It's wildfire season again in the United States. Hot, dry weather has ignited blazes in at least 10 different states where wild fires are consuming hundreds of thousands of acres.

It's also the season for laying blame and propagating myths as to why our forests are suffering from another disastrous wildfire season. It's time to put an end to these myths and put forth some truths about what's best for the heath of our nation's forests.

The truth is that more than several decades of suppressing fires have resulted in a heavy buildup of "fuel" --dead vegetation and dense stands of dead and sick trees--and a shift to species that have not evolved and adapted to fire. Because of these conditions, today's fires tend to be larger, burn hotter, and spread farther and faster, making them more severe. Forest scientists know that the best way to address the fuel build up is to aggressively "thin" areas choked with deadwood and underbrush.

Some myths being propagated include comments that thinning itself would exacerbate the fuels build up and that a more effective method to eliminate the fuels is to let the fires burn or more aggressively start prescribed fires on public lands. The thinking behind these positions should be carefully examined before we let one more acre of our public lands suffer from wildfire.

Dr. Robert Lewis, deputy chief of the US Forest Service for research, recently laid out the lack of scientific basis behind the "let it burn and no management" philosophy to combating the fire problem. Dr. Lewis told a House subcommittee "that it is the duty of the scientific community to be as clear as possible about what is known and not known...and to correct distortions and misrepresentations." He said the following:

Cutting trees does not make stands more susceptible to later fires. Dr. Lewis pointed out modern forest management techniques are far different from the unscientific forest clearing that took place decades ago; "Thinning trees in conjunction with subsequent prescribed burning is an effective strategy for reducing fire risk," said Dr. Lewis.

Letting fires burn is not OK. Dr. Lewis pointed out that "in much of the West, fuels have accumulated so much that fires left to burn can quickly become extreme events with a range of devastating consequences," noting that watersheds and wildlife habitat suffer when overstocked stands go up in flames.

Using only prescribed burning to reduce fuels is not sufficient. Dr. Lewis noted that many Western forests have missed so many fire cycles that they "require mechanical thinning before any prescribed burning can be done safely.

The professional land managers and researchers in the Forest Service and with- in the profession of forestry recognize that our national forests are suffering from a serious forest health crisis; 76 million of the 191 million acres in the system are at moderate to high risk of catastrophic wildfire. These are not fires that will create wildlife habitat, protect recreational values, and assure clean water in our streams. These are fires that will destroy stands of trees, ruin watersheds for long periods of time, and endanger homes and property.

The Forest Service and professional foresters are trying everything in their power to work with communities to find solutions. One such effort is its experiment with "stewardship contracting" projects to reduce fuel loads and protect watersheds. Many of these projects seek to take advantage of local knowledge and local businesses to improve forest health by careful thinning and management of stands that have been neglected for too long. In many cases, these projects will create value in the form of wood products, which the agency can use to offset the cost of the work.

Some dismiss these efforts and simply assert that they don't trust the Forest Service and that they oppose all commercial use of trees grown on national forests. Through protest, political pressure, and lawsuits, they are making every effort to stop these projects and prevent the agency from doing more of them in the future.

The solutions to the wildfire problems are known, but obstructionists are using myths to block attempts to implement them. The public deserves better.