Wildfire has increasingly made the news in the past few years, as drought, hotter summers, and growing populations have led to ever more damage, to forests and homes alike.  Wildfires caused at least $450 million in damage in Colorado in 2012 alone.  As fires get larger and hotter, what is to be done?

Some scientists are saying we should let these areas burn.  For years, total fire suppression was the rule, and fires were put out as soon as they were found.  Over the past few decades, fuel reduction and prescribed burning have become the norm in wildfire management, so that fires are more frequent but smaller.  However, new research suggests that the ecology of western forests depends on large, severe burns as well, calling into question the conventional wisdom on the matter.

This is when it becomes important to remember that national forests are multi-use areas.  It’s true that national forests must be managed for the health of the ecosystem, but they must also be managed for recreational and economic use, and even with public safety in mind.  Large, catastrophic fires might well be good for the ecosystem, but burned forest cannot be logged and is less attractive to most recreational users.  In addition, large fires are less controllable and can more easily spread to neighboring private lands, damaging homes and even costing lives.

Now, more than ever, it is important that the US come up with a comprehensive national fire plan (like the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy) that integrates the best available science with clear goals and objectives for multi-use areas.  Such a plan must be enforceable, and adequately funded.  It may cost more up front, but it will save money in the long run when fewer houses burn, more logging occurs, and more species are protected before becoming endangered.