How Bad Policy Fuels Wildfires

By Jason Hayes

Saturday, July 25, 2026

 

People throughout the Midwest and many Eastern states were recently reacquainted with the consequences of poor forest management as smoke from Canadian wildfires filled the skies. Green activists leaped into action, claiming that climate change is driving North American wildfires to dangerous new levels and that we must forgo essential energy sources such as fossil fuels to stop the smoke. But the inevitable results of their policies — higher taxes and a crippled economy — won’t stop wildfires, and they certainly won’t change the climate.

 

That’s because a changing climate isn’t the source of these wildfires. For the most part, people and lightning are.

 

Whatever its source, fire plays a natural and important role in forest ecosystems. It reduces “fuel loading” by removing dead and diseased trees and plants, clearing out densely treed areas, creating new openings, and renewing plant communities that provide vital habitat and browse for wildlife.

 

But fire can also be destructive and dangerous, especially when it threatens human lives and infrastructure. We saw this recently when wildfire smoke caused Detroit to experience the “worst air quality in the world.”

 

Over the past several decades, forest management practices have created the perfect conditions for large fires and greater risks to human health and well-being. Regulations governing the use of public lands have created a one-two punch: preservationist policies that lock people out of the natural environment and Smokey Bear-style efforts to extinguish every fire immediately.

 

The move to keep people out of natural areas was based on the mistaken notion that humans are inherently destructive. It led to vast areas of public lands being closed off and designated “untrammeled” wilderness. Human activities, such as cutting trees or mining for critical minerals, were made taboo by moneyed and powerful environmental groups. Though public lands were originally set aside for multiple uses, these groups would only approve low-impact activities, such as hiking.

 

At the same time, we compounded the problem by adopting the strategy of immediately extinguishing every wildfire and building more homes and businesses in the “wildland urban interface.” By banning the wise use of public lands and forests while continuing to live in and around them, we have enabled the fuels that feed wildfires — dead and dying trees, shrubs, and grasses — to accumulate. Consequently, when a fire hits, the damage can be expensive. (For example, see California earlier this year.)

 

This year, as in 2023, warm, dry conditions mixed with tens of thousands of lightning strikes in Canadian forests to ignite the wildfires that choked our skies with smoke and ash. Natural Resources Canada (NRC) and the Canadian Wildland Fire Information System reported that, as of July 22, roughly 900 active fires were burning, while more than 3,900 fires had burned approximately 8.2 million acres so far this year. Firefighters have responded heroically and the situation remains serious. The NRC’s weekly report for July 15 predicted “continued fire growth” as “hot and dry weather and lightning” continue to pressure many provinces.

 

In comparison, the United States is experiencing a busy but not record-breaking season. As of mid-July, the National Interagency Coordination Center reported 72 large active fires, with more than 21,000 firefighters assigned to fight the over 41,000 wildfires that have burned more than 3.9 million acres so far this year.

 

The reports coming out of Canada are undeniably concerning. However, while media figures and activists argue that the wildfires prove the existence of an existential climate threat, it’s important to remember that fire seasons like this are not unprecedented. We have seen similar reports before. North America experienced much larger fires and more intense temperatures long before we became concerned about potential human influence on the climate.

 

The 1825 Miramichi Fire, for example, burned 3 million acres across New England. In October 1871,  the Peshtigo Fire, described as “the most devastating forest fire in American history” by the National Weather Service, burned 1.5 million acres across northeastern Wisconsin and killed over 1,200 people. On the “Dark Day” — May 19, 1780 — thick smoke from massive fires in the Canadian province of Ontario turned day into night across New England. Frightened Connecticut legislators at the time believed that the smoke “signified the Day of Judgment.”

 

Green activists will argue that solving the wildfire challenge requires abandoning essential energy sources such as gasoline and natural gas. But decades of on-the-ground experience tell a different story. The most effective methods of mitigating wildfire damage involve basic management techniques.

 

First, scale up fuel-reduction activities, especially near human communities and infrastructure, and focus on proactive management rather than reactive fire suppression.

 

Second, streamline permit approvals to encourage active forest management and allow activities such as harvesting, spacing, thinning, and the reintroduction of prescribed fire into forest ecosystems. This will allow these essential management activities to take place under controlled conditions, creating jobs and encouraging the use of renewable forest products.

 

Finally, ground forest management in silviculture, related forest sciences, and long-term fire regimes rather than green feelings and anti-human sentiment. Sticking to the green plans that discourage the use of forest products, lock people out of the natural environment, and prioritize the reduction of CO₂ — which, as we all learned in grade school science, is plant food — will address only the symptoms, not the underlying causes.