Dear Editor and Readers,

Science and humankind have advanced and evolved by asking questions and testing hypotheses.

All scientific disciplines rely on a preponderance of evidence to develop scientific principles around which the discipline is based. The principals are considered settled or generally accepted science.

Change occurs when expansive explanations are accepted or recognized as relevant but until then the generally accepted principles are applicable to real world scenarios.

The situation today is that science is being distorted with misinformation that creates more confusion than clarification.

Forestry science is also being subjected to misinformation regarding public landscape level treatments. The Forest Service has put out a publication titled “Counteracting Wildfire Misinformation” (https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs_journals/2022/rmrs_2022_jones_g003.pdf) that identifies several kinds of misinformation and how to recognize it and deal with it. It is a relevant primer for evaluating misinformation statements and claims regarding landscape level treatments.

One type of misinformation is to claim that a situation failed when in fact it was effective. Mike Smith, the Initial Attack Commander of the Cold Springs Fire, in an interview afterwards said that the area that had been mitigated was effective in dealing with the crowning fire.

The fire petered out in the mitigation area sparing the unmitigated private property on the edges. The property around the mitigation area also benefited from air support and water drops. The surviving unmitigated areas didn’t repel the fire with some kind of unmitigated magic.

In terms of severity, there doesn’t appear to be any glazing of the ground or sterilization of the soil. There are no obvious dead zones in the mitigated area and yet the mitigation effort is being portrayed as a failure.

There have been reports documenting the effectiveness of landscape level treatments. Fire Forest on YouTube was featured at a Timberline Movie Matinee.

The Nature Conservancy published a report titled “Comprehensive Science Review Shows Fuel Treatments Reduce Future Wildfire Severity” (https://www.nature.org/en-us/newsroom/fuel-treatments-reduce-wildfire-severity/) that supported landscape level treatments as an effective way of managing the land.

The Forest Service also put out a publication titled “Burning Questions Answered: New review examines 30 years of fuel treatment effects on wildfire severity” (https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs_journals/rmrs/sycu/2024/sycu5_2024_06_burning_questions.pdf) summarizing landscape fuel treatment results.

The preponderance of observations, actions and assessments regarding fuel treatment programs shows that they are capable of providing safer and sustainable environments.

Land managers who are charged with maintaining and protecting large swaths of public land have the legal authority and professional obligation to use generally accepted scientific principles to engage in landscape-level treatment projects.

For the rest of us, we need to get busy creating defensible space/mitigating around our homes ASAP. The sooner the better.

Wes Isenhart

Black Hawk