Who gets a say in fire?

Guest post by Clemson Summer Program student Kaelyn King -  

My time as a natural resources management major at Clemson, combined with my hands-on experiences in nature, has led me to consider sustainability as the balance of three main goals. The first, and likely most important to the general public, is maintaining natural resources for anthropogenic purposes, including but not limited to food production, timber harvesting, and recreation. The second is the conservation and preservation of natural landscapes, species distributions, habitat availability, and habitat connectivity. This aspect of sustainability contributes to overall ecosystem health, as well as maintaining, and hopefully increasing, biodiversity and the available niches for species that rely on the health of multiple ecosystem types. Finally, I believe the third primary goal of environmental “sustainability” is a combination of the previous two objectives in that sustainable resource management should result in the long-term availability of resources for future generations of humans, as well as the long-term preservation of natural landscapes, species distributions, biodiversity, and habitat availability.

Throughout the first segment of this program, one key concept that I have been grappling with is that sustainability has no easy definition or “action plan”. This is largely due to the conflicting goals and agendas of different “stakeholders” that have an interest in what happens to our shared natural resources. During our conversation with fire officials and a forest action planner for the Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation (DNRC), we discussed how the thinning of large trees in the grassland habitat of Montana can reduce the heat and flame length of recurring wildfires that have scarred both the landscape and the people of this area. However, due to commonly held ideas about property rights, emotional attachment to trees, mistrust of contractors, and a myriad of other reasons that are probably beyond my understanding at this point, many landowners are hesitant to engage in the DNRC programs set up to reduce fire fuels through the mastication of large trees. Some people would jump to label these landowners as “selfish”, as they may believe these landowners are willingly coming in the way of sustainability or preventing the preservation of Montana landscapes. However, I do not hold that belief. 

Can we blame landowners for wanting to have a say in what happens on their own property? Can we blame them for hesitating to engage in state and federal programs? Following our conversations with Montana DNRC officials, I feel very optimistic about the future of wildlife management in Montana. They explained that instead of jumping to judgment, a more appropriate discourse would be to open a channel of communication with the public to educate landowners and alter the program so that the objectives feel more approachable and representative of both natural resource management goals as well as the goals of Montana residents. Furthermore, wildfire is a very real and very active player in the management of natural resources as well as the approach to public safety in Montana, and it is not going away any time soon. As I reflect on my ideas about fire and the outside perspectives I’ve gained throughout this trip, I feel it is important to mention that fire is not a new phenomenon in Montana. In fact, fire in general, when managed properly, has been and continues to be an agent for positive change.

More specifically, I find myself returning to the second and third “goals of sustainability”, and how fire is an essential factor in achieving these goals, when considering the research plots we collected data from over the past few days. On the first day of data collection, we observed plots that had not been treated by fire or thinning– these plots contained a dense understory of small ponderosa pine seedlings and saplings. In comparison, the understories of plots treated with thinning, burning, and both, contained much fewer trees and in return had a much denser and more diverse array of grasses, flowering herbaceous plants, forbes, and shrubs. Through comparing these plots, we can confirm that the presence of fire and the reduction of large, woody fuels can increase biodiversity in prairie ecosystems.

Overall, this experience has opened my eyes to the benefits of prescribed fire, treating landscapes to reduce the damaging effects of wildfire, and how land managers can learn from the historical Indigenous use of fire in Montana. As I progress through this program, I hope to gain a greater understanding of the interactions between vegetation, wildlife, fire, and humans, and how I can help to support native biodiversity and sustainable fire management as a future member of this industry.