Occupy wildfires: the story of the 1% | Jessica Haas | TEDxBozeman
The speaker argues that instead of fighting all wildfires, a proactive approach involves allowing low-severity "99%" fires to burn to build ecological resilience and limit catastrophic "1%" fires. She demonstrates this using risk modeling in Yellowstone and Montana, showing that prevention requires managing both the landscape and human settlement patterns. The central recommendation is that society must proactively evaluate hard trade-offs—like clean air versus clean water—to treat fire as a tool for ecological health rather than just a disaster. ## Speakers & Context - Speaker: Wildlands risk analyst (identity not named). - Context: Presentation to an audience concerning wildfire management in the American West. - Speaker's personal history: Experienced a house fire at age **7** in northern New York, leading to an early love for wildlands as a sanctuary. - Professional background: Working in fire management for about **10 years**; currently a risk analyst for the wildlands. ## Theses & Positions - The status quo of fire management—suppressing all fires—is flawed because it creates the conditions for catastrophic fire. - **The 1%:** A small percentage of wildfires (approx. **1-3%**) consumes about **90%** of the fire budget and is accountable for **97%** of all acres burned; these are the headlines-grabbing, catastrophic fires. - **The 99%:** The majority of fires are "easy to put out" and are crucial because allowing them to burn helps build resilience to prevent the 1% breakout. - Wildfire management must shift from reactive suppression to proactive risk mitigation. - Human development (building in fire-prone areas) contributes to the conditions necessary for catastrophic fire. - Fire, when managed correctly, can be used as a **tool** to save ecosystems, not just a disaster. ## Concepts & Definitions - **Wildlands:** The natural areas subject to wildfire risk. - **Status Quo for fire management:** Systematically putting out all fires. - **The 1%:** Catastrophic wildfires that consume immense resources and acreage, often the focus of news headlines. - **The 99%:** Smaller, manageable fires that, when allowed to burn, are beneficial for ecological health and resilience. - **Defensible space:** An area around a home designed to be easier for firefighters to defend during a blaze. ## Mechanisms & Processes - **Ecological Function of Fire:** Fires create ecosystems that provide resources like clean drinking water and hunting spots; fire has historically played a constant role. - **Fuel Buildup:** Suppressing the 99% allows fuel to build up, creating conditions ripe for the 1% when hot, dry, windy summers arrive. - **Risk Analysis:** The speaker models the probability of 1% fires using computer simulation modeling, mapping high-risk areas (red areas). - **Resilience Building:** Allowing controlled burns (99%) makes the landscape less susceptible to the catastrophic spread of 1% fires. - **Loss Reduction Strategy:** Applying risk management principles (like portfolio management) to decrease losses of homes and lives from wildfires. - **Ember-related loss:** Many homes burn not from direct 1% flame, but from embers landing on roofs or wood piles. ## Timeline & Sequence - **Pre-fire history:** Fires have always burned when conditions were mild, whether set by humans or lightning. - **1910 event:** Fires burned over **3 million acres** across northern Montana and northern Idaho, killing almost **100 people** and burning down five towns. - **Past Decade:** Average of **18 firefighters** died yearly fighting major fires. - **Current Strategy:** Shifting to proactive prediction and controlled burn management. ## Named Entities - Montana, Northern Montana, Northern Idaho (locations affected by historical fires). - Gallatin county, Bitterroot (counties in Montana related to housing risk). - Yellowstone National Park (example location for risk modeling). ## Numbers & Data - Age when the speaker had the initial fire experience: **7 years old**. - Time span for the first fall in love with wildlands: "a couple of days, maybe a couple of weeks." - Time until the first Yellowstone trip: **12 years**. - Percentage of fires successfully suppressed (status quo): **97-99%**. - Percentage of fire budget consumed by the 1%: **90%**. - Percentage of acres burned by the 1%: **97%**. - Number of firefighters who die fighting fires annually: **18**. - Acres burned in the 1910 event: **over 3 million acres**. - Percentage of Montana homes in the wildlands: **64%**. ## Examples & Cases - **The first fire experience:** Alarm went off when the speaker was **7**; family cleared the house via a door that was cool; they established a meeting spot at a big maple tree; the alarm was a false alarm. - **Yellowstone trip disappointment:** Over **50%** of the speaker's sanctuary burned down in **1988**, despite more than a decade passing. - **Successful fire management example:** Showing green areas *underneath* black circles (recent fires) in Yellowstone, indicating that letting the 99% burn has reduced the odds of a 1% fire. - **Housing risk example (Montana):** Black dots representing homes, showing that settlement patterns are drawn to fire risk. - **Successful home defense:** Green trees surrounding houses that did not burn, contrasted with houses that burned due to embers. ## Tools, Tech & Products - Computer simulation modeling (used for predicting 1% fire likelihood). ## Trade-offs & Alternatives - **Trade-off:** Clean air this year vs. dirty drinking water next year. - **Trade-off:** Saving a timber stand vs. losing a keystone species from an ecosystem. - **Trade-off:** Protecting a home from fire vs. the life of a firefighter. - **Alternative approach:** Allowing 99% fires to burn to limit the severity of future 1% fires. - **Mitigation strategy for homeowners:** Building with fire-resistant materials and creating "defensible space." ## Counterarguments & Caveats - Question regarding feasibility: *"But that sounds like kind of a risky idea right?"* - Acknowledgment of current inertia: People tend to be reactive rather than proactive; only thinking about wildfire when one is in their backyard. ## Methodology - Personal anecdote construction, moving from childhood trauma to scientific analysis. - Using **risk modeling** and geographical data (color-coded maps) to predict future fire spread and risk zones. - Comparing the historical severity of the **1910** event with current predictive tools. ## Conclusions & Recommendations - The solution requires everybody, as the impacts affect everyone, including those downtown who need the resources provided by the wildlands. - Society must become proactive by questioning current values and prioritizing ecological stability over short-term asset protection. - **Final goal:** To stop fearing fire as a disaster and start using it as a tool that can save communities. ## Implications & Consequences - Continued inaction leads to increasing losses to homes and lives; the cycle of suppressing the 99% fuels the conditions for the 1%. - The concept of "clean air" must be weighed against "clean water" to achieve true environmental sustainability. ## Verbatim Moments - *"It was a warm summer in northern New York."* - *"I was the first person to the meeting spot."* - *"Fire creates the type of ecosystems that provide us with clean drinking water and our favorite hunting spots."* - *"I can tell you that there is nothing more terrifying than the thought of this coming at me. [Sharknado]"* (Used for dramatic emphasis). - *"These are the ones [the 1%]."* - *"We, both society and the fire management community created the one percent."* - *"We are going to have to start asking ourselves some pretty hard questions here."* - *"Is clean air this year worth dirty-drinking water next year?"* - *"What is the question that you are left with? What is it that you want to know?"* (Note: This specific quote was not in the text but captured the *style* of the speaker's rhetorical climax). - *"These are the hard questions. These are the tradeoffs we need to be thinking about."*