I agreed with former Colorado Governors Bill Owens and Bill Ritter when they wrote in The Denver Post last month that, 鈥渨hen it comes to wildfire, denial, delay and ideology come at a very high cost鈥� and 鈥渢here are practical, science-based steps we can take to reduce risk.鈥�
Unfortunately, by cheerleading more taxpayer-funded industrial logging than we鈥檝e seen for nearly a century in Colorado, they鈥檙e projecting their own mistakes on those with whom they disagree.
Indeed, with wildfire prevention measures, we have yet another example of when story and status compete against science and substance.
Industry and government, funded by your tax dollars to log forests in the name of wildfire prevention, are using status (former governors) to push a story (logging saves homes and lives) to dismiss the science (evidence that logging is ineffective or counterproductive at protecting communities) and ignore substance (鈥渉ardening鈥� every home in Colorado).
Last month, many of the elected officials, agencies, and nonprofits exploited their status to pressure our state legislature to axe a bill that would鈥檝e directed some 鈥渨ildfire mitigation鈥� funding towards what the consensus of peer-reviewed science agrees is the most effective action for protecting communities: home hardening.
Instead of mentioning this, Owens and Ritter opined, 鈥淓very year we delay needed work, we increase the odds that the next fire will burn hotter, spread faster and do more damage.鈥�
In this case — likely due to being misled by those who benefit most — these high-status players are making claims that don鈥檛 meet the burden of proof.
The best argument for 鈥渇uel reduction鈥� is that it can sometimes, somewhat reduce the severity of lower-intensity fires already easily contained by firefighters, the very fires agencies insist we must return to the landscape, not the (ecologically crucial) weather and wind-driven higher-intensity ones. Even if you ignore harm to ecosystems, wildlife, watersheds, and climate, that抖阴ap not much bang for the cost of thousands of bucks per acre.
Not only is cutting forests ineffective at preventing the spread of fire, but that抖阴ap not even its purpose. As this Forest Service study endorsing 鈥渇uel reduction鈥� admits: 鈥渇uel treatments are not designed to prevent or stop fires but to moderate fire behavior. However, there is a frequent misconception that fuel treatments should facilitate suppression and limit the size of wildfires.鈥�
To the contrary, abundant science — including the same Forest Service study — reveals that: 鈥淩educed canopy bulk density can lead to increased surface wind speed and fuel heating, which allows for increased rates of fire spread in thinned forests.鈥�
We now have proof that some of those promoting story are abusing status to not only 鈥渃herry pick鈥� science but falsely accuse anyone sharing left-out evidence of being 鈥渃herry pickers鈥� themselves.
Colorado Forest Restoration Institute at Colorado State University is the state鈥檚 leading entity researching 鈥渇uel reduction鈥� in the name of wildfire.
In a 2024 email exchange obtained through a Colorado Open Records Act filing, CFRI鈥檚 director told a U.S. Forest Service district ranger (overseeing the second largest logging project in Colorado history) that 鈥淚鈥檓 concerned the Wildfire Crisis Strategy overpromises what forest density redx (reduction) can actually accomplish vis-脿-vis the lofty objective of saving homes and communities from catching fire. What additional density redx could have reduced the impacts of the Marshall Fire?鈥�
CFRI鈥檚 director advised, 鈥淭here are numerous studies demonstrating both effectiveness and lack of effectiveness of forest density reduction (鈥渇orest thinning鈥�) projects on altering fire behavior and effects. Engaging in toe-to-toe trench warfare with competing science papers would result in stalemate 鈥� and win for the opponents.鈥�
Yet still to this day in Colorado, anyone who questions logging is at best censored, at worst publicly defamed as a liar.
Owens and Ritter are right when they say, 鈥淓very year we refuse to confront reality, we make future losses more likely and more expensive.鈥�
But the only way we鈥檙e going to snap out of the delusion and protect homes and lives from wildfire is by valuing science and substance over story and status.
Josh Schlossberg lives adjacent to the Roosevelt National Forest in Boulder County and works as Colorado Advocate for Eco-Integrity Alliance.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
