Humans have learned to fear wildfire. It can destroy communities, torch pristine forests and choke even faraway cities with toxic smoke.

Wildfire is scary for good reason, and over a century of fire suppression efforts has conditioned people to expect wildland firefighters to snuff it out. But as journalist Nick Mott and I explore our new book, “This Is Wildfire: How to Protect Your Home, Yourself, and Your Community in the Age of Heat,” and in our podcast “Fireline,” this expectation and the approach to wildfire will have to change.

Over time, extensive fire suppression has set the stage for the increasingly destructive wildfires we see today.

The problem with fighting every fire

The way the U.S. deals with wildfires today dates back to around 1910, when the Great Burn torched some 3 million acres across Washington, Idaho, Montana and British Columbia. After watching the fire’s swift and unstoppable spread, the fledgling Forest Service developed a military-style apparatus built to eradicate wildfire.

The U.S. got really good at putting out fires. So good that citizens grew to accept fire suppression as something the government simply does.

Today, state, federal and private firefighters deploy across the country when fires break out, along with tankers, bulldozers, helicopters and planes. The Forest Service touts a record of snuffing out 98% of wildfires before they reach 100 acres (40 hectares).

As a result, many forest ecosystems that would have periodically burned have become clogged with underbrush, new growth and woody debris that can easily ignite. Efforts by the Forest Service to adopt a more selective policy have run into opposition from Western politicians.

At the same time, people have built more homes and cities in fire-prone areas. And the greenhouse gases released by decades of increasingly burning fossil fuels have caused global temperatures to rise.

Climate change and wildfires

The relationship between climate and wildfire is fairly simple: Higher temperatures lead to more fire. Higher temperatures increase moisture evaporation, drying out plants and soil and making them more likely to burn. When hot, dry winds are blowing, a spark in an already dry area can quickly blow up into dangerous wildfire.

Given the rise in global temperatures that the world has already experienced, much of the Western U.S. is actually in a fire deficit because of the practice of suppressing most fires. That means that, based on historical data, we should expect far more fire than we’re actually seeing.

Fortunately, there are things everyone can do to break this cycle.

What fire managers can do

First, everyone can accept that firefighters can’t and shouldn’t put out every low-risk wildfire.

Remote fires that pose little threat to communities and property can breathe life into ecosystems. Low-level fires that clear out undergrowth but don’t kill the trees create space for trees, plants and wildlife species to thrive, and they return nutrients to the soil. Some tree and plant species depend on fires to open their seeds to reproduce.

Natural fires can also help avoid catastrophic fires that occur when too much underbrush has built up for fuel. And they create fuel breaks on the landscape that could halt the advance of future flames.

Fire managers have advanced mapping technology that can help them decide when and where forests can burn safely. Thoughtful prescribed burning – meaning low-intensity fires intentionally set by professionals – can offer many of the same benefits as the flames that historically burned in forests and grasslands.

The Forest Service is aiming to ramp up its prescribed burning on more acres in more areas across the country. However, the agency struggles to train adequate staff and pay for the projects, and environmental reviews sometimes cause yearslong delays. Other groups offer beacons of hope. Indigenous groups across the country, for example, are returning fire to the landscape.

Adapting homes to fire risk

For decades, scientists have understood the relationship between wildfire and community destruction. However, little has been done to live safely with fire on the ground. More than one-third of U.S. homes are in what’s known as the wildland-urban interface – the zone where houses and other structures intermingle with flammable vegetation.

The biggest risk to homes comes from burning embers blowing on the wind and landing in weak spots that can set a house ablaze. Those embers can travel over a miles to nestle in dry leaves or pine needles clogging a gutter, a wood-shingle roof or shrubs, trees and other flammable vegetation close to a structure.

Some of these vulnerabilities are easy to fix. Cleaning a home’s gutters or trimming back too-close vegetation requires little effort and tools already around the house.

Grant programs exist to help harden homes against wildfire. But enormous investment is needed to get the work done at the scale the fire risk requires. For example, nearly 1 million U.S. homes in wildfire-prone areas have highly combustible wooden roofs. Retrofitting those roofs will cost an estimated US$6 billion, but that investment could both saves lives and property and reduce wildfire management costs in the future.

Homeowners can look to resources like Firewise USA to learn about the “home ignition zone.” It describes the types of vegetation and other flammable objects that become high risks at different distances from a structure and steps to make properties more fire resilient.

For example, homes should not have flammable plants, firewood, dried leaves or needles, or anything burnable, on or under decks and porches within 5 feet (1.5 meters) of the house. Between 5 and 30 feet (9 meters), grasses should be mowed short, tree branches should be pruned to at least 6 feet (2 meters) from the ground, and the tree canopy should be at least 10 feet (3 meters) from the structure.

What communities can do

Many counties and cities have their own wildfire programs to educate homeowners and connect them with resources. Some have started “tool libraries” to help anyone begin the necessary work on their property.

Beyond individual actions, states and communities can enact forward-looking wildfire resilience policies.

These can include developing zoning rules and regulations that require developers to build with fire-resistant materials and designs or might even prohibit building in areas where the risk is too high. The International Wildland-Urban Interface Code, which provides guidance for safeguarding homes and communities from wildfire, has been adopted in jurisdictions in at least 24 states.

Living in a world with wildfire

Prevention and suppression will always be critical pieces of wildfire strategy, but adapting to our fiery future means everyone has a role.

Educate yourself on proposed forest projects in your area. Understand and address risks to your home and community. Help your neighbors. Advocate for better wildfire planning, policy and resources.

Living in a world where more wildfire is inevitable requires that everyone see themselves as part of solving the problem. Wildfire can be terrifying, but also natural and essential. Embracing both isn’t always easy, but I believe it is the only way forward.

Justin Angle, Professor of Marketing, University of Montana

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The hospital where I practice recently admitted a 14-year-old girl with post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, to our outpatient program. She was referred to us six months earlier, in October 2022, but at the time we were at capacity. Although we tried to refer her to several other hospitals, they too were full. During that six-month wait, she attempted suicide.

Unfortunately, this is an all-too-common story for young people with mental health issues. A 2021 survey of 88 children’s hospitals reported that they admit, on average, four teens per day to inpatient programs. At many of these hospitals, more children await help, but there are simply not enough services or psychiatric beds for them.

So these children languish, sometimes for days or even a week, in hospital emergency departments. This is not a good place for a young person coping with grave mental health issues and perhaps considering suicide. Waiting at home is not a good option either – the family is often unable or unwilling to deal with a child who is distraught or violent.

I am a professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Colorado, where I founded and direct the Stress, Trauma, Adversity Research and Treatment Center. For 30 years, my practice has focused on youth stress and trauma.

Over those years, I have noticed that these young patients have become more aggressive and suicidal. They are sicker when compared to years past. And the data backs up my observation: From 2007 through 2021, suicide rates among young people ages 10 to 24 increased by 62%. From 2014 to 2021, homicide rates rose by 60%. The situation is so grim that in October 2021, health care professionals declared a national emergency in child mental health.

Since then, the crisis has not abated; it’s only gotten worse. But there are not enough mental health professionals to meet the need.

The numbers behind the suffering

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry reported in May 2023 that there is a drastic shortage of child and adolescent psychiatrists across the U.S.

For every 100,000 children in the U.S. – with 1 in 5 of those children having a mental, emotional or behavioral disorder in a given year – there are only 14 child and adolescent psychiatrists available to treat them, according to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. At least three times as many are needed.

There is also a significant shortage of child therapists – social workers, psychologists, licensed professional counselors – as well. This is particularly the case in rural areas across the country.

Studies show that young people in the U.S. are increasingly stressed and traumatized. The constant barrage of information via social media and the demand to participate in it is complex, and interactions can be harmful to a child’s mental health.

Young people deal with cyberbullying and endless exposure to social media content focused on body image.

But what children and adolescents see online is not the only problem. Much of life still happens offline, and a lot of it is not good. Millions of young people deal every day with alcoholic, drug-abusing or neglectful parents; peers who drink, vape and use drugs; violence at their schools or in their streets; and overwhelmed caregivers – whether parents or others – preoccupied with financial or other personal problems.

For an adolescent already struggling to make sense of the world, any one of these issues can be overwhelming.

Not enough time or money

The U.S. health care system does very little to support these children or their families. This pattern begins at the moment of birth, and it is baked into the system.

Ideally, prospective parents or those who are pregnant would receive parenting classes that continue through the child’s developmental phases. That generally does not happen. Then, many new parents do not have nursing and maternal care visits or paid parental leave. And for those families struggling financially, there is not an adequate safety net.

Nor can some families afford mental health treatment to support their children’s needs. Many mental health providers don’t take insurance and instead opt for out-of-pocket payments from patients. This is due to the low reimbursement rates from most insurers, which makes it very difficult to sustain a practice. Depending on the service, the cost could be anywhere from US$100 to $600 per session.

To see providers that do take insurance, there are usually co-pays – typically between $20 to $50 a week. But it can often be challenging for the insured to find a suitable in-network provider to meet a child’s needs.

The payments add up, particularly when mental health treatment takes many months, and sometimes years, to have an effect. There is a reason why it takes so long. Unlike medical doctors, mental health professionals do not simply make a diagnosis and provide medication or surgery. Instead, for treatments to work and to change the outcome for young people who are struggling, an ongoing – and lengthy – relationship between the therapist and the patient is needed.

Treating a child is significantly more difficult than treating an adult. That is, in part, because children are constantly developing and changing. But perhaps the most formidable challenges are the multiple entities a child therapist may have to work with: caregivers, the school system, the courts and child welfare agencies. What’s more, getting a diagnosis, treatment or both often involves working with multiple providers, such as a primary care doctor, individual therapist, family-focused therapist and psychiatrist.

In the institute where I work, the psychiatry department loses money on almost every patient we treat. If it weren’t for fundraising and fostering relationships with donors, the department could only provide care to a select few.

Possible solutions

Struggling children and teens in the U.S. need earlier interventions. Although schools are ideal places to teach social skills, they still do not offer enough activities to help young people develop resilience to cope with adversity.

Sometimes, young patients see primary care doctors who don’t have enough training in this area. Telephone hotline programs, which offer these doctors free consultations from mental health professionals to help assess problems in young patients, should be available throughout the U.S. But right now, only 19 states have such programs. One bright spot: The 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, which launched in July 2022, is available 24/7.

When a young person needs treatment, parents should prioritize finding a mental health provider right away. Asking the child’s primary doctor and school counselors for a reference is a good start. If the child is already on a waiting list, a parent or guardian should call the provider weekly to check in and make sure the child is not forgotten.

The process can be discouraging and daunting, but in our current environment, which provides limited support, that’s the way it is. And without a heavy lift from parents, the child remains at great risk.

Steven Berkowitz, Professor of Psychiatry, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

An estimated 3,000 pets were still missing more than a week after deadly wildfires ripped through Maui in August 2023 and left thousands of people – many of whom had companion animals – homeless. The Conversation asked Sarah DeYoung, who has conducted research in Hawaii and studies what happens to pets after disasters, to explain why rescuing companion animals is a high priority following wildfires and how donors can help animals and pet owners recover from this disaster.

What happens to pets after a catastrophic fire?

When disasters strike, people often evacuate with their pets, as long as it’s possible for them to quickly grab their dogs, cats or other kinds of companion animals. However, you may not have time to gather your animals during a quick-onset event like a wildfire, or your animals might be hiding.

This is especially true for cats, because they can be skittish. There are other complications, such as evacuation by boat – which makes it harder to bring animals along. When owners flee without a leash or carrier, their animals might bolt at any stopover or shelter.

Unfortunately, companion animals can become injured or perish during fires. Many animals will also be lost and displaced.

Owners will spend weeks, months or even years after a fire searching for their missing cats and dogs. It can be challenging to identify and match pets with their humans because burn injuries can change the animal’s appearance, they may not have a microchip, or the owners themselves may have died in the fire.

Like people, animals that survive fires may experience trauma and stress symptoms, such as regressing on housetraining or other issues for days and weeks after the fire. The pets may need quiet time and support to recover from their stress. They may also need to be treated for burn injuries or lung damage from inhaling smoke. Some animals may not survive their injuries.

What are the extra challenges on an island?

Islands have limited space for the boarding and care of displaced animals. For example, during the 2018 lava flows on Hawaii’s Big Island, in which over 2,000 people evacuated, the logistics for people and animals presented unique challenges.

People who lose their housing for any reason may need to board their pets. Unfortunately, nearly all of Hawaii’s animal shelters are already at full capacity due to the state’s pet overpopulation, leaving little space available during emergencies.

Smaller animal sanctuaries may take in animals temporarily, but they also have limited space and staffing. Because of these challenges, animal-foster networks become key during and after disasters. Truly stray animals – cats, dogs and other animals that belong in homes but live on the streets – can also be flown to other places for adoption.

But before that happens, it’s critical to first make every effort to reunite lost companion animals with their owners.

Is aid for animals worth it when people are suffering?

Many people love their animals and see them as part of their family.

In Hawaii, during the 2018 lava flows, I heard many people call their pets their “keiki” – the Hawaiian word for children. Losing pets is often devastating.

Improving animal welfare will ultimately also help people because of the bond between humans and animals. People experience psychological distress when their pets are killed, injured or lost. Additionally, if people cannot safely evacuate with their pets, they might refuse to leave during disasters.

That’s why emergency shelters should allow people to stay with their pets if possible. Hotels or other providers should also consider temporarily waiving pet fees and relaxing their restrictions on companion animals to reduce barriers for displaced people and their pets.

People who lose their animals in a fire may experience depression and other mental health issues, which is one of the many reasons why mental health care is essential for the communities that experience disasters.

If a companion animal has died in a fire, it helps the owners to get confirmation that the death occurred because of their need for closure. Some pet owners and community members construct shrines, memorials or other structures to memorialize the pets that died in the disaster. After the 2018 Camp Fire in California, people in the scorched town of Paradise constructed a memorial for the animals they lost.

Are there long-term problems for animal recovery?

In a place like Maui that gets many visitors and has a high percentage of vacation rentals, there will likely be challenges in terms of displaced local people finding rental units that accept pets. Many available housing units might have restrictive pet policies.

In my research with Ashley Farmer of Illinois State University, we found that people sometimes surrender their pets after disasters because they can’t find temporary housing that allows dogs or cats, or due to breed restrictions. A wave of animal surrenders causes already full shelters to become overcrowded.

There will be a need for some of those surrendered animals to be adopted or fostered for a longer period of time to ensure that there is enough room in local shelters. People will also need help as they continue searching for their missing animals.

What’s the best way to help?

In the college classes I teach regarding disaster response and recovery, I often emphasize the difference between intentions and impacts when it comes to volunteering, donations and other relief efforts.

Animal lovers in other places will often want to donate big bags of kibble, canned food, chew toys, dog crates and other physical items. As an animal lover myself, I can appreciate their great intentions and eagerness to help.

But shipping those items may not be helpful after disasters, and in fact, those donations may even be harmful. While conducting research in disaster zones, I’ve seen animal shelters get inundated with donated pet food that expired before it could be consumed.

Unless local animal shelters have robust distribution systems, the logistics of dealing with massive amounts of donated supplies can become overwhelming. It’s much more effective for donors who want to help companion animals and their owners after disasters to give organizations like the Maui Humane Society money. Those funds can pay for urgently needed goods and services, including spay and neuter surgeries and flea treatments.

My research team has seen that people in locations far away sometimes want to adopt a “disaster pet.” While some animals might be relocated from the islands eventually, the best way to immediately help is to give money to groups supporting people and their pets. This increases the chances that the people and animals who are already bonded to one another can stay together.

Keep in mind that animal shelters and other organizations that support pets and their owners after disasters will still need help months after the media has moved on. In other fire events, such as the Tubbs and Camp fires in California, animal organizations used the recovery phase as a time to trap and neuter feral cats, and then return them to the communities where they were living. Simultaneously, those organizations can keep on helping to reunite missing pets with their owners.

Finally, I believe it’s important to be compassionate toward people who lost pets in the Maui fire since they may be in mourning for quite a while. Losing a beloved cat, dog, rabbit, goat or turtle can be devastating at any time. During a disaster, the loss of a pet amplifies the overall horror of the event. Similarly, reuniting with a missing disaster pet can also be a symbol of hope and recovery.

Sarah DeYoung, Disaster Researcher and Associate Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice, University of Delaware

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.