"We Could Have Stopped This"

By Laurence Zuckerman

For the first 100 years after Yellowstone National Park was created in 1872, its caretakers diligently protected its forests from fire damage. As scientists learned more about the balance of nature in areas like Yellowstone, they discovered that fire was sometimes a helpful, even necessary, ingredient. Thus in 1972 the National Park Service adopted a policy of allowing spontaneous fires to burn unimpeded unless they seriously threatened lives or property.

Natural burning has brooked little opposition, but then Yellowstone has rarely suffered serious fire damage. Until this summer, that is. In the midst of the hottest and dryest season in the park's 116-year history, as many as ten separate fires have raged over 582,401 acres of Yellowstone's 2.2 million acres, four adjacent national forests and Grand Teton National Park. Ignited by lightning and whipped by high winds, the flames have threatened some of the park's most popular sites, including Old Faithful. Last week more than 500 tourists and employees were evacuated from one of Yellowstone's main tourist villages after the so-called North Fork fire burned within two miles. The swift fires occasionally raced into areas before park officials could warn tourists to stay away. "We could have stopped this," complained one of the 8,000 weary fire fighters battling the blazes last week. "They won't let us."

Park officials maintain that they can only contain the fires, not extinguish them. Meanwhile, defenders of the natural-burn policy trumpet its benefits: the flames clear thick stands of timber and prepare the soil for a new generation of flora. For example, many of the seed cones of the lodgepole pine, which covers 60% of the park, only open after being exposed to intense heat. Ecologists expect the fires to help restore the park's depleted stands of aspen trees and increase the wide array of insects, birds and mammals that have found Yellowstone's aging forests increasingly inhospitable. "It's part of living in an ecosystem that is basically wild and uncontrollable," says Louisa Willcox of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, which supports the natural-burn policy.

But critics say it is irresponsible to pretend that Yellowstone and other high-use wilderness areas can thrive on nature alone. "Letting nature take its course here is not based on realistic assumptions," says Alston Chase, author of Playing God in Yellowstone. "What starts as a policy of laissez- faire ends up becoming a policy of massive interference." Chase advocates setting controlled fires to produce the desired mosaic of vegetation, while creating breaks that would prevent natural fires from spreading out of control. "You don't prevent forest fires," says Chase. "You just postpone them by building up fuels. This summer we're paying the price for more than a century of mismanagement."

Chase is concerned that a backlash to the natural-burn policy may produce the other extreme: the rapid extinguishing of all forest fires. Residents, tourists and area politicians have already sharply criticized the Park Service for waiting too long before moving to contain the latest blazes. "I question the wisdom of sticking to the policy in a year like this, with these severe drought and weather conditions," said Montana Senator Max Baucus, a Democrat. Wyoming Senator Malcolm Wallop, a Republican, agreed, adding his worry about the impact of the fires on the local economy. "We've had a catastrophe in our tourist industry," he said.

Yellowstone officials anticipate congressional oversight hearings, and some observers predict that the summer of 1988 will be a turning point in the debate over how fires should be managed. "This fire will be an example of what went right and what went wrong," says Willcox. But with many areas still blazing out of control late last week, such a postmortem won't take place until fall at the earliest, after nature finally snuffs out the last flames with rain and snow.

With reporting by Patrick Dawson/Yellowstone