Texas Wildfires and Why Dying Trees Might be a Good Thing

Holding on to hope as the world continues burning

Dear Fires Readers,

It’s been a while since I’ve just sent a thing out without it being an interview. Before I get into it I want to tell you that I’ll be releasing a wonderful interview with Zeke Lunder next weekend for subscribers. Zeke has been waiting patiently for me to release our interview from forever ago!

Texas is Burning

There are several fires burning across Texas— the largest about 100 miles west of Fort Worth. The Eastland Complex is a conglomeration of several fires and has resulted in the death of one Sheriff’s Deputy, Sgt. Barbara Fenley whose vehicle veered off the road in smoky conditions. She was on her way to help an elderly resident evacuate. The fires are actively burning in thick brush and underbrush as well as timber.

Firefighters are hoping that an incoming rain storm with be enough to stop the fires, though accompanying wind could have the opposite effect. The rain is only expected to last one day, while windy weather continues.

Two firefighter were injured on Sunday while fighting the Big L Fire, which was ignited that same day, along with the Blowing Basin Fire. Both fires are now part of the Eastland Complex.

The landscape wherein these fires burn is mostly rolling, grassy hills, brush, and some timber. Many agencies in Texas implement prescribed burning, but prairie land needs to be burned every year, and much of the land has been succeeded by non-native species due to the absence of fire. Putting more fire on the ground in Texas could reduce the instances of volatile wildfires and promote the growth of native grasses and brush, which is more fire resistant. Cedar, locust, and persimmon are all invasive species. Invasive grasses, such as cheatgrass, are better carriers of fire than native grasses, and therefore promote more volatile wildfires.

According to Texas Parks and Wildlife, the best time for burning in this area is after leaf drop and before the winter rains. With climate change, it can be difficult to gauge how plentiful the winter rains will be, but burning will help to encourage the growth of native species, which also increases insect populations and, in turn, increases habitat for native ground fowl.

A fire burning in grass and brush in Texas, courtesy of Getty Images.

---

We’ve Taken Trees For Granted

A recent Guardian article takes an alarmist tone. The title; Is this the end of forests as we’ve known them?, is, of course, sensational. I honestly hate it. I hate that, as readers, we’re yanked around by our fear and foreboding, and the media promotes and embraces this.

Here’s my opinion: I don’t think scaring people with ominous headlines spurs real change. That said, the article is worth reading, though one’s eye should be aimed towards deciphering the rhetoric (SCARY THINGS ARE HAPPENING) from the story. Once you scroll past the rhetorical terror, you can find this gem:

“Researchers acknowledge that there is considerable ambiguity in their predictions about tree mortality. For one thing, it is unclear how many of the trees now dying essentially weren’t meant to be there in the first place. Western forests are denser than they were historically because of human influence: the practice of tamping out wildfires, beginning in the early 20th century, has interfered with a natural process in which blazes weed out younger trees and undergrowth.”

Imagine this: We have too many trees. We’ve promoted the growth of trees and called them sacred, above prairies, which are superior carbon capturers. Just read my interview with Lenya Quinn-Davis to understand that trees are not the answer to our problems, and they never were.

When Europeans arrived in the United States, they found open, expansive forests whose trees were widely spaced and gigantic (there are a few exceptions to this but this was how most forests looked) and wide, open prairies. Many explorers and colonizers called the land they happened upon “park-like.”

As Europeans settled across the United States, displacing Indigenous Americans, they removed fire, and trees sprouted. Somehow, naturalists like John Muir and Gifford Pinchot linked the word “wild” with “untouched” and set aside forests for logging and wilderness while prioritizing the suppression of fire.

If we reframe our view of fires, of bark beetles, of forest holocausts and dying trees, then maybe we can see that these things are naturally working to balance out what we have disturbed over time. Diana Six, an entomologist, has done some great work with bark beetles and this TED Talk is a must watch when it comes to understanding how beetles function much like fire in our forests. While you’re on YouTube you can watch this TED Talk by Camille Stevens-Rumann, who was quoted in the Guardian article.

It’s funny: I’ve pitched pieces to publications about our excess of trees and the toxicity of John Muir’s messaging, and no one’s biting. And digging into this article, it’s clearly about how nature in out of balance, rather than climate change’s catastrophic effect on trees.

My question is: are trees increasing the pace of climate change in their excessive water consumption? Is part of climate change the absence of fire rather than the presence of it?

Justin Trudeau once claimed we should plant a billion trees to prevent climate change, and he’s over 8 million trees closer to that goal. But planting that many trees would be catastrophic. North America as a whole is deeply uneducated when it comes to fire and ecological health— we’ve been brainwashed to think that fire suppression is the ideal, and thick, overgrown forests are healthy.

It’s the opposite.

To battle climate change, we must put fire on the ground.

Photo of a hillside northeast of Phillipsburg, Montana, taken 1906/1908. Note the mosaic of trees, grasses, and shrubs and the spacing between trees.

The same hillside, after less than a century of fire suppression. 1981. Note the thick, homogenous forests.

These pictures and more can be found HERE.