Resources

By Patrick McKelvey: Founding member and Chair of FireSafe Montana, TriCounty FireSafe Working Group, and Fuels Mitigation Specialist. FireSafe Montana is an organization of Montana citizens who believe in providing the best information to Montana landowners and firefighters on a host of mitigation activities to help restore healthy fire adapted ecosystems and to protect homes and property from wildland fire. Our membership and board of directors represent many disciplines and points of views. A campaign that FireSafe Montana is initiating is called “Enough is Enough”. This campaign focuses on the many issues of wildland fire in the urban interface. The title of this campaign originates from one of our founding board members reaction to the sobering tragedy of the Yarnell Fire. As you will quickly see, this project is not just about that incident. The focus is of a much wider scope of “Why, we are…. where we are, at this time, and the conditions of our forests and wildand fuels.” The “Enough is Enough” campaign will mostly be editorial pieces, public service announcements, and news articles from a diverse collaboration of concerned experts from forestry, fire ecology, wildland fire, fire behavior, large fire management, social aspects of wildland fire, and fire policy development. FireSafe Montana seeks to present an objective and accurate view on many of the issues that have arisen in wildfire management today. There are a number and variety of programs active today, many with the same sources of funding, in this attempt to inform the public about the issue. There are parts of this project on which we have not developed agreement among the participants. For example, what is really intended by the use of the term “Survivable Space”. Does it relate to the survival of structures? of residents? of firefighters? Does its use indirectly encourage homeowners to not evacuate in the event of a wildfire? Is “Prepare, Stay and Defend” a message that goes hand in hand with “Survivable Space”? Should firefighters just not attack fire in the WUI? Why is our federal government neighbor not doing the mitigation in our neighborhood on their managed lands? What is difference between a “Fire Adapted Community” and the “Living With Fire” publications? Is there still a “Firewise” program to address planning at the city level? Are the standards the same for a wildland fuel hazard reduction project from one agency to another? Why aren’t local landowners and neighboring private landowners included in federal land management decisions? Wildland fire is more of a challenge today than it was thirty or even ten years ago. Some would argue that is so because the Wildland Urban Interface is growing larger. Some would say it’s inevitable because the climate is warming. Others argue it’s because of severely restricted management on federal forest lands that has led to unreasonable forest encroachment. We may not be successful in getting answers to all the questions that are out there, but we want to move the conversation forward…. Because “Enough is Enough!”

By: Stephen F. Arno, retired Research forester, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

In the early 1970s while part of a U.S. Forest Service research team I examined the disturbance history of old, unlogged forests throughout Montana. We surveyed a diverse array of several hundred forests and found that about 90 percent of them showed clear evidence of burning in the distant past, before the policy of fire suppression was implemented in the early 1900s. Forests dominated by ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch had often survived multiple surface fires, while forests of lodgepole pine, spruce, and subalpine fir commonly experienced more severe, stand-replacing fires. By the 1980s studies of charcoal layers and other clues found in sediments beneath several Northwestern ponds and bogs revealed that fires had shaped our forests continuously over thousands of years.

A century ago some prominent forest landowners in northern California urged the Forest Service to test controlled burning as a method for managing forests to keep fuel from building up to hazardous levels. However, at the time forestry was new to the United States, having been developed in humid regions of Europe where fire was not a prominent force of nature. Also, the science of ecology was scarcely known at that time, and thus the importance of natural processes in managing native forests was not recognized. For these and other reasons forestry agencies decided to attempt to virtually eliminate fire in the forest—a policy known as “fire exclusion.”

Fire exclusion seemed to work reasonably well during the middle of the 20th century, as less than one million acres burned each year in the 11 contiguous western states (see accompanying graph). Then in the late 1970s an alarming new trend emerged—a steady increase in large, severe wildfires which continues today. Fire analysts attribute this trend to a prolonged absence of fire leading to fuel buildup and increasingly warm dry conditions in Western forests. Another contributing factor is the explosive growth in the number of homes, cabins, and other developments embedded in fuel-rich Western forests. As a result, the limited firefighting resources are diverted to protecting homes rather than attempting to control the growth of the fire perimeter. Thousands of dollars of public funding is often expended to protect an individual home, even if the homeowner has done nothing to make his forest property or buildings fire resistant. Fire managers are reluctant to refrain from pouring resources into even undeserved protection, fearing the political repercussions. Also, many firefighters get caught-up in the heroics of their mission, despite clear guidelines that order them not to risk life and limb. Recent testimonies of firefighters in the wake of 19 deaths in the Yarnell, Arizona, fire confirm this misguided sense of mission.

Westerners will continue to be plagued by increasing peril and costs of wildfires until we adopt a saner attitude about the role of fire in our forests. For some inspiration we could look to the Southeastern U.S., where states have “right-to-burn” laws (limiting liability to reasonable levels) and provide extension forestry help to foster responsible prescribed burning by private landowners. Rural Southerners have long recognized the essential and inevitable role of fire in their forests. We could do likewise by accepting that fire will continue to be a fact of life in our forests, but that we can influence the way fire affects our forest by managing its structure and its fuel using mechanical treatments, fuel removal, pile burning, and prescribed fire. Even in the most severe conflagrations of recent years, forest properties and homesites that were thinned and made fire-resistant experienced far less damage. It is high time to heed the advice that California timberman George Hoxie published in 1910: We had best adopt fire as our servant; otherwise it will be our master.

Forest landowners who wish to learn about the role of fire and what they can do to make their forest and homesite fire-resistant can find helpful information and guidance at www.FiresafeMT.org.

By Robert Mutch: Chair, Painted Rocks-West Fork FireSafe Council

On the Dude Fire in Arizona, 1990, 6 firefighters died in their fire shelters while trying to save homes.

On the Esperanza Fire in California, 2006, 5 Forest Service firefighters from Engine 57 died while trying to save the unoccupied Octagon House.

On the Yarnell Hill Fire in Arizona, 2013, 19 firefighters from the Granite Mountain Hotshots died in or near their fire shelters while trying to save homes.

I am still reeling from the recent tragic calamity near Prescott, Arizona. It is hard to cope with the number 19—almost the entire Granite Mountain Hotshot crew failed to go home from the fire! A posting at the Wildfire Today website on July 5, 2013, said: “The fact is that firefighting is dangerous and deaths are unavoidable even if protocol is followed to the letter.”

At the trial following the Esperanza Fire (as reported in John Maclean’s book on the fire), a defense attorney asked a CalFire Battalion Chief if anyone should have been sent to a place like the Octagon House, which was marked by a red warning dot on a fire map, unoccupied, and was very difficult to defend?

“Yes,” the Battalion Chief said. “Honestly, about every house out there could have been a red dot under those conditions. We still are going to send resources out to defend homes. There are a lot of homes we saved that day.” (With hindsight one can ask, “but at what cost?”)

These comments shed light on an unfortunate belief that is all too prevalent in some wildland firefighting circles. This longstanding belief equates wildland firefighting with war and acknowledges casualties and fatalities as inevitable. When people adopt this stance, their view that death is an inevitable outcome too often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There is another and more reasonable option available for firefighters. Instead of running towards danger, it is okay to retreat from danger until conditions become more favorable for safe and successful fire suppression efforts. This scenario is predicated on the idea that everyone who goes to a fire deserves to go home to family and friends.

Firefighter safety really could be quite simple, if firefighters recognized conditions for very high to extreme fire behavior and “just left the line” until the situation lessened and it was safe to re-engage the fire.

During a Fire Behavior Conference I was touched by a presentation that recounted one man’s experience from the Dude Fire and how it felt to be at the shelter deployment site while six people died around him. As he finished the first thought that crossed my mind was “why don’t we just leave the line when conditions are aligned against us?” If we had placed more emphasis on human lives rather than on human homes, would these fallen firefighters still be with us? During the Dude Fire, rain drops were felt by some on the fire just prior to the burnover, a precursor to a collapsing convection column and strong downdraft winds. Did anyone on the Yarnell Hill Fire experience those same telltale raindrops prior to the wind shift? We must adopt the principles of a High Reliability Organization, always mindful of signals that might give everyone the opportunity to survive. How about putting an end to the practice of placing a higher priority on saving houses rather than on saving lives? Let’s place the priority on safeguarding the sanctity of life as our modus operandi.

At the 2005 Safety Summit in Missoula, Montana, the goal of Zero Defects was proposed—in other words, no injuries or fatalities during the conduct of our fire business. Such an undertaking leads us away from the un-mindful position that firefighting is dangerous, people will make mistakes, and bad things will sometimes happen. Under that premise we can simply say “I told you so!” when the bad event occurs. With a commitment to Zero Defects, when an injury or worse happens we are immediately placed on notice that an intolerable action has occurred that must be corrected. Or better yet we will become so much more mindful because we are anticipating the worst that we prevent the unwanted outcome from happening in the first place.

By Jerry Williams, former National Fire & Aviation Director, U.S. Forest Service, retired.

Not since the turn of the last century have wildfires been worse in much of the West. In an era when firefighting budgets cannot seem to keep up, it is incomprehensible and contradictory that wildfires of this magnitude are occurring with such frequency. However, over the past several years, the onset of drought, the deteriorated condition of many western forests, and a surge of largely unconstrained growth at the wildland-urban interface have converged, resulting in catastrophic, record-setting wildfires. On a growing number of wildfires, we are past the limits of firefighting effectiveness and beyond the margins of firefighter safety. We seem to be crossing an important threshold, in terms of “acceptable loss.”

When we look back at many of the more recent highest cost, highest loss wildfires in Montana and elsewhere across the West, several observations deserve our attention:

- Most of the total acres burned on the highest consequence wildfires have occurred in the drier forest types, where the exclusion of periodic low-intensity burning has resulted in high fuel build-ups over broad landscapes. Notably, these forests are often at lower elevations, where people and homes are concentrated. Ironically, these same forests – one-hundred years ago – were more open with lower fuel loads; they exhibited much lower, less severe fire intensities than we see today.

- On several high-impact wildfire landscapes, governing land/resource management plans often called for undisturbed, dense conditions. Thinning, prescribed burning, and other fuel reduction treatments only occurred at very small scales or not at all. The observation highlights an important relationship between the management of fire-adapted landscapes and resultant wildfire outcomes. This relationship is incompletely reflected in many of our forest management plans, policies, and practices. Management practices that worked well in a relatively cooler, wetter cycle may no longer be sustainable as the climate shifts to hotter and drier conditions. In fact, these practices, left un-changed, may only imperil the very values that they intend to save.

- Within the perimeter of many high-impact wildfires, there were small areas where understory thinning and/or prescribed burning preceded the wildfire. Despite the severe burning conditions that consumed much of the rest of the forest, these areas came through largely unscathed. Although they were relatively small-sized, forest resilience was much enhanced by these treatments where they occurred.

We are at an important crossroads. Do we attempt to match increasing wildfire threats with yet greater suppression force or do we take stock, adapt to a changed circumstance, and more comprehensively modify our wildfire protection strategies ? Some important questions beg an answer:

- In regulatory language, should wildfires continue to be treated as unavoidable accidents of nature, free from scrutiny, and exempt from evaluation of effects? Proposed fuel reduction treatments (e.g. selective cutting, thinning, and prescribed burning) often cause controversy, but as droughts deepen, leaving high volumes of fuel on fire-prone landscapes promises much greater consequence. In this context, can we continue to equate “no-action” with no-consequence in regulatory requirements, policy and planning?

- Can we mitigate fuel hazards at the scales necessary to reduce high-impact wildfire threats under existing regulatory constraints? Many of the regulatory requirements that influence fuel reduction treatments were enacted some forty-years ago in a cooler, wetter climate cycle. A generation ago, little was known and less applied about fire regime dynamics and disturbance ecologies in the West’s fire-adapted forests. Certainly, climate change was not foreseen. What are the risks if we leave these regulatory constraints unchanged?

- Can critical natural resource values (watersheds, endangered species habitat, air quality, and others) be sustained by managing whole landscapes for un-attended and undisturbed conditions? Should forest and natural resource management goals better reflect fire’s role and better optimize its use at more meaningful scales, more appropriate intensities, and at due intervals?

- Should landowners’ freedom to build where they want and how they want occur at the expense of public land impacts, public cost, firefighter safety, and their own security? What are the long-term effects of protecting homes at the expense of watersheds, habitat, and other general forest values?

- With growing concerns about carbon dioxide emissions and given widespread efforts to use our forests to sequester carbon, should we be doing more to pre-empt high intensity wildfires in historically low-intensity ecosystems by more actively managing these forests to reduce fuel loads and biomass levels?

- In an era where federal budget deficit reduction efforts need to occur, should we go “all-in” with suppression capacity, or should greater priority be given to prevention and hazard mitigation? What are the long-term risks and consequences of alternative wildfire protection strategies?

As much of the West continues to move into a hotter, drier climate cycle, the need intensifies to more urgently adapt regulations, policies, plans, and practices to a changed circumstance and a new reality. Perhaps it is time to pause and — much like we ask of our firefighters – re-assess the situation before we go much further. At this point, the consequences of doing what we have always done may be pushing a potentially bad position that is not well accounted.

by Stephen Pyne

Three strategies for wildland fire presently compete in the American West. One is regressive, one proactive, and one reactive. All are in play, and the odds favoring each are roughly equal.

The regressive strategy is (to try)(to attempt) to suppress fire. This was a founding doctrine a century ago, and it failed. It failed ecologically, it failed economically, it failed as an informing philosophy of land management. The capacity to fight bad fires is essential, but a firefight resembles a declaration of martial law, a call-out to put down a temporary riot, not a principle by which to govern. You control this insurgency, as others, by controlling the countryside. Besides, while suppression can check bad fires up to a point, it does nothing to promote good ones.

Fifty years ago a fire revolution boiled over that sought to replace fire’s suppression with its management, and fire’s exclusion with its restoration. It was a pluralistic campaign, varied by region and local culture. Then, in May 2012, the bad old ways returned. As a temporary response to a fiscal “emergency,” the Forest Service restored the old suppression norm as a preferred response. AlthoughWhile the agency hedged its wording, there were few doubts what it meant in practice. If a prescribed fire escaped, the episode could end a career. If a wildfire being attacked escaped, it wouldn’t.

The second strategy is proactive. It recognizes that fire is a reaction that synthesizes its surroundings and that the way to cope with fire is to modify those surroundings to promote the fires you want and to contain better the ones you don’t. Fire management means land management: good landscapes yield good fires, messed-up landscapes lead to messed-up fires.

Land use embraces such choices as putting houses next to wildlands, trashing healthy forests by clearcutting, overgrazing, or fire exclusion, or transferring lands to preserves like parks and wilderness. All such decisions are reflected in the kinds of fire practices they encourage – and the kinds of fires that result. Today, America’s land looks a lot like American society, polarized and plutocratic. The urban and the wild thrive at the expense of the middle, while the 1% of nature’s fire economy, megafires, claim 85-95% of costs and burned area.

A proactive strategy targets sprawl by hardening houses, addresses out-of-whack landscapes by calculated thinning and prescribed burning, and bridges political boundaries through consensus projects between public and private entities. The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, the Fire Learning Networks, FireWise, FireSafe, and the lands overseen by the Nature Conservancy are active expressions of this ambition.

The third strategy is reactive in that it accepts the existing firescapes and tries to contrive some useful benefits out of them. It takes the fires it gets, whether from lightning or careless campers, and works with them, even expanding them, in consideration of safety, cost, and ecological benefits. It effectively admits that we will not get ahead of the fire problem, which seems to be worsening at larger scales and faster rates. It exploits wildfires to do the work that, in the West, prescribed fire has been unable to do. It refuses to plug the gaps in the nation’s fire project by throwing crews into the breach.

The upshot is that, in some cases, this may mean rapid attack and suppression; in others, point protection and a fallback to community borders; and in still others, a big-box approach in which crews retire to defensible fuelbreaks and burn out. The effects will vary as well, but unless the fire goes completely rogue, it should cost less, pose fewer risks, and absolve agencies of liability.

All three strategies are happening. Suppression continues to tempt by the logic of simplicity and the urgency of protecting houses, even if every fire put out is a fire put off. Proactive projects are popular in principle because they are rational, but they have proved costly in both dollars and political capital and are, year by year, falling behind the metastasizing threat. The effort to fashion a national cohesive strategy may, after congressional finagling, end as a kind of Obamacare for wildlands. Amid such considerations reactive, big-box tactics have become a default setting. They are a major reason why burned area is swelling faster than climate change and legacy fuels alone can explain.

These are the choices as we face the flames. The one thing we cannot choose is whether or not to have fire. Nature made that decision over 400 million years ago.

Stephen J. Pyne is a professor in the School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University. He is currently completing a fire history of the U.S. since 1960.

By: TriCounty FireSafe Working Group technical advisor Gary Ellingson, Forester.

Wildfire mitigation projects are designed and implemented with the intent to reduce the potential intensity and burn severity of a wildfire. Note that the term “fireproof” is not used. The objective of wildfire mitigation in the forest is not to “fireproof” the forest. Reducing fire intensity near homes and designated roadside evacuation routes during a wildfire gives firefighters a better chance at putting the fire out in a prompt and safe manner. It also provides citizens and firefighters with safe escape routes. These are critical issues in locations where lives and property may be at risk.

In more remote “backcountry” settings wildfire mitigation priorities often include municipal watersheds and areas with significant natural resource values. Mitigating potential wildfire damage in these forest environments is primarily accomplished by reducing the potential for a high severity burn. High severity burns expose soils to high temperatures for an extended duration of time and consume all or most of the organic matter present on the forest floor. Forests with excessive accumulations of woody fuels are targeted for wildfire hazard mitigation projects because they have the greatest potential for a high severity wildfire.

The combustion of organic material during a fire with long duration and high intensity creates gasses that penetrate the soil and condense to form a water repellent coating. During intensive rainfalls water which is not easily absorbed into the soil flows downhill over exposed soil that is no longer protected by a layer of organic material. The erosive force of the water expands exponentially as the depth of flowing water increases. This is why erosion and mudflows are a particular concern in high severity burn areas. It is also a reason that municipalities who depend on forested watersheds for clean water are highly concerned about reducing potential burn severity in order to protect water quality. Water flowing from a high severity burn area is likely to be heavily laden with sediment and debris and may overwhelm the capacity of municipal water treatment facilities to treat the water.

In contrast, a fire which burns through an area where wildfire hazard mitigation work has been completed will burn less intensively and with shorter duration. In fact, it is likely that many trees will survive the fire. Remnants of down logs, needles, limbs and decayed organic matter will remain present on the forest floor after the fire. This material helps to protect the soil from runoff and erosion and helps the soil to absorb water. Forest vegetation recovers quickly in low intensity burns from surviving plant roots and unburned seed. Weed infestations are less likely because less mineral soil is exposed to act as a seed bed.

Wildfire hazard mitigation work is typically accomplished by decreasing forest density. The primary goal is to reduce the amount of woody fuel that is available to burn at high intensity and at a long duration. Typically, smaller less commercially valuable trees are targeted for removal. If cut trees are of sufficient size and quality, they may be harvested and sold to local wood products manufacturers. In ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch forests the largest, healthiest and most fire resistant tree are typically retained on-site. The mature trees are resistant to low intensity fire damage due to their thick protective bark. Small, stagnated, and unhealthy trees are removed to create open space between larger trees. The openings created in the forest canopy allow heat to escape during a fire and reduce the potential for a crown fire.

Wildfire mitigation projects protect a safer environment for firefighters and citizens, improve forest health and help to protect water quality. They result in a forest condition that provides sustainable ecological and economic value to Montana citizens. Environmental safeguards incorporated into the design of projects ensure that numerous natural resource values are protected for generations to come.

By Julie Monk, Co Owner of Natures Enhancement

While most homeowners are aware of planning for fire prevention when building or purchasing a home, there is another important aspect that should be considered. This is the outside landscaping.

Beautiful landscapes can be created that also limit the damage from fires. One way to do this is to incorporate hardscapes. These are the hard structures that surround the outside of a home. Many elegant patios, walkways, walls, and borders can be constructed to add both visual appeal and increase the outdoor living space of your home. All of these landscape creations have very low percentage of burning. Hardscapes also help to prevent the spread of fires to other parts of your property and home because they are made out of fire blocking materials such as natural rock, cement, and concrete. If any of your hardscapes include barbeques or fire pits, make sure they have a proper cover on them to prevent free flowing embers.

Native plants also have many uses in developing a firewise landscape. Since they are indigenous to the region, they thrive in naturally occurring outside elements. Weather conditions, insects, and diseases usually have minimal negative effects on native plants. Healthy plants tend to be more vigorous in their ability to ward off fires, than plants that are already weak and dry. When choosing which plants to place
at a property, there are some necessary characteristics to consider. These include such items as; how much water the plant requires to stay healthy, how fast and dense the plant grows, and how much leaf, needle, and plant debris will be created. It is best to choose plants that require less water, have a more open structure, and shed minimal debris that could add more fuel to the fires.

After hardscapes and native plants are installed, it is important to properly maintain your landscape. When possible, keep an area around your home (most commonly suggested is 100 feet), free of any items. Early Spring, is a good time for pruning, while plants are dormant before they start opening their buds and pushing new growth. In Summer, make sure any lawn and planted areas receive proper
additional water, as this time of year tends to be dry. Spring and Fall are the best time for doing more planting, as the roots will continue to grow even as the above ground plant growth is slow. Plants are able to take advantage of the extra moisture the weather conditions usually bring. Just be sure to rake and remove any fallen leaves, needles, and overall debris.

Natures Enhancement has chosen to partner with FireSafe Montana and help spread the firewise/firesafe message simply because "we care". It is upsetting when a beautiful landscape is burned to the ground. This affects values of homes, use of outdoor living space, and enjoyment by
homeowners and other wildlife habitat that are dependent upon safe landscapes to survive.

With proper preparation though FireSafe Montana and its partners, we can all help to alleviate fire destruction to homes and properties.

Additional information including a list of available native plants and more landscape design concepts can be found at naturesenhancementinc.com. More information on the Enough is Enough campaign and more resources to help get you ready for the fire season go to firesafemt.org.

Julie Monk is Vice President of Marketing for Nature’s Enhancement Inc., a full service landscape and plant nursery in the Bitterroot Valley, Montana.

By Tom Zimmerman, President of the International Association of Wildland Fire

Wildland fire management has been an indispensable element of natural resource management. But, in today’s changing environment, it has become firmly intertwined in the mix of social, ecological, and management requirements and needs. Wildland fires today more frequently occur in areas where structures and human development blend with undeveloped wildlands - the wildland urban interface (WUI). The results of past trends and actions have caused changes across all fire-environments with the WUI environment serving as a microcosm of magnification of its seriousness. The challenges WUI presents have gained enough prominence to become one of the most important considerations in wildland fire strategic and policy documents.

What is needed? Future issues and emerging situations directly clash with the belief of successful protection through aggressive suppression. Reversion to a reliance on past experience or a return to the suppression of all fires can only result in a backslide in performance and efficiency. In recent national and regional planning activities (The National Wildland Fire Cohesive Strategy), challenges and opportunities for positively addressing the future national situation have been identified as: restoring and maintaining resilient landscapes, creating fire-adapted communities, and responding to wildfires. These challenges recognize the necessary components of societal, ecological, and management issues. Questions within this framework that must be answered include how to:

- Sustain a vigorous landscape-scale vegetation management and fuels reduction program.

- Implement better pre- and post-fire rehabilitation.

- Make populations and infrastructure better able to withstand wildfires without loss of life and property.

- Improve understanding and use of noncombustible materials and vegetation in building construction and landscaping at the structure and subdivision level.

- Conduct detailed fire risk mapping.

- Consider and implement the full spectrum of fire management activities and the full range of wildfire responses.

- Improve collaboration and communication among all affected parties and stakeholders.

Recent discussion focused on WUI has identified some very aggressive and sweeping changes that include considering wildfire in the processes of:

- Altering insurance and zoning procedures.

- Denial of home loans in high-risk wildfire zones.

- Implementing tiered homeowner insurance rates.

- Drafting and implementing focused zoning tools.

It is readily apparent that business as usual is not going be as successful. Recognition of the interdependence of social, ecologic, and management issues in managing wildland fire is imperative. An increased understanding of what this means and appropriate actions are necessary building blocks for improving awareness. An inventory of the state of our knowledge and capability shows that we now have greater awareness of the natural role of fire and fire ecology, greater understanding of fire behavior, fuel dynamics, fuel characteristics, and the fire environment, and greater science and technology advancements and support than ever before. We have the most flexible fire policy providing the most comprehensive basis of policy elements and affording the greatest range of options in program history. We have the most highly trained and capable workforce, the most advanced equipment and technology, and the most sophisticated logistical support system ever.

So, as wildland fire has become more complex, our knowledge and capability has steadily expanded. How then, are we struggling to plan for, respond to, and live with wildland fire and a changing fire environment? Are we passively accepting more frequent and increasingly damaging fires as unavoidable events? Are we steadfastly adhering to acceptance of protection capabilities alone as the answer? Are we refusing to understand and accept ecological knowledge? Are we resigned to regressive and inactive thinking? Is situation blindness clouding understanding of the full level of risk and hazard for firefighters, the public, and community values in WUI areas? If we are to be successful, the answers to these questions can only be no. Social awareness of the situation, opportunities, and capabilities must increase. Collaborative activities must determine courses of action. Only then can we answer yes – we can prepare and live with wildland fire and use actions listed above, as well as others, to actively drive the recognition and understanding of what this means and how to safely sustain it.