California has never had a more fraught — and, at times, frightening — relationship with fire. As the climate crisis accelerates and we contend with the combustible legacy of decadeslong fire suppression, how this relationship will play out is far from certain. ‘Pyro Futures‘ — a fascinating exhibition currently at the Manetti Shrem Museum (in Davis) and online — invites Californians to consider what their shared future with fire might involve, and to imagine what their potential roles might be in shaping that future. The exhibition acknowledges that while fire can, of course, be incredibly destructive, the careful stewardship of fire can actually make landscapes healthier and more resilient.
‘Pyro Futures’ is curated by two landscape architecture academics based at the University of California, Davis — Emily Schlickman and Brett Milligan. They’re also the co-authors of ‘Design by Fire’, which explores our past and current relationships with fire through richly researched case studies from around the world. Rather than serving as a book of neatly packaged solutions, their book showcases techniques to be considered, tested, and evaluated in a time of fire.
Q > What ignited (sorry!) your interest in fire — and how did this lead to your book on the subject?
A > Like many others living in Northern California over the past ten years, we have lived through a number of extreme wildfire events, including the LNU Lightning Complex which came within 15 miles of Davis and enveloped the region in toxic smoke for several weeks. These experiences (and also seeing how fire and fire risks are changing around the world) inspired us to think about ways in which designers and planners could address wildfire adaptation more holistically.
Q > Over the course of your research for the ‘Design by Fire’, what’s the most surprising thing you encountered?
A > Just how complex, variable, and transformative fire can be. In our book we define fire as a contextual, time-based event. How fire behaves, what it does, and what it leaves behind is all based on the landscape conditions in which it emerges.
Q > And the most encouraging thing?
A > That so many fire-prone communities around the world are being proactive when it comes to managing landscapes in the face of increasing wildfire threats. People are changing how they think about and relate to fire. In particular, it was hopeful to learn more about the work of cultural burners around the world who are stewarding with fire to promote cultural practices and bolster habitat, while reducing wildfire risk.
Q > What ended up scaring you the most?
A > In many parts of the world, we are trying to undo and counter the detrimental legacies of fire suppression while also dealing with the challenges of accelerating change in climate and landscapes. The aggregation of these factors presents many challenges and many unknowns about what the future will be like. Another issue is that at some of the highest levels of policy and governance, there are still those who believe that fire suppression is an effective management strategy. As many in fire stewardship say, it’s easier to put out a fire than it is to start one.
Q > ‘Design by Fire’ is dedicated to fire stewards. How would you define the concept of a fire steward — or the fire stewardship they carry out?
A > Those who embrace and actively work with fire to care for landscapes and all that lives within them.
Q > Native tribes have lived with and used fire since time immemorial. With that in mind, can you tease out the connection between indigenous sovereignty and fire?
A > Many problems we have with fire today are a direct result of colonial missteps and the subjugation of indigenous people. In California, for example, indigenous burning practices were, by and large, forcibly stopped by settlers. Restoring indigenous sovereignty includes restoring indigenous rights to burn, which in turn can foster eco-cultural restoration.
An indigenous-led prescribed fire on a private ranch in Cobb, California to increase ecosystem health, support eco-cultural restoration, maintain awareness of cultural sites, and provide training opportunities.
Q > Tell us, in brief, about the differences between: ‘Good Fire’ and ‘Bad Fire’ / Prescribed vs Cultural Burns
A > Fire is an incredibly complex phenomenon but categorisation can be a helpful communication tool. For us, ‘good fire’ is intentionally set (or allowed to burn) for beneficial reasons. It includes prescribed burning which focuses on fuel reduction and forest health, cultural burning which supports culturally-important customs and species, and wildland fire use which allows certain wildfires to safely burn the landscape. ‘Bad fire’, on the other hand, is often severe and unexpected, negatively impacting lives, property and key ecological processes. It is often due to past mismanagement or problematic land uses.
Q > ‘Design by Fire’ points out that the amount of burning happening in California (both cultural and prescribed) is far short of what’s required. What can be done to ramp this up, particularly in a time of budgetary constraints at the state level?
A > We think there is much opportunity for creative investment and strategic planning in this domain, ranging across state and federal initiatives and funding mechanisms to continue on-the-ground experimentation. While the future is uncertain, a range of techniques and protocols could be engaged to expand cooperative land ownership and stewardship models, reduce cumbersome policy, permitting requirements and liability concerns, increase access to ancestral homelands, and develop new modes of education and outreach.
Q > You both are members of burn crews. How did you get involved? What has it been like? And has this firsthand experience shifted your perceptions and understanding of fire in any way(s)?
A > Collectively, we’ve burned with a local prescribed burn association, an indigenous-led eco-cultural fire crew, a collaborative multi-institutional educational burn in collaboration with CalFire, and staff at a UC reserve. These experiences have taught us the value of actual, hands-on experience with fire (rather than just an abstraction), and with people from different backgrounds and training. With each burn, we’ve actively learned from fire, tangibly seeing its specific effects on different landscapes.
Q > Your book shares examples of three strategies of dealing with fire: resistance, co-creation and retreat. Is there one “better” than another? What should determine which approach gets used in any given scenario?
A > In reality, our future will involve all three. And in truth, all three approaches are co-creative, but in very different ways. Co-creation, as we define it in the book, is the middle ground between resistance and retreat where we actively and creatively work directly with fire in a give and take relationship, as humans typically did throughout our history.
Q > Your efforts to raise awareness about the need for ‘good’ fire and the downsides of fire suppression have included (amazing!) postcards, and a billboard featuring an adorable mascot, Burnie the Bobcat. Tell us more about the message you’re trying to get to the general public, and the tools you’re using? (Also, how soon can we buy Burnie t-shirts?!)
A > Our message is twofold: 1. Not all fire is bad. And 2. All of us can help decide our future with fire. We’re trying to communicate this in a range of ways to reach as many people as possible (including forthcoming Burnie gear!).
Sample from the set of postcards from the ‘Pyro Futures’ Exhibition (Manetti Shrem Art Museum, Spring 2024)
