate accumulation of immensely
inflammable material, almost always where extremely likely to be
ignited, is a form of actually inviting disaster practiced by no
property holders except lumbermen. Nowhere is it carried to such
an extreme as in the West, where the refuse left on the ground
is of so great volume as to preclude human control if it is once
fired at a dry time, and where accidental fire is often more of a
certainty than a liability. Of late, however, the more progressive
lumbermen of the fir region have adopted the practice of firing
their slashings annually at a time when the surrounding woods will
not burn, and the pine men of Idaho and Montana have quite widely
endorsed brush piling. Idaho has a piling law. Oregon already has a
slash burning law which is partially observed. The greatest objection
to such a law is that neither reforestation nor economical protection
indicates the same practice in different types of forest and it is
extremely difficult to make the law both flexible and effective.
More will be accomplished by voluntary adoption of the method best
suited to each condition.
BRUSH PILING
In the more open pine stands of the interior, where both logging
debris and original combustible ground cover are small, slashings
threaten the adjacent timber less than in denser forests, but are
of peculiar danger to the valuable young growth usually left on
the area itself. As we have seen in a previous chapter on western
yellow pine, reproduction in dry localities may require scattering
the brush over the ground and keeping fire out, and there may be
abnormally dense stands suggesting clean slash burning, but as a
rule brush piling is the best course. In view of the importance
of this subject the following extracts are taken from a circular
issued by the Forest Service:
"_Advantages of Brush Burning_
"The greatest advantage of brush burning is the protection it gives
against fire. In many cases brush burning is the only practicable
safeguard against fire. After the average lumbering operation the
ground is covered with slash, scattered about or piled, just as
the swampers have left it. This, in the dry season, is a veritable
fire trap. Probably 90 per cent of all uncontrolled cuttings are
burnt over, which retards the second crop at least from fifty to
one hundred years and perhaps permanently changes the composition
of the forest. Fires may be set by loggers while still at work
on the area or several years after by lightning, campers, or
locomotives. By piling the brush and burning it in wet weather,
or in snow, when there is no danger of the fire spreading, all
inflammable material is removed, and the second growth can come
up without serious risk of being destroyed. Even where only part
of the brush is burned and the rest is piled, as when the piles in
open places, along ridges, streams, or laid off lines are burned,
very much is gained in case of fire, since these cleared lanes
form bases from which a fire may be fought.
"Besides lessening the danger from fire, brush burning has certain
minor advantages. When the brush on the ground is removed it is
much easier for rangers and others to ride or walk through the
forest. This may be very important in case of a fire or in rounding
up cattle. It is also much easier to cut and handle ties, cordwood,
or other timber which may later be taken from the cut-over areas
if the slash is out of the way. By piling and burning the green
brush as it is cut from the trees by the swampers, as is now being
done in Minnesota and parts of Montana, the ground is cleared and
skidding is made easier and cheaper. Again, careful piling and
burning of brush improves the appearance of the forest. There is
nothing much more unsightly than a recently cutover area where
no attempt has been made to dispose of tops and lops. Near towns
or resorts and along roads or streams frequented by tourists this
point should be carefully considered, but as a general rule the
utility of the forest should not be sacrificed for beauty.
"_Disadvantages of Burning_
"The disadvantages of burning brush are many and, with the one
exception of protection from fire, far outweigh the advantages.
If protection can be had in some other way, as with more efficient
patrol service or more stringent laws, the practice should in many
cases be abandoned. In many places, especially in the yellow pine
type, the best, and often the only, reproduction comes up under a
fallen treetop or other brush. Where there is little of the old
stand left, the straggling open top protects the seedlings from the
direct heat of the sun. Yet brush not only protects the seedlings
from the sun but, what is more important, the leaves and broken
twigs form a cover which retards evaporation of moisture from the
soil. Over the greater part of the West the soil dries out very
rapidly during the dry season, and this serious retards or even
prevents the growth of seedlings. Even in the moister regions,
such as that of the Engelmann spruce type, it is very necessary
to conserve the moisture in the soil after logging to prevent the
remaining trees from being killed through lack of soil moisture.
A third reason why seedlings so often come up only under the down
treetops is that they are protected from stock. Next to drought,
sheep are perhaps the most serious menace to reproduction, and
though it would be best to keep all stock off the area for several
years after logging, in many cases this is not practicable, and
on many areas the leaving of the tops on the ground is the only
way to protect reproduction from injury.
"In many places after the timber has been cut off gullies and washes
start in the old wheel ruts, log slides, etc., and these and other
forms of erosion can best be prevented by leaving the brush on the
ground, either laid in the incipient washes or scattered over the
soil that is likely to wash. Brush burning destroys the valuable
soil cover, and on the spots where the piles are burned the soil
is loosened, which renders it even more liable to erosion.
"It is well known that where the forest is burned each year the soil
becomes poorer and poorer, because nitrogen, the chief fertilizing
ingredient of the soil, is given off in the smoke, and only the
mineral elements go back to the soil in the ashes. And, what is
more injurious, the humus--i. e., the decomposed vegetable matter
in the top soil--is destroyed. In burning brush after logging all
the fertilizing and humus-forming leaves and twigs are destroyed
just when most needed, for another good crop or leaves cannot be
expected for many years.
"The added cost, both to the lumberman and to the Government, is
another argument against brush burning. The cost of piling brush
has varied all the way from 15 cents to $1 or more per thousand,
with an average or 40 or 50 cents, while the cost or burning may
be from 5 cents to 25 cents per thousand, averaging about 15 cents.
By abandoning the practice of brush piling this 60 cents a thousand
will not be entirely saved, as is claimed by some, for the brush
will still have to be lopped and disposed of in some other way,
which will cost, it is estimated, at least half as much as piling
and burning. But even a saving of 25 or 30 cents a thousand is
a strong argument against the practice.
"Thus, from a silvicultural viewpoint, the disadvantages of brush
burning far outweigh its advantages. Yet, as a general policy, it
seems unwise, until other methods have proved their efficiency,
to abandon brush piling and burning to any great extent at present.
The fire danger is a known quality, and, though it is being reduced
each year, it is still a menace. Therefore changes from the present
practice should be made with caution. Brush piling and burning is
certainly not advisable in all cases, and extensive experiments
should be made to determine what is the best method of brush disposal
for the different types and conditions.
"_Brush Piling and Burning_
"The cost of piling varies with the cost of labor, the methods
of logging, the type, the topography, the kind of trees cut, and
the time of the year it is done. A few figures will illustrate
this variation. In the yellow pine type in Montana an addition
to the swampers' wages of 15 cents a thousand would, it is said,
enable them to pile the brush, as they have to handle it anyway.
Usually, however, the piling is done by a separate crew. Much of
the work is thus duplicated. In yellow pine in the Southwest, brush
piling costs from 45 to 50 cents, while in Montana it can be done
for 25 cents. One operator in lodgepole in Montana says it is cheaper
for him to pile than not to, because he can get his skidding done
so much cheaper, yet on other operations it has cost from 50 cents
to $1 a thousand, depending on how thoroughly it is cleaned up.
In the sugar pine type of California the cost of piling averages
from 25 to 35 cents, while the cost in the Douglas fir type, in
Montana and Idaho, averages about 40 cents, and in Engelmann spruce
type the cost is only about 25 cents a thousand. It is certain,
however, that the cost of piling will everywhere be materially
reduced when the operators begin to look on piling as part of the
swampers' regular work and not as an entirely separate job.
"Dry brush should never be burned during the dry season, unless
absolutely necessary for the suppression of an insect invasion.
Green brush in some places may be burned at any time, but as a
rule it is unsafe to burn it in dry weather. The best time to burn
brush is in the fall, just after the first snowfall. Then the piles
are dry, and there is no danger that the fire will get beyond control.
Brush may also be burned at the beginning of or during the rainy
season, when the ground is damp enough to prevent the fire from
spreading, and the brush dry enough to burn readily.
"The cost of brush burning varies like the cost of piling. It varies
even more in the same localities, with weather conditions and methods
of piling. Brush that can be burned for 10 or 15 cents a thousand
at a favorable time, as just after the first snow, will cost five
or ten times as much to burn in dry weather, or when the piles are
very wet. Brush can be burned more easily the first fall after
cutting than it can the second year, when many of the leaves have
fallen off. Brush burning has been done for 13 cents a thousand
in lodgepole, in the Medicine Bow National Forest, while it has
cost 22 cents in similar timber in the Yellowstone, and estimates
of 40 cents a thousand have been made for it in the Rockies. It
is generally admitted that brush can be most economically burned
by the same people who pile it. Recently several contracts have
been made in which the purchaser of the timber is required to pile
and burn the brush under the direction of forest officers, as has
been the practice in the Minnesota forest for some time. This will
lighten the total cost, and when the weather allows the brush to
be burned, as logging proceeds, the cost of burning will be offset
by the subsequent reduction in the cost of skidding.
"_Piling Without Burning_
"Brush piled properly, even though it is not burned, is a great
protection to the forest. Inflammable material is removed from
among the living trees, and should a fire occur it would be much
easier to fight. This is especially true where reproduction is
dense. Where openings are scarce piles should be made in the most
open places, and may be larger than those made to be burned."
SLASH BURNING
In many regions, especially in western Oregon and Washington, logging
debris is too great to make piling practicable. But except for
the damper localities close to the Pacific, the danger from these
immense accumulations is all the more excessive and, as we have
seen elsewhere, their removal is often desirable in order to further
reforestation by desirable species. Here the only course is to
burn the slashing clean.
This is a dangerous process unless every safeguard is employed.
Burning must be at a time in spring or fall when the slashing is
dry enough but the surrounding woods are not. Spring burning is
theoretically preferable, for it leaves less inflammable material
during the fire season. The first fire is also easier to control
then, because repeated experiments may be made, as the slashing
dries, until just the right conditions exist. On the other hand,
it is dangerous if there are many old stumps and logs in which
fire may smoulder to make trouble later. The exponents or fall
burning also argue that with care they can be ready to fire a very
dry slashing safely at the beginning of a rainstorm. Spring burning
seems to have the most advocates, but it is doubtful whether any
rule for all localities and conditions can be given with confidence.
Frequently failure at one season leads to postponement until the
next.
In either case the slashing can be given the advantage of the greatest
dryness with safety if it is surrounded by a cleared fire line from
which to work. Firing should be against the wind and if the wind
changes suddenly the opposite edge should be back fired. Previous
cutting of all dead trees and snags over 25 feet high is urgently
recommended. The camp crew should be held in readiness, well provided
with tools, as insurance against accidental escape.
Its probable restriction of insect breeding is a point of slash
burning likely to receive much future study. It is well known that
most forest-injuring insects prefer dying trees to vigorous ones;
also that the existence of an abnormal amount of such material
tends to abnormal breeding and consequent serious attack of vigorous
timber when the dead material becomes too dry to be inviting. It
is by no means impossible that the supposed immunity of Douglas
fir from insect injury may be largely due to the almost universal
destruction by fire of logging debris which would otherwise afford
ideal breeding places.
FIRE LINES
The division of mature forest into compartments separated by fire
lines is seldom practicable in this country. Nevertheless slashings,
deadenings and similar fire traps can very often be profitably
confined by the cleaning of strips which will not only stop or
retard the progress of a moderate fire but also facilitate patrol,
fire fighting or back firing. On favorable ground, where some choice
is offered, much may be done by falling timber inward so as to leave
few tops near the uncut timber and by the location of skidroads.
So far as practicable fire lines should be on the tops of ridges,
for, being slower to go downhill than up, fire is more easily
discouraged just as it reaches a crest. Bottoms of gulches are next
in strategic value, and midslopes least.
SAFEGUARDING EQUIPMENT
The most fruitful source of fires is spark-emitting locomotives
and logging engines. Much data has been collected showing that with
oil at a reasonable price its use is economical from a labor-saving
point of view as well as from that of safety. It reduces expense
for watchmen, patrol, fuel cutting, firebox cleaning and firing.
And since it is an absolute prevention, while all other measures
merely seek to minimize the risk, it is probable that even where
the cost of the oil more than balances these savings it will save
in the long run by averting a costly fire.
Where the use of oil cannot be considered, spark arresters are
essential. The argument that they prevent draft is not worth attention.
It is greatly exaggerated by engineers and firemen prejudiced against
innovation or too inattentive to keep their fires up properly and
consequently unnecessarily dependent on occasional forced draft.
The slight disadvantage involved by the modern improved arrester
is not to be compared with the importance of the safety acquired.
In addition to spark arresters, which may fail or be out of order,
logging engines using fuel other than oil should be provided with
a constant tank or barrel supply of six to twelve barrels of water
and 100 feet of hose with proper pumping attachment. With this a
spark fire can be promptly soaked out beyond danger of invisible
smouldering in rotten wood or duff. When conditions are dangerous,
careful loggers send a man back to each donkey-setting between
supper and bedtime to look for possible fires that were not seen
when the crew left. Many keep a watchman on the rounds all night.
Railroad rights of way can usually be kept cleaned and burned at
a cost far less than that of otherwise frequent shutdowns of the
entire camp to fight fire or rebuild bridges, to say nothing of
loss of timber.
PATROL
The best way to prevent fire is to prevent it. Putting out fires
already started is better than letting them burn, but as the real
foundation of a protective system it is about like lowering a lifeboat
after the ship has struck. Only by patrol can the incipient spark
or camp fire be extinguished before it becomes a forest fire that
has to be fought, taking hours or days instead of minutes. One
patrolman can stop 100 incipient fires easier than 100 men can
stop one big fire. Fires in the forest may never be wholly averted,
but patrol will prevent them from becoming "forest fires."
This is why the progressive lumberman no longer waits till forced
to layoff his crew to fight, spending in a day or two a patrolman's
salary for a season, shutting down his road and mill for lack of
logs, and perhaps in spite of all losing several thousand dollars'
worth of timber and equipment. It is also why the progressive
non-operating owner no longer considers fire loss the act of God,
to be reckoned as an investment risk of several per cent. The man
who does not patrol his timber nowadays is like a millman who hires
no watchman, has no hose or sprinkler equipment, and carries no
insurance. He _may_ escape loss, but by not making a reasonable
effort to insure against it he takes a course practically unknown
with other forms of property.
Modern fire patrol is systematic. Trained and organized men have
definite duties. Tools, assistance and supplies are available at
known points and without delay. Trails and look out stations, often
supplemented by telephone lines, give the greatest efficiency with
the least number of men. Above all, the system is based on the
fact that results are most truly measured not by the number of
fires extinguished but by the absence of fire at all. Settlers,
campers and lumbermen are visited, cautioned and converted. In
short, the patrolman has a certain area in which to improve public
sentiment. His success in this is worth more than efficiency in
fighting fires due to lack of such success. A system devoted to
mere fire fighting to be adequate must grow larger as time goes
on. One devoted to preventing fire may be reduced, as time makes
it successful.
The cost of efficient patrol varies so directly with the risk that
it is almost constant as an insurance investment. Where prevalence
of fire, difficulty of handling it, etc., make the cost per acre
comparatively high, there is equivalent certainty of greater loss
if this sum is not spent. Where the owner is warranted in believing
his risk small it costs but a trifle to provide sufficient patrol
to insure against it. One to 3 cents an acre is spent in the great
majority of successful patrols in ordinary seasons.
ASSOCIATE EFFORT
One of the first lessons learned from the establishment of private
patrol in the West was that both efficiency and economy are obtained
by co-operation between owners. Obviously if one patrolman can
cover the holdings of several, it is foolish for each to hire a
man. If a fire threatens several tracts, it is better to share the
expense of labor hired to put it out. The same is true of building
trails, buying tool supplies, etc. This has led to the forming of
associations which at a minimum cost to each member accomplish
the many tasks of finding suitable men, having them authorized
by the State, supervising and supplying them, paying emergency
expense, opening trails, etc. Each member pays his share upon the
acreage he represents.
These associations offer other important advantages besides the mere
cheapening of work. They are admirably adapted to modifying the cost
to fit the season. Beginning in spring with an assessment to cover
putting the whole territory under the essentials of supervision and
patrol, they can add men just as required by the progress of dry
weather and reduce again in the fall. Men can be centralized at
danger points better than through individual effort. Exceedingly
important is the means they afford of bringing in the non-resident
owner, the small owner who is not warranted in employing anyone
alone, and the non-progressive owner who would otherwise do nothing
but is ashamed to stay out of a general movement.
No tract can be safely considered as an independent unit. _No protection
confined to it alone is as good insurance as the removal of risk
from the district within which it lies._ Fire is no respecter of
section lines. There is always danger of unusual weather in which it
may travel a long distance. It is far better to secure the maximum
general safety in the locality than to have guarded tracts alternating
with fire traps. Moreover attention to individual tracts does not
improve surrounding conditions, and the latter may easily become
so bad as to make the cost of individual patrol, as well as the
risk, far overbalance any financial disadvantage at present through
co-operation.
Again, the public is far more likely to take kindly to the enforcement
of fire laws by an association than to the action of an individual
owner against whom some prejudice may exist. Associations greatly
simplify co-operation with State and Government in fire work and
tend to bring about appropriations for the purpose. They enable
uniform and concentrated effort to improve sentiment and legislation.
This booklet and the other work done by the Western Forestry &
Conservation Association was made possible by the existence of
the local organizations it represents. Their independent local and
State effect has been marked.
The bad fire season of 1910 was a supreme test of the associations
of the Pacific Northwest. They kept the bad fires in their immense
territory down to a number which can be counted on the fingers
and their losses were comparatively insignificant. Yet under the
weather conditions which existed the thousands of fires they
extinguished would certainly otherwise have swept the country and
caused a disaster probably unparalleled in American history.
REFORESTATION AS A FIRE PREVENTATIVE
However progressive the preventive policies adopted, the race between
them and the increasing sources of hazard resembles that between
armor plate and ordnance in the construction of battleships. While
for a given population engaged in pursuits endangering the forests
the risk lessens, the total activity increases at a rate which
makes the smaller proportionate risk as great in actual measure.
This is particularly true of the growth of slashing areas. The
virgin forest becomes more and more and checkered by burned and
cut-over deadenings, veritable fire-traps open to sun and wind,
and, especially west of the Cascades, usually covered by inflammable
debris, brush or dead ferns. Each year brings nearer the time when,
unless something is done, such will constitute the majority of
once forested land and the uncut timber will remain like islands
in expanses of extreme danger.
Next to cultivation, which but a small percentage will receive,
the safest insurance against recurring fires in these cut-over
areas is a thrifty young second growth. It shades the ground, keeps
out annual vegetation that furnishes fuel when dead, and will itself
carry none but such furious crown-fires as would be practically
unknown were there no openings for them to gain headway in. This
is less true of pine, but the very best protection which can be
given a tract of merchantable fir is a strip of 10 to 50-year second
growth surrounding it.
Whether regarded from the owner's standpoint or that of the public,
reforestation should be considered as a protective measure of extreme
importance. Actual expenditure to obtain it may easily be profitable
for this reason alone, for once established it will decrease the
cost of patrol thereafter. Were all cut-over land in the Northwest
immediately restocked, the fire hazard would be enormously reduced.