Prescribed Fire and the Paradoxical Policies that Inhibits its Practice

As more intense and uncontrollable wildland fires have negatively impacted communities across the globe, there is an increasing awareness of and acceptance of prescribed fire as a mitigation tool. While cultural practices have long known about the benefits of prescribed burning to maintain forest ecosystems, United States policies have a long history of suppression only practices regarding fire. As the United States Forest Service shifts away from suppression-only rhetoric, fire management personnel still face several policy-related hurdles that prevent prescribed burns.

This study includes interview data from 24 decision-making fire personnel across three different US Forest Service regions to understand the potential hindrances of prescribed fire. While there are some similarities across the three investigated regions, state level air quality policies and regulations are inconsistent, leading to higher restrictions of prescribed burning in areas that may benefit the most from its practice. Nationally, there are policies and funds allocated to the suppression of wildfires, yet far fewer funds for the prevention of such wildfires.

Despite greater public support and scientific literature for prescribed fire to mitigate uncontrolled wildfires, policies have not been updated to reflect forest ecosystems' needs. This research further highlights the perverse nature of current US policies and the bureaucratic hurdles that fail to meet climate change mitigation needs.

Results show that air quality policies are more negatively impacting practitioners in the more Western portions of the United States compared to those in the southeastern states. Conversely, while knowledge of national funding resources for prescribed fire are spoken of more frequently in western parts of the country, due to the timing of the burn seasons, funds have often dried up by that point in the fiscal year.