Armed ranchers confront firefighters on Tepee Springs fire

Armed ranchers confront firefighters on Tepee Springs fire

01 October 2015

published by

USA–  The Forest Service is investigating a report by a firefighter that he and others fighting the Tepee Springs Fire near Riggins were harassed and threatened with guns by landowners.

The unidentified firefighter said the landowners were unhappy that firefighters were not directly fighting the fire that was burning in a steep watershed that drained into the Salmon River. Fire managers had decided to use an indirect strategy to fight the fire because of safety concerns.

The report, filed on the National Interagency Fire Center’s SAFENET page, is designed to give firefighters a voice in safety decisions and to direct managers to safety concerns. The report was published in the online firefighter’s web magazine Wildfire Today, along with a response from the landowners of Mountain View Elk Ranch on the West Fork of Lake Creek, three miles east of Riggins.

The incidents began Sept. 2, when fire behavior was still extreme. It ended four days later, after cooler temperatures and rain reduced the ferocity of the fire that had closed the Salmon River Road for most of the month.

“The landowners, on multiple occasions, expressed frustration towards firefighters (for) their suppression actions, which ranged from verbal threats to aggressive posturing. Law enforcement officers were called on multiple occasions and the incident eventually resulted in two of the landowners verbally accosting a BLM employee while armed with a weapon,” the firefighter said in the report. “The landowners made multiple unsafe demands to firefighters, such as downhill line construction in extremely rugged terrain with fire below them; attempting burnouts on mid-slope (bull)dozer lines with no escape routes or safety zones, and to drop water from helicopters with (the landowners) in the work zone.

“During at least one documented occasion, the landowners took it upon themselves to attempt a burnout and began igniting fire below crews without any communication or warning. Crews had to be pulled to safe areas.”

Brad and Sarah Walters, the son and daughter-in-law of the elk ranch owners, published a detailed response to the firefighter’s filing on Wildfire Today. I spoke with Sarah Walters Tuesday; she said she was a firefighter for five years, and her family didn’t want firefighters to take any action that risked lives. She denied that the ranchers made any threats, started any fires or did anything wrong.

She did acknowledge family members carried sidearms when federal law enforcement officers arrived on the ranch.

“They brought the federal agents on our ground first,” Walters said. “We never threatened anybody with anything.”

Walters said they carry sidearms on the ranch 90 percent of the time.

“We said there was no reason for federal officers to be there,” she added. “We were just trying to save what was left of our animals and our ranch.”

The Tepee Springs Fire burned 95,000 acres before firefighters said it was contained Sept. 24. The number of firefighters has dropped from more than 700 to 15 today, said Brian Harris, a spokesman for the U.S. Forest Service.

“We’re still battling this fire,” Walters said. “They say it’s 100 percent contained. It’s not.”

Harris said there are still hot spots in the West Fork of Lake Creek and other parts of the fire. The West Fork lies in the 9 percent of the fire where firefighters have used a confinement strategy, instead of containment. There they use helicopters to drop bucketsful of water.

“For firefighter safety purposes, we did not go direct in fighting the fire in the West Fork area, so we did construct an indirect containment line to the west,” Harris said.

Later firefighters built a check fire line to keep fire from burning on to the ranch. But several refused to return because of the earlier confrontations. Walters said the fire burned through their ranch twice previously, but that their animals — including elk and bison — “are OK.”

Beth Lund, a Forest Service regional fire official from Ogden, said in the SAFENET corrective actions section that the agency “takes firefighter safety very serious, is looking in to this matter further and will provide further response and follow-up.”

When I asked the Forest Service for comment, I got this: “The issues brought forward … are being reviewed by a group of interagency leaders. We continue to encourage open dialog about safety concerns and will follow up as deemed appropriate.”
 I find it remarkable that after several decades of forest and peatland fires, and associated haze problems, governmental and non-governmental organisations are still barking up the wrong tree in the fire and haze blaming game.

In a recentJakarta Globe article, President Joko Widodo talks tough on fires and haze, blaming “disobedient plantation companies for setting the fires to clear land for planting”. Similarly, the article quotes environmental activists who point to plantation companies for being the biggest cause of fires and haze.

Dear, oh dear — does anyone ever read the studies about causes of forest fire and haze in Indonesia? Apparently not. Or maybe people do, but they prefer to ignore the facts and reiterate the more convenient fictions.

Complex problem

So I say it again, just in case there is someone out there willing to listen. Studies of fire and haze in Kalimantan and Sumatra point firmly towards small-scale farmers and other under-the-radar, mid-scale land-owners, rather than large companies as the main cause of fires and haze.

A study published last month in the journal Environmental Research Letters clearly shows that, on Sumatra, 59 per cent of fire emissions originate from outside timber and oil-palm concession boundaries. These non-concession-related fires generated 62 per cent of smoke exposure in equatorial South-east Asia (primarily Singapore and Malaysia).

In Kalimantan, non-concession fires play an even bigger role. Fires outside concessions generated 73 per cent of all emissions and 76 per cent of smoke affecting equatorial South-east Asia.

These findings are in line with similar results based on more detailed studies in Riau and published in Nature last year. In Riau, 52 per cent of the total burnt area in 2013 was within concessions. However, 60 per cent of these burned areas were occupied and used by small and medium landholders.

And another scientific publication on the causes of Indonesian forest fires showed that, even 15 years ago, when oil-palm companies were involved a lot more frequently than now in land-clearing with fire, rural communities were a dominant cause of fires in both Sumatra and Kalimantan.

The key point is that the fire and haze problem in Indonesia is complex, with multiple actors playing a role. Focusing on large concessions alone, which the Indonesian government and also non-government organisations seem to do, is not going to do much to reduce the problem.

If the President wants “no more forest fires next year”, his government needs to get realistic about real causes and think about how to address these effectively.

Anyone who has ever spent time in Kalimantan or Sumatra during the dry season knows that burning land for agriculture, for hunting, or just for fun is a favourite pastime of many. Most districts have laws in place that prohibit this kind of burning, but the big issue is that no one pays any heed to these laws and consequently, they are largely ignored.

A new approach

If the Indonesian government really wants to reduce the fire and haze problem, it needs to get far more specific in its management. Setting up task forces that look out for fires so that they can direct fire-fighting helicopters and cloud-seeding activities in the right direction are mostly window-dressing and will not do much to reduce the underlying problem of Indonesia’s many arsonists. An expert meeting on the fire problem on Aug 25 similarly recommended shifting the emphasis from fire-fighting to fire prevention.

First, and most immediately, you start with law enforcement. You get the army and police involved to track down anyone illegally setting fire to land, and take legal action. If the law says burning is illegal, prosecute the perpetrators — how hard is that? You advertise burning prohibitions widely, through radio, television, newspapers, social media, billboards and public speeches by governors, district heads and others. And you make sure that everyone understands that this time, it is serious.

In the longer term, Sumatra and Kalimantan may need somewhat different approaches. On Sumatra, where most fire emissions are generated from peat lands, the government has to stop giving out concession licences on coastal peats. As I argued before, plantation development in coastal peatlands is unsustainable and will cause major economic losses to Indonesia. These peat lands need to be reforested and their original hydrology restored. That is the only way to stop peat burning.

In Kalimantan, where burning by local communities plays an even bigger role than in Sumatra, the focus may need to be more on stopping unsustainable slash-and-burn cultivation activities, especially in peat lands. Develop solid agricultural support programmes that provide subsidies for non-destructive land uses that use more advanced fertilisation and irrigation techniques and higher-yield crops.

Ultimately, Indonesia urgently needs to start taking the costs of development into consideration and not focus only on the benefits.

Fires and haze, just like flooding, water pollution, increased temperatures following deforestation and other issues, are costing society tens of billions of dollars in damage annually, but this is rarely noted by those in power. Fires and haze alone caused US$3.5 billion (RM15.07 billion) of losses to Indonesia in the past few years, according to the Jakarta Globe.

Who is counting the costs of floods that increase with deforestation and displace up to half-a-million people annually in Kalimantan alone?

And has anyone even tried to estimate the major economic impact of the much higher temperatures that prevail after a forest has been turned into a grassland or plantation?

Communities complain a lot about the heat, the associated reduced crop yields and the disease outbreaks. They know the costs, but who else is listening?

The science is there to inform decisions on all levels of government and to find lasting solutions, for Indonesia’s own sake. — The Jakarta Globe

– See more at:

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
WP-Backgrounds Lite by InoPlugs Web Design and Juwelier Schönmann 1010 Wien