276 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. 2000
In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin,
Jennifer, comps. 2000. Wilderness science in a time of change conference—
Volume 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management; 1999 May 23–
27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
David J. Parsons is Director, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute,
USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, P.O. Box 8089,
Missoula, MT 59807 U.S.A., e-mail: djparsons@fs.fed.us.
The Challenge of Restoring Natural Fire to
Wilderness
David J. Parsons
Abstract—Despite clear legislative and policy direction to preserve
natural conditions in wilderness, the maintenance of fire as a
natural process has proven to be a significant challenge to federal
land managers. As of 1998, only 88 of the 596 designated wilderness
areas in the United States, excluding Alaska, had approved fire
plans that allow some natural ignitions to burn; and even those
areas with active natural fire programs continue to suppress many
natural ignitions. As a result, none of the four federal wilderness
management agencies have been able to restore fire to a level that
even approaches pre-settlement fire regimes. Although prescribed
fire has been utilized in some areas as a means to compensate for the
lack of natural fire, it has been questioned as an appropriate
wilderness management tool and is prohibited for most uses in
Forest Service wilderness. The questions must be asked whether it
is practical to expect restoration of natural fire regimes in wilder-
ness and if they cannot be restored, what are the options and
implications for wilderness resources and values?
The restoration of natural fire to wilderness poses signifi-
cant challenges for federal wilderness management agencies.
Following nearly a century of attempting to exclude fire from
wilderness, land managers are now struggling with how best
to restore fire as a natural ecological process (Christensen
1995; Czech 1996; Kilgore 1987). Despite abundant evidence
of the importance of fire as a natural process, and legislative
and policy direction to preserve natural conditions (including
the process of fire) in wilderness, fire suppression remains the
dominant wilderness fire management strategy (Parsons and
Landres 1998). Administrative, political and practical con-
straints (Botti and Nichols 1995) result in suppression of most
natural ignitions. If wilderness is to truly be preserved in its
“natural condition,” ways must be found to overcome these
constraints and to allow natural ignitions to burn signifi-
cantly larger areas. The most practical alternatives to in-
creased application of natural fire in wilderness include
substitution of management-ignited prescribed fire as a sur-
rogate for natural fire, or acceptance of the inevitable diver-
gence of fire-adapted ecosystems from their historic character
because of fire suppression. Prescribed fire is considered by
some to be inappropriate manipulation of wilderness, yet,
continued suppression can be expected, in many cases, to
increase levels and homogeneity of hazardous fuels, change
successional patterns and increase the threat of wildfire to
surrounding areas (Arno and Brown 1991; Christensen 1995).
This paper briefly reviews understanding of the natural
role of fire in wilderness ecosystems and the evolution of
wilderness fire management policy and programs. I review
the status of efforts to restore fire to wilderness by the four
federal wilderness management agencies, including accom-
plishments to date, and then revisit the significant issues
and options that face wilderness fire management as it
moves into the 21st Century. Specific attention is given to
assessing impediments to the expanded application of fire in
wilderness and to the consequences of future wilderness fire
management choices.
Wilderness Fire and the Evolution of
Wilderness Fire Management _____
When the first wilderness preserves were designated over
a century ago, management emphasized protection of what
was thought to be pristine, or natural, ecosystems. Distur-
bances such as fire and insects were viewed as undesirable,
preventing forests from attaining or maintaining their natu-
ral climax state. Fire, in particular, was considered a de-
stroyer of wilderness resources and values, including ani-
mals, vegetation and scenery (Christensen 1995). The
elimination of fire became a primary goal of wilderness and
park management. This approach was consistent with the
understanding of ecosystems as static entities which charac-
terized ecological thinking of the times (Botkin 1990).
Yet, even during the height of fire suppression, informed
individuals warned of the dire consequences of continuing
such practices (Chapman 1912; Weaver 1943). It is particu-
larly interesting to note the early recognition of the impor-
tance of fire in natural ecosystems by members of the
Leopold family, probably the pre-eminent conservation fam-
ily in American history. Aldo Leopold, in laying out plans in
the early 1920s for the Gila Wilderness in New Mexico,
recognized the long history and ecological role of fire in the
area (Meine 1988). In 1957, at the Fifth Biennial Wilderness
Conference, Starker Leopold commented that fire exclusion
was the “one striking exception to the trend toward natural-
ness in park preservation” and that he was “convinced that
ground fires some day will be reinstated in the regimen of
natural factors permitted to maintain the parks in some-
thing resembling a virgin state.” This discussion was not
well received by National Park Service staff in attendance
(Rydell 1998). Two years later, in a discussion at the Sixth
Biennial Wilderness Conference, Luna Leopold asked pen-
etrating questions about the need for controlled burning “to
maintain the environment” in management of the proposed
wilderness lands (Brower 1960). And then, in 1963, Starker
Leopold and others (1963) recommended to the Secretary of
Interior that the restoration of fire must be an important
part of national park management.
