Sometimes it is difficult to determine who is communicating knowledge based on science and who is merely expressing a carefully crafted opinion that promotes or protects particular vested interests. Below we discuss timber industry advocate Dr. Thomas M. Bonnicksen and AM radio talk show host Roger Hedgecock who have been vocal critics of either local or national fire management practices and have attempted to influence public policy.
With the financial support of the Forest Foundation, Dr. Bonnicksen is a frequent speaker during land management conferences and hearings, is often quoted in newspapers, and writes numerous editorials concerning wildfires and what he calls "forest restoration." We focus on Dr. Bonnicksen first because of his prolific efforts to promote his opinions about chaparral, wildfire, and public policy. It is important government leaders and the public have a complete picture.
Although Dr. Bonnicksen has claimed to be an expert on chaparral, citing his doctoral thesis and associated publications as evidence of such expertise, we question this perspective. The title of his 1978 "chaparral" thesis was "A biosocial analysis of fire management decision-making for brushland watersheds in southern California." Using a discussion based "verbal-simulation method" to examine opinions collected from personal interviews and data from public documents, he made various conclusions about wildfire policy.
"Use of this biosocial systems model has established the plausibility of the hypothesis that persistence of the fire exclusion policy is due to the structural and functional characteristics of a cybernetic system locked in a positive feedback loop. Increasing losses stimulate increasing public expenditure for fire exclusion. (Bonnicksen, T.M, and R.G. Lee. 1979. Persistence of a fire exclusion policy in southern California: a biosocial interpretation. Journal of Environmental Management 8: 277-293).
A demonstration of expertise in forest or chaparral ecosystems? Although policy analysis and discussion models may help us develop an understanding of social issues, they are not very productive in developing an expertise in chaparral ecology, biological field methods, or wildfire behavior. Dr. Bonnicksen's career has focused on social policy, not conducting scientific field research projects designed to understand natural ecosystems or the dynamic nature of wildland fire.
Without understanding chaparral crown-fire ecosystems, ignoring data indicating that fire exclusion has not occurred in southern California chaparral (see Myth #2 on the Facts and Myths page), and failing to consider all the relevant variables, Bonnicksen came to conclusions that reflect subjective opinion more than scientific truth. It is a common mistake. Such bias, usually unconscious, is what scientists endeavor to eliminate from their scientific designs.
* * * * * * * *
Are Leading Fire Ecologists Really Lying?
In February, 2006, Tom Bonnicksen peppered the op-ed sections of numerous newspapers with an opinion piece claiming that "extremists are using hyperbole, unsubstantiated claims, and convenient myths to oppose" logging burned forests and "cite myths about the Yellowstone fires of 1988 to argue we should not restore burned forests." He blames the National Park Service for the fires and comes close to calling the top fire ecologists in the country liars.
What does Bonnicksen mean by "restoring forests?" He would like to see the burned trees logged and new trees planted. One wonders how forests survived without us. See the impact of "Post-fire Logging" at the bottom of our FORESTS page.When someone spends so much effort to promote an idea, especially with such inflammatory language, it is often helpful to consider their motivation and connections. Due to his economic and political interests, it is difficult to view Dr. Bonnicksen as the objective observer and expert that he portrays himself.Dr. Bonnicksen is on the advisory board for the following organizations:
The Forest Foundation, a non-profit organization supported by the California Forest Products Commission. "The Forest Foundation strives to foster public understanding of the role forests play in the environmental and economic health of the state and the necessity of managing a portion of California's private and public forests to provide wood products for a growing population" (from their website).
According to public documents,Dr. Bonnicksen has been paid by the Forest Foundation to write opinion pieces in newspapers and to give presentations to promote land use policies favored by the logging industry. He also offers consulting services regarding timber and vegetation management. Nothing wrong with any of this of course, but it should be taken into consideration when measuring an individual's objectivity.
National Center for Public Policy Research. "Firm in the belief that private owners are the best stewards of the environment, The National Center's John P. McGovern M.D. Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs advocates private, free market solutions to today's environmental challenges" (from their website). These are the same folks who said "There is no serious evidence than man-made global warming is taking place," and that "There are many indications that carbon dioxide does not play a significant role in global warming." - NCPPR website 4/04.Here is a paper from some of the "many people" Bonnicksen is apparently labeling as extremists and less than honest:
On December 5, 2003, Dr. Bonnicksen testified in a hearing for the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health of the US House of Representatives. Below are some of his comments with our follow up analysis.
B: "Brushlands in Southern California face the same problem as forests. They have grown old and thick."
This is more a value judgment than anything based on scientific research. As explained in the article "Forest vs. brushfires: A critical difference" at the bottom of the Fire and Nature page, chaparral ecosystems are radically different from forests. The two are not comparable. See our "Chaparral Mythology" section on our Facts and Myths page for additional information.
B: "Historically, most of California’s forests were open because Native American and lightning fires burned regularly."
We don't know this. This is an assumption based on a few anecdotal observations by early explorers who visited a limited number of locations. Much of what was later seen as open forest land may very well have been the result of unchecked burning by miners, ranchers and early settlers. The point is, we can't make conclusive statements about what was because the data is extremely limited. The question remains of course, if Native Americans did do land management on a massive scale through burning, what was the place like before they got here? Unnaturally clogged with brush?
B: "Brushlands like chaparral and coastal sage burned hotter (in relation to historical forests). These hot fires often swept over thousands of acres. They were stand-replacing fires that renewed the brush on about a 40-year cycle. Even so, they were much smaller than today’s brush fires."
Research over the past ten years refutes this notion. See the article "The Baja-Southern California Fire Model" on our Fire and Nature page.
B: "Some people believe that horrific brushland fires are wind-driven events. They are wrong. Science and nearly a century of professional experience shows that they are fuel driven events. Wind contributes to the intensity of a fire, but no fire can burn without adequate fuel, no matter how strong the wind."
Dr. Bonnicksen is not a firefighter. It doesn't appear he understands how fast a grass fire moves and how quickly it can become a major event. We wonder if Bonnicksen has ever been in a fire that he thinks he has under control, only to realize that embers have created spot fires 500 feet downslope behind him...because of the wind. We'll confront a calm, summer time "fuel-driven" chaparral fire any day over one in dry grass with erratic winds pushing it in a thousand different directions. If the 33,000 acres that burned in one hour during the first night of the Cedar fire is considered fast, just wait until the same kind of wind pushes through a similarly sized patch of weedy grass. Please see our Grass Fires page for more details. Also see . Yes, you need fuel to have a fire, but it takes wind to make it turn into a monster.
B: "...the October fires of 2003 were concentrated in older brushlands. As expected, firefighters also found it easier to stop the fires at the boundaries of younger less flammable patches of chaparral, even in Santa Anna winds."
This is an example of selecting the data that best fits one's theory, while ignoring the rest. Huge amounts of acreage burned younger aged fuels. A significant amount was less than ten years old in both the Otay fire and areas just east of Scripps Ranch during the Cedar fire. But from a firefighter perspective, there is an important point that needs to be understood. We don't stop wildfires, wildfires allow us to control them when weather conditions improve. Sure, we're more likely to set up defensive actions in areas where the fuel load is less, but not under dangerous weather conditions. One of the common denominators in tragedy fires where firefighters have been killed has been light fuels.
B: "Science shows that brushlands are resilient, no matter how often fires burn or how hot the fire."
This goes against more than fifty years of chaparral research by dozens of scientists. Anyone familiar with the literature knows the best way to eliminate chaparral is through repeated burning. This is how much of California's open range land was created.
Dr. Bonnicksen's basic solution for reducing wildfire risk is through logging and converting removed trees and chaparral into biomass fuel. However, since there are no biomass or wood processing plants near many of the areas Bonnicksen says need "treatment," he suggests that,
B: "...the initial public expenditure will have to include providing subsidies to build the infrastructure needed to make the restoration of fire-resistant forests financially feasible."
Although there is nothing wrong with promoting economic development, such recommendations should be measured against the economic interests of those who make them.
-----------------------------
Using the Press
Bonnicksen frequently writes editorials and letters to the editor in local papers to promote is viewpoints. The following exchange was published in the San Diego Union-Tribune's weekly Quest Science section on May 19, 2004 criticizing work presented at the San Diego Fire Recovery Network's Science Conference (April 21) as reported in a Union-Tribune article "Heated Debate" on May 12. It illustrates the polarizing dialogue that exists in the politics of fire. Our response to Bonnicksen's letter follows as well as other related information.
Reader's letters: San Diego Union-Tribune
Readers' letters
May 19, 2004
I want you to know that scientists are not as divided over fire suppression in brushlands as you state in your article (Heated debate, May 12). On the contrary, nearly 100 years of science, including my own research, support Dr. Richard Minnich. Many professionals also support Dr. Minnich. It is not a question of two scientists disagreeing (i.e., Dr. Minnich vs. Dr. Keeley) about chaparral fires. It is a question of Dr. Keeley disagreeing with a well-established body of science and experience. Dr. Minnich has published and presented many papers and reports over many years on chaparral research. He is well respected in the scientific community. Therefore, Dr. Minnich's conclusions carry more weight than Dr. Keeley, who has far less experience in chaparral fire management. In addition, I do not find either Dr. Keeley's science or his arguments persuasive, nor do most knowledgeable people.
Dr. Keeley's advocacy of the idea that we cannot control chaparral fires by controlling fuel is faulty, even if we ignore science and use common sense. Try to burn a hot fire in your fireplace with one log, even in a strong wind. Now try to do it with a stack of logs and no wind. Clearly, the latter is a hotter fire than the former. The same is true in chaparral. The older and thicker the chaparral the hotter it burns. It could not be otherwise regardless of wind. Please remember lives and property are at stake, as well as the biodiversity of the chaparral ecosystem. Dr. Keeley's arguments, if adopted, are scientifically indefensible. They also could lead to the deaths of many innocent people.
Thomas M. Bonnicksen,
Ph.D. Professor Emeritus
of Forest Science,
Texas A&M University
--------------------------------------
Readers' letters
May 26, 2004
In response to Thomas M. Bonnicksen's letter (Quest, May 19), the primary purpose of science is to consider a body of evidence and objectively evaluate that evidence. This is a painstaking process requiring time, patience and humility. Sometimes, in an effort to prove a favored theory, contrary evidence is ignored and ego becomes an overwhelming force.
Propelled by the intellectual excitement and emotional energy that moves knowledge forward, the scientist strives to maintain a delicate balance between desire and truth, knowing full well one is capable of influencing the other in unconscious, yet dramatic ways. It is a balance we struggle with in every aspect of our lives.
Unfortunately, many lose interest with the slow process of science and fall victim to dramatic pronouncements and polarizing statements that have nothing to do with truth. An example are the inflammatory statements made by Thomas M. Bonnicksen.
Rather than objectively explaining the data as we know it, Dr. Bonnicksen chose to attack those challenging his ideas and focus on personalities rather than science. Politicizing discussions like this is a common pattern used by those who are attempting to defend old paradigms that are slowly giving way to new discoveries.
Based on dozens of studies over the past decade by many scientists, we now know that it is best to spend scarce fire management resources at the wild land/urban interface, not performing prescribed burns in backcountry chaparral. Southern Californians need to recognize that nothing will stop the front of a Santa Ana wind-driven fire. Three-year-old chaparral will burn as readily as 100-year-old chaparral under extreme weather conditions.
Our best defense is to design our communities with that in mind. Build fire-resistant homes and create defensible space around them. Let's concentrate on the best available science rather than creating counterproductive fire fights in the press.
Richard W. Halsey
California Chaparral Field Institute
Response to Bonnicksen from the acting superintendent of Sequioia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Russel J. Wilson
Fires vital for long-term health of sequoia forests
By Russel J. Wilson
Fresno Bee, March 11, 2005
On behalf of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, I would like to respond to Thomas Bonnicksen's recent opinion piece.
Bonnicksen spent only two summers, nearly 30 years ago, collecting data in sequoia forests. The state of scientific and empirical knowledge regarding giant sequoia forests has grown exponentially since Dr. Bonnicksen collected his data. As a result, his ideas, though once in vogue, have been superseded by a more comprehensive and sophisticated picture of forest structure and fire ecology.
Sound data
The information that I'd like to share is based on current science, decades of field fire operations and a long-term monitoring program in our parks. The information has been collected, validated and published by the National Park Service, the United States Geological Survey and members of the academic community.
Giant sequoia trees have a close relationship with fire. By studying the fire scars on their growth rings, scientists know that over the last few thousand years sequoias experienced naturally caused fires an average of every five to 20 years. Therefore, a 1,000-year-old specimen could have burned approximately 60 times. To survive, and ultimately thrive, in this fire-prone environment, sequoias develop a thick layer of bark to insulate themselves from heat. Most importantly, fire allows these trees to reproduce by clearing the forest floor, creating sunlit forest gaps, adding nutrients to the soil and opening cones to release seeds.
Given this close natural relationship, the National Park Service initiated a prescribed burning program in 1969 to reverse the harmful effects that a century of fire suppression had caused, choking our forests with excess trees. Bonnicksen claims that this program has resulted in "decades of destruction" and "the loss of thousands of huge trees." Are things really this bad?
Park Service monitoring of prescribed fires in sequoia forests has shown that five years after a fire, the number of large trees (mostly pines and firs) is reduced by approximately 9%, which is still within the natural range. If the parks had never suppressed natural fires over the last century, these few large pine and fir trees and many excess small trees would have been cleared away long ago. Their removal makes space for other new, young trees and rejuvenates forest conditions for all kinds of species.
Not practical
Bonnicksen points out that chain saws can be a valuable tool for forest management. Indeed, the Park Service sometimes uses chain saws to thin forests around developments to protect public safety. So why not use saws much more extensively -- or even as a replacement for prescribed fire -- in national parks?
First, much of the forested land in national parks is too steep or remote to be thinned with chain saws and building expensive road networks to complete this work defies laws passed by Congress to establish national parks. Secondly, it is not cost-effective over large areas ($2,000 per acre for mechanical removal vs. $130 per acre for prescribed fire). Thirdly, no amount of mechanical removal will replace the role of fire in a giant sequoia forest. Chain saws do not replace nutrients or stimulate the production of seedlings.
Bonnicksen implies that the Washington sequoia could have been saved from fire simply by raking around the tree. He does not mention that the tree was hollow from past fires, or that the fire in the tree's crown most likely started from a blowing ember landing in the opening to the hollow, 200 feet above the ground. No amount of raking would have changed that outcome.
But why was the fire that produced the fateful ember allowed to burn in the first place? It was allowed to burn to restore resilience to a forest from which all fire, human or natural, has been excluded for more than a century. We cannot continue this exclusion. It is not possible, nor desirable.
Plan that works
The efficiency of the National Park Service program has been proven over time. The public overwhelmingly supported our new Fire and Fuels Management Plan. This plan is balanced and scientifically sound based on the current level of knowledge (not information from a generation ago).
We have an integrated, multi-strategy program that consists of many different tools: fire suppression, wildland fire use (the management of lightning-caused fires), prescribed fire, and, yes, even mechanical fuel reduction around structures. We use each tool at the right time and in the right place to safeguard the public and preserve park resources.
Russel J. Wilson is acting superintendent of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.
Which is it?
"Historically, most of California's forests were open because Native Americans and lightning-casued fires burned regularly." - Bonnicksen, T.M. 2004. Restore forests before memory fades. California Forests 8: 14-15.
"The term open and park-like, although descriptive and appropriate for the time in which it was used, has often conveyed a false impression of the structure of the presettlement forest community." - Bonnicksen, T.M. 1982. Reconstruction of a mixed-conifer forest. Ecology 63: 1134-1148.
Roger Hedgecock and the Cedar fire
The article below was published in the San Diego Union-Tribune on April 6, 2006. Halsey mentions San Diego AM radio station conservative talk show host Roger Hedgecock regarding some of his unhelpful commentary during the Cedar fire. On the following day, Hedgecock addressed this article during his show.
First the article...
Why San Diego Loses Firefighters
By Richard W. Halsey - San Diego Union-Tribune April 6, 2006
San Diego Fire Chief Jeff Bowman's resignation highlights an issue that has plagued San Diego for years; a chronic lack of support for the fire service.
Bonds and tax increases designed to improve funding for the Fire-Rescue Department are continually voted down. During and after the Cedar fire, shrill politicians pointed fingers of blame at firefighters rather than helping the community understand the inherent risks of living in North America's most fire-prone environment. Radio talk-show host Roger Hedgecock tried to convince the public that it was the lack of helicopter water drops and firefighter incompetence that allowed the Cedar fire to spread as far as it did.
Despite the fact that Hedgecock's perspectives were fatally flawed, another opportunity was lost to teach San Diegans that it is their responsibility to maintain a fire safe environment around their homes. During a post-Cedar fire community meeting, one citizen went so far as say that if the Fire-Rescue Department had been doing its job properly, more firefighters would have been killed.
Is there any wonder San Diego has 30 percent fewer fire personnel than other regions of comparable population? The reason is simple. The majority of San Diego voters are cheap and feel fire protection is an entitlement, having failed to properly understand the risks and costs associated with living in a fire-prone landscape. It's time San Diegans look into the mirror and ask themselves, “What value do I place on knowing a firefighter or paramedic will arrive in time when a family member is having a heart attack or our home is on fire?”
Maintaining an adequate fire department is a social contract that demands community involvement and strong financial support from the public. It can not be evaluated by private sector standards such as whether or not it “creates wealth” or is “competitive.” These measures are irrelevant when determining the true value of public service, or any job for that matter.
The total value of an individual's life work is not limited to the cash he or she brings home or the profit created for his or her employer, but the contribution made to society. Unfortunately, based on the lack of support San Diegans give for public service jobs, sacrificing future wealth in order to help others is becoming an endangered virtue in our city.
Although many see the private sector as more efficient economically, endeavors concerned with “return on capital” typically fail to attract the type of people willing to risk their lives for others. A fire department that based its performance goals on monetary return for service would not engender much confidence.
Jobs that depend on personal sacrifice without promise of wealth are not ones easily administered by private corporations. The demands of the job do not financially pencil out to retain experienced professionals; individuals who subsidize the safety of the public must be subsidized by the public itself.
There is no substitute for the dedication of individuals who have chosen a career to serve the public good. After many years of service, a battalion chief in the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department makes about $95,000 a year, working “on-duty” about 240 hours per month. When compared with an equal management position in the private sector, this is a bargain. But unlike private sector employees, professional firefighters maintain a standard of readiness 24 hours a day, every day.
What can a professional firefighter or paramedic actually do “off-duty” when there is a continual expectation that he or she will be ready and able to respond to a mandatory call-back order at any time? Certainly not enjoy the freedom to drink an extra glass of beer with friends or swim at the beach with the kids like the rest of us can do without hesitation.
Nor can he or she promise to be home for Christmas, school graduations or soccer games. How much is that kind of uncertainty worth on a paycheck? What value do we place on the possibility of having one's name etched on a firefighter memorial? Can such things command the same monetary reward as four-year degrees, qualify as highly skilled labor or justify supposedly “outrageous” overtime pay?
I really didn't know the answers to such questions until I was challenged by a U.S. Forest Service battalion chief to find out what confronting fire was really like instead of talking about it in abstractions as a fire scientist. Fortunately, I was able to accept the challenge by going thorough wildland firefighter training myself.
It was embarrassing about how much I had gotten wrong. It would be helpful for both our community and the success of our region's overall fire preparedness if some of the Fire-Rescue Department's critics would take the time to discover the same. They would realize, as I have, that firefighting personnel are worth a lot more than we are paying them.
As public servants, firefighters offer an invaluable service, and their compensation needs to reflect that fact. Serving the public good can not be evaluated by an expense sheet. Unfortunately, San Diegans don't understand these things, and we will continually lose good firefighters as a result. One of the reasons we lost San Diego Fire Chief Earl Roberts in 1984 was due to his frustration over the community's lack of support. We just lost Chief Bowman for similar reasons.
Perhaps, when the next Cedar fire burns into La Jolla instead of stopping at Miramar, San Diegans will experience a shift in attitude.
Here is the text of Hedgecock's dialogue concerning the above article on April 7:
"Do we need a complete review of the facts here Mr. Halsey for the people who have may read and been misled by you op-ed piece this morning?"
"You see the Cedar fire did stop at Miramar. It didn't stop at Scripps Ranch, it didn't stop at Ramona, it blew all the way down to Miramar and it got stopped cold. By whom? By firefighting Marines. By firefighting Marines who make less than 30 grand a year. The firefighting Marines trained in firefighting as well as anybody who works for any civilian department in this county or any other county. Firefighting Marines with shovels stopped that fire with bulldozers and firefighting equipment. Firefighting Marines stopped the Cedar fire that the press conferences of Dick Murphy and Jeff Bowman could not stop.
Mr. Halsey do you think we've forgotten what really happened? Do you think we've forgotten that CDF, just because it was a couple minutes to five, would not roll the tankers that were equipped and were full of water, full of retardant, ready to roll at the Ramona airport. Do you think we have forgotten that they were ordered not to, when this Cedar fire that killed 26 and burned down what 2400 homes was a half an acre and could have been put out in a couple minutes. Do you think we have forgotten these things?
What is fatally flawed about remembering the facts? What's fatally flawed here is that firefighters believe that just because they are firefighters they ought to be able to be as corrupt and feather bedding and prone to union work rules as anybody in the universe. And then when the fire comes they ought to be able to say it was the taxpayers fault when people die and homes get burned down. Except we know the Marines stopped the fire. Marines who don't get paid one third, one forth of what you folks in these fire departments in the city and county get paid. And how dare you Mr. Halsey write things like this..."
Unfortunately, Hedgecock had his facts wrong again and appears to be repeating his version of events more for entertainment value than anything else.
Regarding the Marines stopping the Cedar fire with shovels and bulldozers at Miramar, no such event ever occurred. Fire department officials on the base attribute the county landfill, state Highway 52, and a shift in wind direction to stopping the head of the fire.
Hedgecock's claims that the CDF was negligent regarding the use of aircraft is also false. There were two CDF air tankers at the Ramona Airport after the Cedar fire was reported. The pilots available had just completed 7 hour shifts fighting the Roblar and other fires and were timed out according to FAA regulations. The one helicopter at Ramona had just shut off its engine and the pilot refused to fly again because it was past cutoff time. Cutoff and flying time rules are written in the blood of dead pilots, a concept Hedgecock fails to understand.
Regarding whether or not helicopter or tanker drops could have put out the fire, it is important to understand wildfires are not put out by aerial attack alone. It takes firefighters on the ground to put out the flames. Research conducted by the USFS after the Cedar fire on the use of the police helicopter that was not allowed to go back and drop water on the fire has shown that even with 100% accuracy the water drops would not have prevented the fire from growing.
Something Hedgecock apparently is also not aware of is that both the Marines and the San Diego Sherriff's Department have since gone through on-site helicopter water-drop drills with the CDF. After the training both came out of the experience and made press statements admitting that they made a mistake by saying that they could have put out the Cedar fire with water-drops from the air.
