The Illusion of Control Ready to Tip Some Sacred Cows?

Spring 2016 ▲ Vol. 6 Issue 1 ▲ Produced and distributed quarterly by the Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center

The Illusion of Control Ready to tip some sacred cows?

By Travis Dotson

n the wildland fire service, we suffer from an “Illusion of Control”. This illusion is so pervasive it’s never even acknowledged, let alone discussed. The ever I present assumption that complete control is possible puts us in a constant cognitive struggle to make sense of the frequent evidence to the contrary.

We are not in control of the elements influencing fire, we are not in control of the other humans influencing our situation, and we are not even in control of our own perception of what the situation is.

In spite of all this uncertainty, as we step into this dynamic and complex environment, we convince ourselves we are in control of our own safety.

This unconscious self-deception—the illusion of control—is feeding our well-intentioned efforts to “get better” at our current way of doing things. What if we dropped the illusion and accepted all the instances in which we gamble? Could this acknowledgment provide a new perspective on when and where we are willing and not willing to take

chances in this line of work? Maybe.

In spite of all this uncertainty, as we step into this Good old Wikipedia says: “The illusion of control is the tendency for people to overestimate their ability to control events.” Notice that the illusion stems dynamic and complex environment, we convince from overestimating one’s ability to control. This is an important distinction.

ourselves we are in control of our own safety. Complicating the matter, Wikipedia goes on to inform: “The illusion is more

common in familiar situations, and in situations where the person knows the

desired outcome.”

I am rather familiar with the fire line. When I’m there I know what the desired outcome is. If I come upon a stretch of line dotted with sketchy leaner snags I tell myself to be “super heads-up” when I walk through. If I scramble down that piece of dirt and don’t get smashed—especially if a snag creaks and wobbles and I pick up the pace—when I’m back at the truck I can give myself credit for surviving (overestimating the extent of my control). But let’s face it, I was just rolling the dice. And I got lucky.

Sticks and Stones For the most part, we accept the gambling involved with heavy things falling down onto us. Tops of trees and granite masses of multiple sizes whiz by us on a fairly regular basis. When someone does get mangled by forest shrapnel, we typically attribute this to “wrong place/wrong time”—which means chance (bad luck). [Continued on Page 3]

In this Issue

Changing the Way You Think About “Zero” Page 2 Four Receive Paul Gleason Lead By Example Award Page 7

Jeremy Bailey: Promoting a Prescribed Fire Workforce Page 8 YOUR FEEDBACK Page – Our readers speak out Page 13 1

Ground By Travis Dotson

Fire Management Specialist Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center Truths [email protected]

The Problem with Zero

t’s the latest cool guy thing to complain about, it’s “impossible to be surprised by fire if you have LCES in along with skinny jeans, smart phones, and place”. Of course, the only way to measure this is to wait I drones—in the catch-all category of “kids these until an entrapment occurs and then use the entrapment days”. (“Get off my lawn!”) Oh how we love to rail as proof of inadequate LCES. Circular reasoning at its against the goal of Zero fatalities and what it finest. illustrates. Why Can’t We Do It? Get any two Ops-Nazis (Opsies?) with dirty Nomex Back to the question: If the goal is altered from Zero together and you can have hours of perfectly pleasant fatalities to Zero entrapments, do you now support it? conversation about overtime and ridiculous conjecture Probably not, because something deep down tells you this about the certain enormity of fire season somewhere. isn’t possible either. But drop the “Zero” turd and the punch bowl gets After all, there is the data—by which I mean the absence punchy. Eyes roll immediately. Heads shake. Well- of an entrapment-less fire season. My point is, if it’s as easy as LCES, practiced snorts escape nostrils. why can’t we do it? “It’s just not possible!” “This job is inherently dangerous!” The answer to that is “them”: The bad firefighter who can’t seem to “It’s just like driving a car . . .” get LCES right. OK, if that’s the case, why do we have so many of “them”? I’ve participated in my fair share of that predictable public performance, but lately I can’t stomach it. Even with our haphazard reporting, in just the past 25 years we have recorded over 130 entrapment incidents (nearly twice the number I can’t help but notice the irony of our well-scripted tirades. For, in of “Hit by Tree” incidents) involving more than 800 individuals. the very next breath, we switch gears right into how we need to That’s quite a few sisters and brothers to write off as bad apples. “get back to basics”. This is code for old-timer fuzzy math which goes like this: Even more telling than these numbers are I’m a good firefighter + I’ve never been the individuals. I have a hard time believing entrapped = Entrapments are entirely I’m a better firefighter than Dave Ruhl, avoidable. Mark Loutzenhiser, Rick Lupe, or countless other dialed-in folks who’ve seen the flames This perspective would support the notion close over them. that zero entrapments is possible—just be good. So the next time you roll your eyes at “Zero” and start to robotically repeat the What if the Goal was Zero Entrapments? “inherently dangerous” line, include In the debate over Zero, the distinction no entrapments in the “inevitable” category. one is talking about is fatalities vs And believe it, because as long as we entrapments. When we get angry about the anchor, flank, and pinch, it’s gonna happen. unrealistic nature of the golden goose egg in the sky, what we cite is all the instances of death from above Change the Way You Think (trees and rocks), vehicle accidents, and the apparently inevitable What does this mean for you? It means change the way you think. phenomena of big machines falling out of the sky and rolling down This will change the way you talk. Changing the way we talk will alter hillsides. Those are the losses we point to as unavoidable. But what young firefighters hear. entrapment? That’s just bad firefighting. Bad decision-making. Bad deciders. The way we currently do business, entrapments are normal outcomes—just like fatal trees, rocks, and rollovers. Acknowledging So what if we kept Zero but changed the goal? this permits our youth to imagine a different approach.

What if the goal was Zero entrapments? Is it any different now? Do Who knows, it could even move us toward Zero. you all of a sudden cheer and stomp with support? After all, it’s so simple. Just make damn sure you have LCES in place. I’ve been told Think Change, Toolswingers. 2

[Continued from Page 1] To be realistic, on any given day it’s a good bet to go into the woods with the expectation of not getting hit by a tree or rock, but it’s still a bet. Now, enter all the elements we typically face: fire weakened trees, wind, compromised root systems, bug kill, poor visibility, tough ground, etc. The odds get worse, but then we “mitigate” right?

Send fallers in ahead of time, set a wind speed threshold, avoid really bad areas, etc. Being anywhere in there is still a gamble. We don’t even need to go into any detail about rocks. If there’s slope and chunks of solid mineral material, gravity does its finest work and we just cross our fingers and stay “super heads up”.

Again, with trees and rocks, most of us accept the fact that we’re rolling the dice. We are instructed to believe that our own ability to “keep our head on a swivel” is solely responsible for our continued existence, which further escalates our commitment to the illusion of control.

Entrapped By Our Beliefs We love to rail against the goal of “zero fatalities” and drone on and on about the “inherently dangerous” nature of our business. But right out of the other side of our mouth comes a long list of things that can “guarantee” us not being entrapped by fire. Ready to tip some sacred cows?

I’m not saying all the advice dispensed in the long list of lists isn’t helpful. I’m just saying we need to acknowledge all the assumptions that are baked into them. Let’s go right to the king of the lists:

The Ten Standard Fire Orders

Assumption One: All of these actions are POSSIBLE (within our control). Have you ever KNOWN what your fire was doing at ALL times? Think of all the simple and complex ways you have been surprised by fire.

Assumption Two: Humans are capable of flawless performance (it’s possible to get everything right all the time). When I’m not thinking clearly due to the carbon monoxide in my brain from the smoke I’ve been living in for a week without adequate rest and extreme physical exertion, having a list tell me to “think clearly” doesn’t remedy the situation.

Then there is the king assumption above all else and the hardest one to let go of: Assumption Three: It’s possible to FIGHT fire safely. (Note: Not interact with fire, but FIGHT.) To believe this, you have to believe that in this dynamic, complex, unpredictable environment, individuals are to blame for bad outcomes. To believe this is to say only “bad firefighters” get hurt or killed (especially by entrapment). This last order sets us up for the circular logic used in the aftermath of tragedy: “They died, so they obviously didn’t provide for safety first.” While this is a convenient method for self-soothing (I won’t die because I DO provide for safety first), its utility on the fire ground is questionable and might even be destructive. Difficult Pill to Swallow I realize there is a group out there shaking their fists and shouting:

“Blasphemy!” Trust me, I know how difficult a pill this is to swallow. I I’m just asking you know it’s easier to just spit the pill out and keep on doing your part to support the Illusion of Control. to consider this more realistic perspective. I’m just asking you to consider this more realistic perspective. Just try it Just try it out for a bit and see how it feels. out for a bit and see how it feels. Consider for a moment how it would

feel to have less control than we would like, knowing full well you have

no choice but to jump right back into the “I have control” mindset to go out and swing a tool.

The Absence of Zero Risk Alternatives One area we almost all agree on is the absence of zero risk alternatives. I’m fairly certain there are very few folks out there who believe we can mitigate our way out of risk completely. The 2016 Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations (Red Book) recognizes this: “Our safety philosophy acknowledges that while the ideal level of risk may be zero, a hazard free work environment is not a reasonable or achievable goal in fire operations.” Pretty straight forward.

The Red Book goes on to state that: “The primary means by which we implement command decisions and maintain unity of action is through the use of common principles of operations. These principles guide our fundamental wildland fire management practices, behaviors, and customs, and are mutually understood at every level of command. They include Risk Management, Standard Firefighting Orders and Watch Out Situations, LCES and the Downhill Line Construction Checklist. These principles are fundamental to how we perform fire operations, and are intended to improve decision making and firefighter safety. They are not absolute rules. They require judgment in application.”

[Continued on Page 4] 3

[Continued from Page 3] So none of our lists are “absolute rules”. And, I would add that thinking of them as “rules” only serves to entrench us in The supporter of these lists being absolute rules our Illusion of Control. The supporter of these lists being absolute rules typically believes in the fantasy of “just follow the rules and nobody gets typically believes in the fantasy of “just follow the hurt”. rules and nobody gets hurt”. As a crew leader, what is your primary duty? Is it to get work done? Is it to bring all your crewmembers home safely? I know your answer is “both”. That’s exactly why we are so invested in the Illusion of Control. We have to believe we are in control to “get off the bus”, to feel OK with “engaging” in any format. We have to believe we are in control to take on the charge of “bringing everyone home safe”—even though this charge devastates survivors.

Did the crew leader fail when a random rock or snag kills a firefighter? No!

By the same token, did a crew leader fail when their fireground prediction was wrong—no matter what the reason—and the crew is overrun by fire? That is where we are less willing to emphatically shout “No!” because it makes us uncomfortable. It challenges our own Illusion of Control.

I’m not saying there isn’t skill involved in our work, of course there is. Skill is an enormous part of our job and we have honed it to a very sharp point. We are good, more than good, we are outstanding at navigating the complexity of the environment we face. We have gotten better and better over time and we will continue to improve. But we will never be in complete control. And we will never improve to the point of perfection. I truly believe there is benefit in acknowledging that.

Let’s back off from that stuff for a bit. We’ll come back to it. Maybe we should explore where this Illusion of Control came from, where was it born and who fed it so consistently—enabling it to grow as big and strong as it is.

The Illusion of Control is nothing new, it’s just part of our wiring. Many of us work for “land management” agencies whose very premise is rooted in the notion that intentional human intervention is needed for “the greater good”. Belief in our ability to control is crucial to that effort.

You Ever Heard of ‘Jetty Jacks’? Have you ever heard of “jetty jacks”? These large, crossed-steel structures built to trap sediment and stabilize river banks were used in an attempt to tame the Rio Grande starting in the 1940s. They served their purpose but now present a dilemma for all land owners involved. The modern day complexity resulting from the initially simple solution is well documented in Taking Out the Jacks: Issues of Jetty Jack Removal in Bosque and River Restoration Planning, by Kathy Grassel, 2002.

This paper explains how “jetty jacks contributed to the success of the massive human undertaking of reshaping the Rio Grande for the protection of property, levees, and riverbanks from flooding.”

As the use of these simple tools increased, those in charge realized they could convert the meandering and braided river into a more convenient straight channel down the middle of the Rio Grande Valley. In relation to our modern day, the author explains: “Jetty jacks in a post-dam era have lost their function.” The paper goes on to discuss “issues surrounding their former usefulness, present redundancy, and potential stumbling blocks to their removal”. Jetty Jacks The Failure to Predict Downstream Complications If you’re not getting where I’m going with this, let me help you out. When we engineer solutions to a problem we are currently facing, we rarely predict all of the potential downstream complications that we may be creating in the process, as in the case of jetty jacks.

What if some of the older “solutions” we have implemented in the wildland fire arena have actually “lost their function” and we just haven’t We have gotten better and better over time and acknowledged it yet?

we will continue to improve. But we will never More likely, it’s not the solutions themselves, but rather the perspective which spawned them that is problematic. The perspective of “Fire as the be in complete control. And we will never Enemy” obviously framed the problem in such a way that produced improve to the point of perfection. I truly believe exactly what we currently have, an organization unable to extract itself from adversarial language related to fire. there is benefit in acknowledging that.

[Continued on Page 5]

[Continued from Page 4] With language

driving culture and culture driving America in the 1950s wasn’t all lollipops and action, it makes sense to be where we daisies. Part of the fabric of the time was a are today. The problem, however, is that the language supports the old general tendency toward control, with the problem frame. And maintaining that frame limits our ability to innovate. I am default response to any problem being force. curious about what possibilities would Overpower. Eliminate. Defeat . . . And it comes emerge were we to shed this limiting perception? For better or worse, we through loud and clear in the Fire Orders. love the idea of an enemy to defeat. It

feeds our power-driven Illusion of

Control. And, it sells T-shirts.

The Context in Which These Solutions were Imagined Now back to those Fire Orders. Let’s talk about them in the context of their inception. What else was going on when these well-intentioned words were crafted? Who created them and what was the typical view of the world at the time? We all know the story, our very essence is rooted in our retelling of the lessons written in the blood and the glory of our pursuit.

"Surely these men gave their lives in defense of this country, for without the strength of our forests, water, and other natural resources, this Nation would not be a leader in the free world today." Richard E. McArdle, Chief, U.S. Forest Service, January 1957

This powerful statement linking our business directly to leading the free world came after 11 fatalities on the Inaja Fire of 1956 which spurred the creation of a task force to tackle two very clear objectives:

1. Recommend further action needed in both administration and research to materially reduce the chances of men being killed by burning while fighting fire.

2. Recommend ways to develop experts in fire behavior.

Many efforts resulted from this endeavor, including—but not limited to—the creation and adoption of the Ten Standard Firefighting Orders.

What I want to examine is the context in which these solutions were imagined. What did America, and the world for that matter, look like and what was the perspective of those charged with tackling the socially unpopular recurrence of dead firefighters?

1957 America As the Ten Standard Fire Orders were being crafted, the United States was deep in the Cold War. As our collective fear of Communism blossomed we dreamt up the notion of “Mutually Assured Destruction” which included “Massive Retaliation” as part of our foreign policy.

The memory of dropping two atomic bombs on Japan was fresh in our minds. The culture of the time relating to anything unwanted was to overpower and destroy it, both overseas and domestically. Here at home we were just wrapping up an era of well-supported public persecution, eventually known as McCarthyism. At the same time, the U.S. Government was in the height of intentionally dismantling Native American communities through the “Indian Termination Policy”. Yes, it was literally called “Termination”. The Civil Rights Movement—and resistance to it—was in full swing.

What does this have to do with the Fire Orders? Context matters. America in the 1950s wasn’t all lollipops and daisies. Part of the fabric of the time was a general tendency toward control, with the default Having your default response set to “fight” has response to any problem being force. Overpower. Eliminate. Defeat. consequences. It sets you up for periodic defeat, This is the unquestioned vernacular depicting the go-to tactic for maintaining accepted norms. And it comes through loud and clear in which we have certainly proven with our the Fire Orders. continued combat with fire.

Having your default response set to “fight” has consequences. It sets you up for periodic defeat, which we have certainly proven with our continued combat with fire. [Continued on Page 6]

A Small Group Who Started Pushing Back [Continued from Page 5] I am by no means the first to question the utility of our sacred lists. After South Canyon, the fire community was shaken to its core. Much discussion regarding the Ten Standard Orders ensued. Most folks reacted with the mantra: “We don’t bend them; we don’t break them”.

There were also a few individuals who started asking harder questions and pushing back:

 Effective Firefighting Calls For Bending Rules Sometimes – Quentin Rhoades, 1994

 Human Limitations vs. Superhuman Expectations – Jim Cook, 1995

 The Ten Standard Firefighting Orders: Can Anyone Follow Them? – Ted Putnam, 2002

I am by no means the first to question the utility of our sacred lists. After South Canyon, the fire community was shaken to its core. Much discussion regarding the Ten Standard Orders ensued.

Acknowledging that we consistently overestimate our level of control is just one more reason to accept that “mistakes” are well within the range of “normal” on the spectrum of human performance and that a system dependent on flawless human performance is unsound and unjust.

In the paper cited above, Ted Putnam wrote: “These ‘orders’ are deceptive in that they seem to be basic actions firefighters can accomplish. It is only on closer inspection and considering them in light of what is behaviorally possible that it becomes apparent that none of them can be followed, as stated, let alone following them all simultaneously as management suggests.”

Admitting that We Don’t Know Everything So what does all this mean? The existence and continued use of the Fire Orders only serves to confirm our very real Illusion of Control. I’m not certain we can eliminate the Illusion of Control—I’m not even sure we want to.

I do feel like there is benefit in acknowledging it. We’ve said it before: Uncertainty Exists. I’m suggesting the effect of uncertainty on our objectives is most problematic when the uncertainty goes unrecognized. What if we chose to admit that we don’t know everything, including what the fire will do and how we will react?

The ultimate assumption in the Fire Orders—and just about every other tool in our toolbox—is that the system surrounding the individual is perfect and bad outcomes are the result of some individual’s poor performance (AKA “human error”).

Asking the Question has Merit The other unspoken assumption in almost every list or piece of guidance we have is that, overall, our objective is to overpower the fire—to fight. But this flies in the face of the current fad of waxing poetic about identifying and protecting “values at risk”—most notably, our very vulnerable human workforce.

What windows open when we reimagine our mission and the intent of our actions on a given assignment? Can we even open that window while subscribing to marching orders born of an aggressive and simplistic worldview more than a half-century ago?

I don’t have the answer. But I am confident that asking the question has merit.

We are not in complete control. And the sooner we admit that, the sooner we can get busy innovating our way to safer interactions with fire.

Four Individuals Receive Annual Paul Gleason Lead by Example Award

Based on their work in support of the Wildland Fire Leadership Development Program, four people have received the 2015 Paul Gleason Lead by Example Award. This annual award is presented by the NWCG Leadership Subcommittee. Its intent is to recognize individuals or groups who exhibit Gleason’s professional spirit and who exemplify the Wildland Fire Leadership values and principles of duty, respect, and integrity.

Tommy Hayes Mentoring and Teamwork Tommy Hayes, Equipment Specialist with BLM Fire Operations and Safety at the National Interagency Fire Center, is recognized for his authentic leadership and strong example of the Wildland Fire Leadership values and principles. Tommy is known for his efforts and commitment following the South Canyon Fire and how that experience created his passion to assist others during times of crises. His service as a member of the BLM Honor Guard has been instrumental in bringing about change within the wildland fire service to honor those lost in the line of duty. As a Family Liaison/Advocate, Tommy has committed himself to a lifetime of service that far exceeds his everyday duties. “The unconditional love you exhibit for those you encounter—whether through crisis or on a day-to-day basis—is an example of what right looks like and is an inspiration to all,” said Shane Olpin, Chairman of the NWCG Leadership Subcommittee.

Jerry Ingersoll Motivation and Vision Jerry Ingersoll, Forest Supervisor on the Siuslaw National Forest in Region 6, is recognized for his support of the Facilitated Learning Analysis (FLA) concept. As a cadre member for the FLA Workshop, Jerry has assisted in developing people for the future—for future FLAs and preparation for learning from unintended outcomes. “Your willingness to devote personal time and energy to change the way the fire community looks at accidents has helped provide a cultural shift in wildland fire management as well as in safety management in general,” said Shane Olpin, Chairman of the NWCG Leadership Subcommittee. “Rather than holding people up for ridicule or blame, you seek to look out for employees’ well- being.”

Rowdy Muir Initiative and Innovation Rowdy Muir, District Ranger on the Flaming Gorge Ranger District in Region 4, is recognized for his ability to take care of people and ensure that students of fire and leadership at every level have the best possible opportunity for success. His work with the newly approved L-380 agency training package provides a set of tools and techniques that junior leaders can use to build and maintain cohesive crews or teams. “You know the importance of being a continuous learner and show others the value of learning by personal example and commitment to self-development,” said Shane Olpin, Chairman of the NWCG Leadership Subcommittee. “Your willingness to share your story and opinion through blogs and articles so that others might learn is valued and appreciated.”

Justin Vernon Motivation and Vision Justin Vernon, U.S. Forest Service Technology and Development-Boise AFUE (Aerial Firefighting Use and Effectiveness) Module Crewmember, is recognized for his ability to use contemplative writing to express deep thought into cultural issues within the fire service. His posts such as “The Value of Facing Irrational Fears” and “Breaking the Mold” have become springboards for others to talk about difficult topics in open forums or through quiet reflection. “Through your courage and willingness to share personal experiences, wildland firefighters are inspired to look introspectively to decide what type of firefighter or leader they would like to become,” said Shane Olpin, Chairman of the NWCG Leadership Subcommittee. “Your blog posts, as well as the books you recommend for the Professional Reading Program, bring leadership issues faced—but often not talked about—into meaningful conversation across the wildland fire service.”

Know any firefighters who are good mentors? To learn more about the Paul Gleason Paul Gleason Leadership Award and 1946-2003 how to nominate a candidate: Paul Gleason, taken by colon cancer at 57, was dedicated to http://www.fireleadership.gov/toolbox/L wildland fire leadership. During his remarkable four-decade BE_award/LBE_award_info.html wildland fire career—with 20 years of hotshot crew leadership experience—Gleason made numerous contributions to the wildland fire service, including developing LCES. He will always Interview with Paul Gleason for the Wildland Fire be known for his passionate crusade for firefighter safety and Leadership program’s “Leaders We Would Like propelling his “student of fire” philosophy. to Meet” series: http://www.fireleadership.gov/toolbox/leaders_meet/inte

rviews/leaders_PaulGleason.html 7

One of Our Own

Jeremy Bailey

Promoting a Prescribed Fire Workforce

By Alex Viktora and Paul Keller

Jeremy Bailey acknowledges that in past decades and generations of fire managers we have been very successful in sharing the responsibility of both prescribed fire and fire suppression.

“But,” he emphasizes, “that’s not working for us anymore.”

Jeremy supports a new course of action for addressing this dilemma.

“I think that moving forward, we’re going to have to change the way we think about who leads our prescribed fires and who is responsible for implementing those burns. And I personally think it needs to be a dedicated prescribed fire workforce.”

A Fire-Lighting Workforce “In the past,” Jeremy continues, “we have been successful using our firefighting workforce to also be our fire-lighting workforce. However, it’s clear that our firefighters are spending more and more time away from their home units, engaged in difficult and extended fire assignments, and have very little time to also be responsible for implementing the needed prescribed fires back home.”

Therefore, Jeremy believes we need fire crews and management teams with the sole priority to accomplish the prescribed burning. “Our fire management researchers and scientists have been calling on us for more than two decades to get more ‘good’ fire back into our forests and grasslands,” he says. “Our response has been believable reasons why we can’t.” [Continued on Page 9] Jeremy Bailey

Bio Info

Jeremy Bailey studied philosophy and psychology at Cornell College in Iowa.

His past experience includes working for the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service on hotshot, engine, and helitack crews. In addition, Jeremy led a fire use module.

Based in Salt Lake City, he now works for The Nature Conservancy as the Associate Director for Training and Capacity Building with the North America Fire Learning Network. The Fire Learning Network is supported by “Promoting Ecosystem Resilience and Fire Adapted Communities Together: Collaborative Engagement, Collective Action and Co-Ownership of Fire”, a cooperative agreement between The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Forest Service, and the agencies of the Department of the Interior.

Jeremy is also the Chairperson for the National Coalition of Prescribed Fire Councils.

[Continued from Page 8]

“And that’s not like us,” Jeremy contends. “We can.” Jeremy’s Job Jeremy points out that right now in various areas around the country—East and A Burn Boss Who Helps Communities West, North, South, and Central—when managers dedicate a work team to Become Familiar and Skilled plan, lead, and implement prescribed burning, then it gets done. in Living Safely with Fire “Every reason for not burning can be overcome when you have a workforce As the Associate Director of Training and Capacity who is dedicated to getting it accomplished. This isn’t magic. It’s how all work Building for The Nature Conservancy’s Fire Learning gets done. You make it the priority duty for that work team or group of Network, Jeremy Bailey explains that he works with employees.” teams of people around the country to help develop their capacity to use more fire to achieve their local Can-Do Attitude management objectives. Jeremy asserts that our fire management Can-Do attitude is very strong—and can be applied to achieving our prescribed fire goals and objectives. “If I need to say it in a word,” Jeremy explains, “I’m a Burn Boss.” “We can coordinate with air quality regulators. We can mitigate the liability of putting fire on the ground and implementing planned burns. We can have This unique Burn Boss says his main duty is helping enough NEPA-approved treatment acres ready. And when we have a dedicated communities “learn to become more familiar and workforce focused on implementing prescribed fire, we can find good weather skilled in the ways of living safely with fire.” windows.”

Jeremy points out how these communities are What’s more, this fire practitioner knows that “we are able to burn across organizing around Fire-Adapted Community principles. property lines. We are able to have interagency agreements and have inter- “And they’re learning that, in many instances, you organizational burn teams. We can support each other in achieving more have to bring fire back into the places that pose the prescribed fire.” greatest threat to their safety.” “But,” Jeremy acknowledges, “when the workforce has other duties that are Jeremy continues, “these communities are recognizing the priority, then, of that it’s not the responsibility of one agency or course, they don’t department or organization—but, rather, it is the get our prescribed responsibility of all of us.” fire work accomplished.” Jeremy says that as a federal firefighter he had more access to equipment and staff. The Successful Use of Good Fire “But as a not-for-profit, non-governmental fire Jeremy explains that practitioner, I have more flexibility to recruit and we need this mobilize the work teams from neighboring agencies dedicated and organizations. I help write more MOUs and prescribed fire Agreements than burn plans.” workforce to help us scale-up the successful use of good fire. “We need Type 3 Incident Management Teams and fire crews that are fully dedicated to implementing prescribed fire,” he says.

An Honest Look at Our Initial Attack Success Rate and Funding Jeremy has insights on why our focus on increased funding and effort for initial attack doesn’t make sense.

“I think we have to take an honest look at how successful we already are at achieving a nearly perfect initial attack success rate,” he says.

“We do need to maintain our nimble, responsive, trained and effective initial attack firefighters and capabilities. But adding more money or effort trying to increase our initial attack success rate by just a percentage point or two does not make sense. It’s a diminishing return on our investment.”

Jeremy continues, “We would be much better served by using those funds to help support a parallel workforce whose priority is implementing prescribed fire.” Jeremy Bailey says his main duty is helping hundreds of communities learn [Continued on Page 10] to become more familiar and skilled in the ways of living safely with fire.

Deferring Risk onto Our Future Firefighters [Continued from Page 9] Furthermore, Jeremy believes that striving to maintain that 98 percent success rate on initial attack defers all of that risk onto our future firefighters.

“I can't believe that we continue to brag about our initial attack’s success. And I know managers all over the country who brag about it.”

Jeremy says it would make better sense if we called it “initial action”. “We’re getting on every fire right away and making smart decisions about how we will respond to each individual fire.”

He shares his vision for what this could actually look like.

“I can't believe that we continue to brag about our initial attack’s success. And I know managers all over the country who brag about it.”

Jeremy (shown here in center of photo) is advocating for a prescribed fire

workforce “that isn’t going to get sucked away during PL 4 or 5”.

“There’s a lot of times during the year that we could be growing our fires. We could be moving them around. And we could be keeping them in check—while still meeting ecological and community-based values and maintaining firefighter safety, and not deferring risk down the road to our future workforce.”

Jeremy cites author Stephen Pyne’s paradoxical observation that: “We know that our current business model is selecting for the largest and most destructive fires, yet we can't seem to do it any other way.”

Jeremy assures that he’s not going to advocate for changing the way we do initial attack.

“What I am going to advocate for is a workforce that’s dedicated to implementing prescribed fires. A workforce that isn’t going to get sucked away during a PL 4 or 5. This workforce is going to stay dedicated to its home unit and continue to do the work that needs to be done. In that way, we can start to reduce the risk to our future workforce.”

Promotes an ‘All Lands’ Approach This future workforce, Jeremy also points out, needs to have an “All Lands” approach. “There are already numerous inter- organizational and interagency crews who burn and work between public and private lands,” he explains.

“There’s a lot of times during the year that we could be growing our fires. We could be moving them around. And we could be keeping them in check—while still meeting ecological and community- based values and maintaining firefighter safety, and not deferring risk down the road to our future workforce.”

“Such an ‘All Lands’ approach is clearly in alignment with what our scientists and researchers have been telling us for decades about getting more prescribed fire on the ground,” Jeremy adds. “I believe that this is the change that we need to see.”

Jeremy’s past experience includes working on a helitack crew. [Continued on Page 11]

The Truth about Training [Continued from Page 10] Jeremy also believes that we should be focusing more of our training of young firefighters on implementing prescribed fire.

“University students in fire management programs should be spending their spring breaks and summer vacations working on prescribed fire crews. Basic 32, S130, and S190 should all have prescribed fire field days.”

He acknowledges that some programs are already doing this.

“It’s not as farfetched as you might initially think,” Jeremy says. “I know of municipal departments, universities, contractors, federal and state firefighting organizations that all train their firefighters on prescribed fires first. Firefighters learn by doing. Classroom time is great; field time working with live fire is even better.”

“I think it’s rather natural to think that when things are going your way, it’s because of the things you're doing. And that might not necessarily be the case.”

Jeremy continues, “When we spend so much time in the classroom and not enough time with our hands on the fire and working with fire, then Jeremy (shown here in center of photo) believes we need to be we end up learning textbook answers that we try to apply in the field focusing more of our training out in the field on prescribed fires. without any real field experience.

“I think it’s a real clear indicator of our failure to recognize how our workforce learns and trains when we have firefighters that have years of experience and have never been on a prescribed fire. We’re assuming that we can teach them everything in the classroom. Then we take them out into a hazardous environment, supervise them closely, and expect they’ll learn what they need to learn without getting hurt.”

Jeremy says that there’s no reason why all of our fire workers can't spend days, weeks, and even months on controlled burns before they're deployed on actual wildfires. “I believe this ‘hands on’ training idea is valid,” he assures. “There’s a lot of opportunities to do more work and training with live fire.”

‘Illusion of Control’ and Prescribed Fire “We’re being tasked with operating in an This prescribed fire advocate has insights on how the “illusion of control” can apply to prescribed fire. environmental condition that we’re not familiar with, “You’ve seen it. We’ve all seen it,” Jeremy says. “When the firing boss or the leader who’s supervising a firing operation uses terms that our models aren’t designed around, that we to describe what they think is happening like ‘it’s pulling together’ don’t have experience in. And yet we’re still trying to or they say: ‘We’re going to add a little bit more fire over here and we’re going to pull it’. There’s an illusion of control that’s use tactics and strategies and training based on a happening.”

Jeremy continues, “I think it’s rather natural to think that when different set of environmental conditions.” things are going your way, it’s because of the things you're doing. And that might not necessarily be the case.

“When we’re operating under mild and moderate conditions, we do have a lot more control,” Jeremy explains. “But increasingly, we’re being tasked with operating in environmental conditions that we’re not familiar with, that our models aren’t designed around, that we don’t have experience in. And yet we’re still trying to use tactics and strategies and training based on a different set of environmental conditions.

“So when we get tasked to work on wildfires in the 97th percentile that are blowing and going, we don’t have the same level of control that we have under less severe conditions. But we’re still trying to achieve the same kinds of success that we’ve had in the past.”

To help to avoid succumbing to the ‘illusion of control’ trap, Jeremy believes that “fundamentally you just have to have very robust skills development and training programs where people learn.” [Continued on Page 12] 11

Have Prescriptions for Firing Operations [Continued from Page 11] Jeremy points out that in prescribed fire operations, you have a set of environmental factors that you don’t exceed. “So you get to define your boundaries. But when you're responding to an unplanned wildfire—then you get what you get. The environmental conditions dictate the conditions you're working under.”

Jeremy shares the good idea he recently heard from a fire management officer about firing operations on wildfires.

“He said that if we’re going to do large firing operations, then it’s potentially appropriate to have a prescription that outlines the goals and Jeremy (on left) says if we really want to succeed, we need to objectives and the right environmental factors for that burnout operation, just have dedicated employees who can work at overcoming the like you would have for a controlled burn. I mean, you're not going to do a challenges of implementing prescribed fire. firing operation on a controlled burn when it’s 95 degrees and relative humidity is 3 percent and wind is at 15. You wouldn’t do that on a prescribed burn. But when you go out on a wildfire and you do large burnout operations under similar conditions you are voluntarily taking on lots of additional risks. And, potentially, the effects of the fire may or may not be desirable or meet your objectives.”

Time for a Cultural Change Jeremy summarizes his insights on how the wildland fire service needs to “We’re still under the illusion that we can undergo a cultural change. ask our workforce to implement our “We’re failing to adapt. We’re failing to change the way we do business. In control burn objectives. And sometimes the past, our workforce had the ability to both fight fire and light fire. But in they can get away with it on the edges— today’s context—an increasingly challenging, difficult and dangerous work just before they get laid off, or just as environment—our firefighters are tasked with a fulltime job. And yet we’re they're getting hired on.” still under the illusion that we can ask that workforce to implement our control burn objectives. And sometimes they can get away with it on the edges—just before they get laid off, or just as they're getting hired on. Got a potential “One of Our Own” candidate?

“But if we really want to succeed, then we need to have dedicated employees who can work at overcoming Contact: Paul Keller the challenges of implementing prescribed fire. There is a large body of work that has to be accomplished 503-622-4861 when you are implementing planned burns. It takes weeks and months and sometimes years of preparation [email protected] to get prescribed fire on the ground on the scale that we need it.”

Please If you would like us to include you Provide Us Join the Conversation on our “What’s New” with Your Input email subscription list—that will

include receiving Looking for a wildland fire video? Two More Chains—

bit.ly/llcyoutube bit.ly/2mcfeed please click: SUBSCRIBE bit.ly/llcfacebook back https://twitter.com/wildlandfireLLC Thank You !

Your

FEEDBACK This page features unsolicited input from our readers. The independent content on this page does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Two More Chains staff.

The Elephant in the Room have a special tender place in my heart. I never got I just finished reading the Winter Issue of Two More Chains all the facts, but felt it just the same. and I wanted to let you know this is your best issue yet. Marcia Dunn, IA Dispatcher I appreciate the perspectives that were included in this issue Savannah River Forest and the obvious care and love shown for firefighters and their Southern Region, U.S. Forest Service families.

“Survivors” have been getting better defined and receiving Crew Pride more attention—as rightly deserved. Perhaps that is Brit Rosso’s quote “10 plus 18 does not equal safety” will because we have had some devastating blows that have now be incorporated into my daily safety briefings and classroom presentations. sent ripples into our community in an unending stream.

And perhaps it is because survivors are learning that they How the Arrowhead Interagency Hotshot Crew took care of—and must talk about it and make it easier for the next set of continues to support—Danny's [their fallen crewmember Daniel Holmes] mom is incredible. members into their group.

I applaud efforts such as the “You Will Not Stand Alone” Once again, the pride of being part of the Arrowhead Hotshot Crew will always be with me! training—which is relatively new to our agencies.

I appreciate that this has been the “elephant in the room”— Doug Elliott, Safety Officer on California Incident a topic that we don’t want to talk about. Two More Chains Management Team #3— did a great job of calling out the misconceptions held by and former Arrowhead Hotshot some of those on the line. Bad things do happen to good people despite the best of intentions and skillsets.

As tough as the firefighting community is, I know we can take on Comments from Our Readers the challenge of preparing our ranks (and their families) for that Submitted Via Our Feedback Link day when they may end up in the Bull’s Eye. [See page 12 for the Reader Feedback submission link in this issue.] Thank you for this issue!

Jennifer Rabuck, Zone Fire Management Officer Needed to be Said West Zone-Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest Your Winter Issue on “Survivors” was incredible and so important to Wisconsin so many people on many levels.

What was written needed to be said and hopefully heard by all Dispatcher on the Yarnell Hill Fire people involved in fire. I was dispatching for the Yarnell Hill Fire when the Granite Mountain Hotshot Crew tragedy happened. I think it is imperative that we never lose track of anyone who’s been in the Bull's Eye and continue to help each other heal. Your Winter Issue made me cry for all the people knowing that dark space has a ripple effect. Thanks Two More Chains!

I can clearly remember how utterly silent our Dispatch Center got, Swept Under the Rug for several hours. And if you've ever been in an IA Dispatch Center, The winter Two More Chains touched a subject that has long been you know how impossible silence is. swept under the rug or just misunderstood.

But, we then had to process orders to quickly replace the fallen I believe that if the agency is truly going to go down the path of crew, as the fire was still advancing aggressively. taking care of our own, the agency needs to highlight articles such as

That crew of dispatchers, that place, that community, will always this, as well as generate discussion on the topic.