What Our FOFA Comment Section Reveals About Our National Wildfire Debate: Part 1 of 2
The Misinformation Machine and the Myths that Keep it Running
Our recent series on the so-called “Fix Our Forests Act” (FOFA) drew in a gaggle of comments, many thoughtful and supportive, some misinformed, and some outright dismissive. Others repeated long-debunked talking points or revealed just how deep logging industry messaging runs. It was, in many ways, a snapshot of the wildfire conversation itself in the U.S.: passionate, polarized, and still tangled in myths about what actually protects forests and communities.
We decided to bring that conversation here, to unpack some of the recurring misconceptions we read and offer the science-based perspective that too often gets buried beneath industry soundbites, and seems to erase people’s ability to do basic research in the process. Below we include quotes from some of the recent comments that repeat various types of logging industry disinformation about forests and fire, followed by our responses.
1. Fire behavior and “fuel” are often misunderstood
“Forests that burn do not always ‘remain forests’ … fires burn in varying severity. The proportion of fires that burn at high severity continues to increase, and science says that it’s because there is too much fuel on those acres.”
Fires of all severities are primarily driven by wind, weather, and microclimate conditions, not by the amount of “fuel” or tree density. High-severity fire patches are a natural component of conifer forest fire regimes and they do occur, but they are not caused by excess “fuel.” The claim that forests that burn ‘do not always remain forests’ is misleading. High-severity fire creates one of the most biodiverse and ecologically important of all forest habitat types, complex early seral forest habitat, and forests naturally regenerate after such fire. A forest ceases to be a forest when trees and structure are mechanically removed, not because fire passes through and changes some live trees to standing snags that are vitally important to many dozens of cavity-nesting wildlife species. Logging exacerbates this problem by removing canopy cover and reducing wind buffers, making forests hotter, drier, and more ignitable.
In addition, annual area burned in forests has increased in recent decades, but not the proportion burned at high severity, and fire generally remains substantially below natural fire levels that occurred before fire suppression.
“Removal of ladder fuels … can greatly help restore an area to a state where ground fires won’t escalate to crown fires … you have to leave the most commercially valuable trees.”
Fires do not “climb” trees in forests. “Ladder fuels” – the small understory vegetation often cited – are part of a functioning ecosystem that supports biodiversity and regeneration after a fire. Claims that smaller trees must be removed to ‘restore’ forests frame them primarily as commercial resources rather than complex living systems, which makes it difficult to find common ground on their ecological value and the role they play in climate, wildlife, and community protection (notably, many mature trees are being logged under the guise of reducing “ladder fuels” in so-called “thinning” projects on national forests in the U.S.–this is common now). Further, the most current and comprehensive science contradicts the simplistic assumption that denser forests, with more “ladder fuels”, will have the most high-severity fire. As we note in JMP’s thinning/fire fact sheet, Hakkenberg et al. (2024) found that fire severity begins to decrease in forests with the highest densities of “ladder fuels,” and the U.S. Forest Service’s own scientists, in Lesmeister et al. (2021)–a huge 30-year analysis of several hundred wildfires–found that the forests with multi-layered canopies and the highest densities of trees had the lowest fire severities, due to the cooler, more humid, and less windy microclimate in dense forests.
“We have altered the forests so much that letting them take care of themselves isn’t productive … prescribed burning seems to be a good way to establish healthier forests.”
At JMP, we support managed wildfires, Indigenous cultural burning, and small-scale, intermittent prescribed burns. But trying to ‘restore’ forests through massive intervention is counterproductive. Unnaturally-frequent prescribed burning, conducted as a tactic to supposedly curb or prevent mixed-severity wildfires, can end up killing more trees than it prevents from being killed over time. In addition, to the extent that such unnatural fire policies do prevent high-severity fire, that’s not a good thing, ecologically. As discussed above, high-severity fire is a natural and ecologically necessary component of our conifer forests, and many native wildlife species have evolved to depend upon this unique forest habitat type.
2. Logging does not equal forest or community protection
“…Logged and grazed areas are by far easier to manage fire in.”
“Without thinning and management, the catastrophic fire burns old growth and new growth alike.”
“There are many places in the U.S. where responsible logging improves forests and makes them healthier and greener.”
FOFA promotes large-scale, industrial logging on public lands, not small, targeted management on private lands. Logging on public forestlands removes forest structure, dries soils, and eliminates the natural wind and moisture buffers that forests provide, increasing fire risk, not reducing it. Real protection focuses on communities: hardening homes, creating defensible space, and ensuring emergency preparedness. Also, forest “health” is a term used to justify continued logging miles away from communities, masking industry profits as ecological necessity and distracting from the measures that truly keep people safe and ecosystems protected.
3. Prescribed burns vs. industrial ‘thinning’
“It’s much more nuanced than this … depends on type of forest, return intervals missed, insects, and disease.”
Forest dynamics are complex, especially under the pressures of climate change. It’s important to remember, too, that forests are fire-adapted ecosystems. While Smokey Bear’s messaging rightly aimed to prevent human-caused ignitions, it failed to educate the public that mixed-severity fire is natural and necessary. Regardless of these variables, all commercial logging on public lands, which is typically done under the deceptive guises of ‘risk reduction,’ ‘community protection’, or ‘forest health,’ degrades canopy structure, fragments habitats, disrupts soil and root networks, and increases vulnerability to extreme weather events and fire behavior. By contrast, natural processes–like wildfire, blowdowns, insect activity, and disease–operate on their own timescales to cycle nutrients, create habitat heterogeneity, and support resilient forest structure. These processes allow forests to regenerate and adapt without human interference, whereas any level of extraction completely undermines the very mechanisms that make forests resilient. Remember, logging creates stumps, while fire creates ecologically-important snags.
“…partially fragmented ecosystems can be a good thing… leading to a patchwork mosaic of spatial heterogeneity – and thus, an increase in biodiversity.”
While mosaic patterns do occur naturally, human-led activity like logging does not replicate these patterns. The goal of “patchwork” ecosystems cannot justify widespread vegetation removal on remote public forests. Natural gaps are irregular and driven by environmental factors while those created from logging are determined by roads, access, and profit, removing contiguous areas and increasing the likelihood of human-caused ignitions. The intention behind this is not ecological – logging is profit-driven, not designed to support biodiversity, wildlife corridors, or ecosystem function. Again, logging creates fields of stumps, while fire creates patches of snags that support much of the biodiversity in the forest.
4. Misconceptions about historical logging
“But isn’t long-term timber logging, along with grazing, one of the foundational reasons for the creation of forest reserves?”
Actually, no. The national forest system was originally created by the Forest Reserve Act of 1891. Logging, livestock grazing, and mining were prohibited on the early national forests until logging interests pushed their go-to members of Congress at that time to insert an appropriations logging rider into the federal spending bill in 1897, allowing trees to be cut and sold from public forestlands. The public lands logging program is a 19th-century anachronism that has no place in a 21st-century world.
“Harvesting trees is more sensible than watching them die, rot, and clutter the forest floor.”
From a commercial perspective, while it may seem that dead or fallen trees are simply waste, they are actually critical components of forest ecosystems. Snags and rotting logs provide shelter, nesting sites, and food for birds, mammals, insects, and fungi. They recycle nutrients into the soil, support new growth, and help maintain moisture levels, creating a self-sustaining cycle that preserves forest structure. Removing these “cluttered” elements in the name of efficiency or fire prevention disrupts this cycle, leaving forests more vulnerable, less biodiverse, and less resilient over time. In other words, what might look like decay is actually nature’s way of keeping the forest alive and thriving.
Forests Deserve More Than Hot Takes – Pause, Question, Observe
Before drawing conclusions, we encourage curiosity, questions, and thorough research. Navigate the science, explore multiple perspectives and credible sources, be skeptical of sources and scientists funded by entities that financially benefit from logging (like the U.S. Forest Service) and consider the long-term impacts of interventions.
Forest systems are complex, resilient, and governed by natural cycles that far exceed human lifespans. Quick judgements and oversimplified analogies do a disservice to forest ecosystems and the cycles they depend upon, which pre-date us and, if we cease destructive interventions, will endure long after the next generations walk these lands.
The “Fix Our Forests Act” (FOFA) has passed out of the Senate Agriculture Committee and will soon be voted on by the full Senate. There is still time to make your voice heard. Please take action: read our action alert and tell your Senators to vote NO on FOFA. You can also call the Senate switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
Part 2 will delve into additional perspectives, explore recurring misconceptions from our social media discussion, and highlight further evidence on how forests regenerate and thrive when left to their natural processes.
With respect for knowledge and nature,
Bekah