This 3-million-acre wildfire set the agenda for the newly formed Nation Forest Service, but the agency's methods of fighting fire were hardly set in stone. Jamie Lewis, a historian at the Forest History Society in Durham, N.C., and the author of The Forest Service and the Greatest Good: A Centennial History, explains the reasoning behind constantly shifting attitudes toward battling forest fires.
A lot of men died fighting the 1910 fire. Has the strategy for how wildfires are fought changed significantly since then?
The strategy has changed in that now they're not willing to put men in harm's way to put out a backcountry fire. They have a better understanding of how a fire works-as best as you can, because you can only know so much, and then you hit that point of unpredictability. The technology has advanced some, but it still comes down to often putting people right there against the fire, and they are still working with pretty much the same basic tools.
If the same sort of thing as "The Big Blowup" were to happen tomorrow, what do you think the impact would be?
Loss of life would be minimized because of our communication systems and advanced warning systems. You're always going to have those who think they can ride it out, and they're going to stay with their property. But I think, more and more, you see this just about every year in southern California. The evacuations-people listen now, and they can get out more easily, in their own cars and stuff.
What are the similarities we see between forest fires today and the Big Burn?
What's similar is, in some areas of the country, we have expensive and extended drought conditions, and fuel build-up-both were factors in the 1910 fire. Now, of course, we're dealing with the consequences of the 1910 fires, and that is the fire suppression policy, enacted by the [U.S. Dept. of Agriculture] Forest Service, that, for the next 60 or 70 years, the policy was fight fire immediately.
What is being done today to regain the balance lost during that time when all fires were suppressed?
It'll involve some logging, thinning of the forest-some of it mechanized and some of it done by hand-by going in and clearing brush, and that's obviously labor intensive. They're doing prescribed fires, but to do a prescribed fire is very, very complicated-air temperature has to be at a certain range, humidity levels, what's the forecast for the next several days, and then you have to get permits. You can't just get a blank check to go in and do a prescribed burn.
How do you find the right balance between what's healthy for the forests and what's safest for the people who live in or near them?
Here in North Carolina, we're seeing this issue out in the western part of the state, and at the same time we're seeing a similar issue at the shore-people building right on the water and then here comes a hurricane. Should these people get federal money to compensate them? It is a very complicated issue, and it requires dialogue between federal, state and local authorities, land owners and I'm guessing insurance companies, too, because I suppose you could just not have, uh... a company could refuse to insure you.