[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1482]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

RETHINKING FIRE IN THE WAKE OF FIREFIGHTER DEATHS

______

HON. TOM UDALL

of new mexico

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 31, 2001

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, on July 10, 2001, four of
Washington State's young firefighters died battling a forest fire on
the Okanagan National Forest. As I have had time to reflect on this
tragic event, I have come to realize that wildland fire suppression
continues to be a dangerous and risky operation.
As in previous tragedies such as the Mann Gulch fire in Montana and
the Storm King Mountain fire in Colorado, our hearts pour out to the
families, friends, and colleagues of those who perished fighting
wildland fires. The deaths of Tom L. Craven, Jessica L. Johnson, Karen
L. Fitzpatrick, and Devin A. Weaver is a disturbing reminder of Mother
Nature's powerful forces and unrelenting risks faced by our dedicated
firefighters. Although seventeen firefighters lived, as did two campers
caught in the explosive fire, I am grieved by the deaths of these four
young people and I do not want this to happen again.
Their tragic deaths raise significant questions--questions that may
likely go unasked in the Forest Service investigation: Could these
deaths have been prevented through a different systemic response to
fire? Should the Forest Service have been expending hundreds of
thousands of dollars and risking the lives of dozens of firefighters to
fight a fire in a remote canyon that threatened no houses or resources?
Would a fire management plan have ensured that the fire would have been
handled differently?
The Okanagan fire started in remote backcountry adjacent to a
Wilderness Area. The nearest house was at least ten miles away, the
nearest town twenty miles away. While the cause of the fire is not yet
known, we do know that the fire began in a designated roadless area. If
the forest had a fire management plan in place--as is required by
countless agency directives--it is likely that such a plan for the area
would have provided alternative strategy options for the Forest
Service.
The Okanagan fire underscores the need to re-examine our nation's
approach to forest fire and to reframe the terms of debate. In the wake
of this fire will come calls to reduce fire risks through aggressive
thinning and full funding for fire preparedness. However, this approach
merely perpetuates the culture of fire suppression that operates with
few fiscal or social constraints. It also serves to exacerbate the
risks of fire through fire exclusion. It perpetuates the illusion that
we can and should control all fire, regardless of location and
ecosystem. These suppression efforts make little sense fiscally or
environmentally. A different approach would have the agency stop
putting out fires in remote backcountry.
Last year, Congress allocated $1.6 billion to the Forest Service for
implementation of its national fire plan. In addition to working with
homeowners to reduce vegetation around their homes, these dollars
should be spent on returning fire to its natural role in the ecosystem.
We can do this through targeting thinning, prescribed burns, and fire-
use policies. We also should be spending
Putting out all fires regardless of location and ecosystem simply
puts off the inevitable. The West's forests have burned for thousands
of years and will continue to do so. We must learn to live with fire,
rather than stepping up the assault on what is still perceived by many
as ``the enemy.'' We must stop sacrificing our young people in this
futile effort.
I would like to enter into the record the following op ed from the
Portland Oregonian that highlights these issues:

[From the Portland Oregonian, July 17, 2001]

Dead firefighters were sent where they didn't belong

(By Andy Stahl)

I write this not long after four young men and women died
battling the Thirty Mile fire in the remote Chewuch River
canyon of the Okanogan National Forest.
Tom Craven, Karen Fitzpatrick, Devin Weaver and Jessica
Johnson were sent by the Forest Service to do a job. They
died in the performance of that duty.
But was the job they were doing worth their lives? Did this
fire, in a steep, remote canyon that threatened no houses or
valuable resources, need to be battled? During its
investigation into these tragic deaths, the U.S. Forest
Service had better answer these questions.
The Thirty Mile fire started in roadless, backcountry land
immediately adjacent to the remote Pasayten wilderness.
Perhaps the fire started from an unattended campfire; the
investigation has yet to pin down the cause.
The fire began in a designated Research Natural Area, at
6,000 acres, one of the largest RNAs in the nation.
This is important in what happened next: It appears fire
managers did not even know the fire was in a Research Natural
Area. Had they known, they would not have aggressively
attacked the fire with aerial retardants and firelines, which
are banned in RNAS. Instead, they would have held back and
taken a more cautious approach to fighting this fire--an
approach that sought to allow the fire to mimic natural
processes within this fire-dependent ecosystem.
Admittedly, hindsight can be 20-20, but it is worth
considering that a more cautious approach to fighting this
fire might also have saved lives.
The Thirty Mile fire exemplifies the need to take a hard
look at our nation's approach to wildland fires. A century of
aggressive fire suppression, combined with logging of the
biggest and most fire-resistant trees, has damaged ecosystems
throughout the West. Continuing to put out every fire in the
remote backcountry makes little sense economically or
environmentally. We must carefully restore fire to its
prominent role as nature's cleansing agent in our public
forests.
Last year the Congress allocated a record amount, $1.6
billion, to the Forest Service for its national fire plan.
The first priority should be to help private homeowners who
live near fire-prone national forests to manage the
vegetation within several hundred feet of their houses.
That's where the biggest difference is made between a home
burning up in a forest fire and a home surviving. The next
priority should be to return fire to its natural role in the
environment.
Putting out all fires simply puts off the day of reckoning.
Burn today or burn tomorrow, the West's forests have burned
for thousands of years and will continue to do so.
We must learn to live with fire just as we live with the
weather. And we must stop sacrificing our best and brightest
young people in this futile war against an implacable enemy.

____________________