Breaking the Cycle: Wildfires

This week we return to our conversation with fire ecologist Jen Baron from the University of British Columbia. In our last episode, we explored the main causes of the severe wildfires we've been experiencing in recent years. Now we turn our focus to strategies for managing those factors within our control.
We know wildfires are driven by topography, climate, and the availability of fuel. While we can’t alter a forest’s underlying topography, we can reduce the carbon emissions fueling climate change. And in the short term, we can improve forest management practices, such as fire suppression and clearcutting, to prevent an increase in flammable material. With Jen, we explore tools that can break the cycle of a century of fire suppression. What are the opportunities for forestry and what is missing from the public discourse on wildfires?

Make sure to check out the show notes on the podcast webpage for more links and helpful resources.

You can help this community grow by sharing the podcast with your friends.

Support the show

https://wildlandsleague.org/theclearcut/

Episode Transcript

Jan Sumner (00:00):
Welcome to the Clear Cut.
Hi, I'm Janet Sumner, ExecutiveDirector at Wildlands League.

Kaya Adleman (00:08):
And I'm Kaya Adelman, Carbon Manager at
Wildlands League.

Jan Sumner (00:14):
Wildlands League is a Canadian conservation
organization working onprotecting the natural world.

Kaya Adleman (00:21):
The Clear Cut is bringing to you the much needed
conversation on Canadian forestmanagement and how we can better
protect one of Canada's mostimportant ecosystems, as our
forests are reaching a tippingpoint.

Jan Sumner (00:41):
All right, so we are on to our second episode with
Jen, a fire ecologist fromBritish Columbia who also has
worked and live in Ontario aswell, before the wildfire season
had started, and now going backand listening to it.
So we can.

(01:11):
This is also just part of thesausage making or the I don't
know the quiche making, orwhatever you want to call it.
We record first with our guestand then Kaya and I sit down and
we do our intros and outros,and Kaya does some magic behind
the scenes to make sure that thenarrative of the story that we
recorded is is sound and wedon't have a lot of extraneous
bits, because you know, whenyou're chatting with somebody,

(01:33):
sometimes you do.
But listening to this back, uh,so that we can do our intros
and outros, I'm just sick in myheart, uh, because there's a
bunch of reasons.
But as I was listening to it, Imean, jen does a very good job
of explaining the triangle andwe've had some responses as well
.
We've had responses on ourlists where people have been

(01:55):
writing back and saying well,you know, I think, that there's
human-caused ignitions, there'sarson, there's various other
things that are going on androbust defense of climate change
being the cause, and and I'mnot saying that there is no
place for that let me just I'llgo right back to what jen says
instead of giving my opinion.

(02:15):
She talks about it as atriangle, that this is
topography that underlies yourecosystem, that determines how
your ecosystem functions.
If it's high mountain terrain,it's going to be very different
than if it's going to be acoastal BC forest or an interior
boreal forest, etc.
So that's sort of one of thefixed things that we can't
really change, because it'swhere the forest is and what

(02:38):
ecosystem is there.
The two things that we havehuman contributions to or some
ability to control or react withare one, climate change, which
we've been affecting through ouremissions, and I mean emissions
beyond just tailpipe andsmokestack and oil and gas, but

(03:03):
also looking at the emissionsthat come from the natural world
and how we are changing it.
And then the third in thattriangle is the fuel load or the
access to fuel, and that hasdefinitely been influenced and
she talks about it in herinterview as we've had over a
hundred years of firesuppression and that was an

(03:25):
ill-advised idea at the sametime that we were doing and
ramping up climate change.
And yeah, I felt when I listenedto this, listened to it back
just a great deal of sadness.
A great deal of sadness for allthe people who are being
evacuated, a great deal ofsadness for all of the human
loss that's occurring, all ofthe strength of the firefighters

(03:49):
that have to pull enormousefforts to get these fires under
control and, of course, theloss of all of these places and
the harm that's happening tonature and species.
And so it just, it just yeah.
That's where I kind of landedon this, and we can unpack more

(04:11):
of what she says, et cetera.
But I had to kind of start withthe very human side for me,
which is just listening to thisback and knowing the fires are
raging, and listening to it.
It's almost too much to bear.

Kaya Adleman (04:24):
Yeah, no, I, I agree.
I think the I think thewildfire conversation is
something that definitelystrikes to the heart of a lot of
people.
I mean a, obviously, becauseit's people lose their homes,
they lose communities.
It's very, very sad, like liketheir sense of place, etc.
But also, I think, just becauseof the visual idea of the world

(04:47):
burning is very, veryfrightening.
For me, and I'm sure to a lotof other people as well.
It makes, you know, climatechange seem a lot more real.
For me, to see images and tohear you know the impacts of
these wildfires that we've beenseeing in recent years is very
much strikes to the heart thatwe do need to do something, and

(05:10):
that's why I hope that this partof the conversation that we had
with Jen will provide some hopefor people, because we do get
into the tools that we have atour disposal to be able to
better adapt and deal with thesefires.

Jan Sumner (05:27):
And and I just I wanted to put this out there
because sometimes you're justdoing a.
I don't want to be verysanitized in how we approach
this.
I want to be very real and whoI am, et cetera.
But this is for me, when I feeleco grief, this sort of climate
grief, and grief for the planetand grief for the people, and

(05:48):
these things are happening tothem and it seems out of their
control.
It seems out of control for mewatching this and I've worked on
forestry now for 20 years and10 years on climate change
before that so it just is, uh,devastating to see this, this
runaway.
Almost that's what it feelslike.

(06:08):
And you're right, I think thatwhat Jen gives us in the
interview is a whole lot ofideas and things that we could
start to implement, and shemakes a rousing call to action.
Yes, and so there are definitelythere's some great ideas that
she comes in here with, and Imean, one of the things I was

(06:29):
intrigued with this idea was shewas talking about small stemmed
wood retrofits and taking thatfuel off the land.
So when they go in and harvest,a lot of the small stem, trees
and et cetera are left on theground, and so could you
actually take some of that fuelload off the ground and be using
it in mills that have now beenmaybe not necessarily abandoned,

(06:50):
but they're not as usefulanymore or maybe they need to be
retrofitted because they weredesigned to actually mill large
logs and there's no large logsleft or large trees.
So now you're looking at thesmall stem and could you
retrofit that and even use it aspotentially biomass in a local
application, because biomassshipped around the world has a
huge carbon footprint A biomassthat might be used locally for,

(07:14):
maybe, a school boiler or forhome heating or for looking into
basically being heat in themill those kinds of things.
That might be something thatwould be worth looking at.
But certainly the currentmanagement decisions are part
and she says this quite clearlyare part of what's causing the

(07:37):
problem, and so she has a bigcall out to start changing some
of the management decisions andthe forestry management
decisions and just that they'renot as economically viable.
And so this is going to take aconcerted effort by by
governments, by decision makers,by everyone to say we're

(07:58):
actually going to take this onhead on and that the time for
continuing with fire suppressionhas passed.
Yeah, like we should not.
Be like fire suppression tostop fires from hurting people
and homes and things like that,but fire suppression to maintain
forestry she's saying that'ssort of a counter to good

(08:21):
practice.
Yeah, and I think that's kindof a counter to good practice.

Kaya Adleman (08:25):
Yeah, and I think that's kind of the fun part,
isn't it too?
Like we have these problemsthat are clearly laid out, and
then it's fun to be able tothink of creative solutions that
work in everybody's interest,and I think that's what we'll
get a little bit of a flavor ofin this piece.

Jan Sumner (08:42):
Let's go Jen in this piece, let's go, jen.
So if we were to think aboutwhat are the best things to go
into the forest you talked aboutremoving some of the fuels
there the response of theCanadian like last summer when
things were really bad they werebad in BC, they were bad here
in Ontario and Quebec we hadsmoke covering large portions of

(09:04):
the provinces and going downinto the US, and so the response
that I saw quite often from theindustry and from the Canadian
government and other governmentswas that means we need to get
out and log more faster, sooner.
So can you maybe unpack alittle bit what you would see?
What is a good direction for usto be going?

Jen Baron (09:27):
Yeah.
So I will say that currentforest harvesting practices in
British Columbia are notreducing wildfire risk, and in
some cases they're actuallyincreasing wildfire risk, where
we have those large cut blockswith a lot of residue on the
surface where we can get areally intense burn.
And so there is no situationwhere expanding current forest

(09:48):
industry practices will addressthe wildfire problem.
It will probably only make itworse.
The reason that we're in thissituation is because of those
current practices, amongst othermanagement decisions.
So there is a fundamental rolefor the forest industry in
addressing some of the risk, butmost of that is not
economically feasible undercurrent models and markets, and

(10:10):
so at present it's heavilysubsidized, where it does take
place, by provincial and federalgovernments, and it mostly is
concentrated in thewildland-urban interface around
communities in relatively smalltreatments, and those treatments
are also not necessarily alwayseffective.
So in order to be effective atreducing wildfire risk or
reducing the potential severityof a wildfire, you need to

(10:32):
remove fuel from the system, andso that often requires forest
thinning, followed by broadcastburning or removals for the
bioeconomy, or something has tocome out of the system.
If you only thin and yourearrange that fuel to the
surface floor, you're justmoving the fuel from the canopy
to the surface, and so that doesnot.
It'll change the fire behavior,but it won't necessarily reduce

(10:54):
the fire intensity in the waythat's desirable.
So there is certainly a need todo more treatments and also to
do them beyond the wildlandurban interface.
We know these fires arehappening far outside of our
communities and often burninginto them, and so it's not just
the WUI that's a problem.
In addition, a lot of peoplealso have these conversations

(11:15):
around.
I am a proponent of theFireSmart program.
I think it has a role.
But if all we do is FireSmartour homes and then everything
around us burns to black, thenthere's no forest industry to
employ people, there's nolandscapes to recreate on.
You know, our watershed qualitywill be shot Like.
There's a lot of other valueswe need to manage for beyond the
wildland urban interface.

(11:35):
So there is a huge need tomanage across crown land, in
particular outside of the WUI.
But expanding the forestindustry in its current form
won't address that.

Jan Sumner (11:47):
So just for everybody else, when you say the
WUI, you mean the wildlandurban interface, right, yeah,
okay, just clarifying that.
That's a fun acronym I know Ilove that too, the WUI.
So what would you do then inthis?
Would you do thinning andbroadcast burns in the larger
landscape across the Crown Lands?

(12:08):
Is that the way that you wouldapproach this?

Jen Baron (12:12):
Yeah.
So the way I think of it isthat there's a lot of tools in
the toolbox and not every toolmakes sense in every situation.
It kind of depends on thecontext.
In addition, I think we realize, you know, this concept of
landscape fire management.
We need to increase the paceand scale of our treatments, but
we cannot treat everywhere andwe're spending a lot of money to
treat a very small amount ofland right now, and so we really

(12:34):
need to figure out how to scaleup our treatments, while also
considering challenges aroundliability and capacity for
things like prescribed burns,and also thinking about
priorities.
Where are the values that we'remost concerned about protecting?
Because, ultimately, most ofthis forest will burn eventually
, and our only option is tointervene to change how it will

(12:55):
burn when it burns eventually,not to decide whether or not it
burns.
And so part of that process isidentifying where different
values are in the landscape andwhere different treatments might
be suitable to those differentvalues.
So, for example, if an area isalready written into a
harvesting plan, then thinkingabout how we might augment that

(13:19):
harvesting plan to reducewildfire risk.
So, for example, broadcastburning after harvesting,
increasing the role of broadcastburning and also kind of the
expertise within professionalforester designations around
harvesting with wildfire risk inmind, expanding the use of
thinning and prescribed burningin and adjacent to communities,

(13:44):
as well as reintroducing therole of cultural fire,
indigenous fire stewardship.
And also expanding our use ofnot just modified response
wildfires, which we more so dowhen we're triaging our
resources.
So we say this wildfire isn'tthreatening a community, so
we'll let it burn, but oftenit's burning extreme fire,
weather in ways that areuncharacteristic, but instead

(14:05):
saying here are locations where,if a fire ignited, it would not
immediately threaten resourcesand values, and so under these
conditions, we can let fire dothe work, we can let it do its
job.
Unfortunately, during kind ofthose weather windows where we
might let the fire burn, that'susually when we have the
resources to put it out.
So being able to shift ourmindset and use more fire,

(14:26):
letting fire do the work underconditions where it's safe for
it to do so, is also a big partof that toolkit.

Kaya Adleman (14:34):
As opposed to this more proactive approach that
you're describing.
Would you say that thegovernment is more just reacting
to the problem?

Jen Baron (14:43):
Yeah, I would say, in general, we have a very
reactive approach.
20 years ago, after the 2003fire season, the firestorm in
Kelowna, there was a report thatcame out calling for some of
these changes, and that hascontinued after every major fire
season, essentially in BritishColumbia.
There are kind of some likeinstitutional policy and

(15:05):
governance challenges associatedwith that.
So the mandate of the wildfireservice, the scale of recent
fire seasons, means that we willnever be able to get rid of
fire suppression.
We will continue to rely on it,and probably even more so, and
I certainly am not of themindset that we need to defund
fire suppression.
We're already under-resourcedduring current fire seasons, but

(15:29):
I think most scientists arealso in agreement that we can't
suppress our way out of thisproblem, and so, although during
the fire season we hear callsfor things like, you know, a
national firefighting service ormore aircraft, these types of
things, that alone is justcontinuing to try to play catch
up on a problem that has beenongoing for over a hundred years
, and so we really need, youknow, an equal or larger

(15:51):
investment in these proactiveapproaches if we're actually
going to get ahead of theproblem.

Jan Sumner (15:56):
Yeah, I want to push on the fire suppression.
So I think that there's firesuppression that we do in
response to a fire that might bethreatening, etc.
I agree with you on that thatit's not a good idea to stop
that, because we absolutely needto take care of humanity and
human habitation.

(16:16):
But fire suppression like maybeI'll go at this another way If
we think about what is actuallyincreasing the fuel load, that
is often the practices that areemployed from forest management
and that includes some firesuppression.
It also includes clear cuttingand the slash and how it's left,
et cetera.

(16:36):
So would now be a time toactually say we need to look at
our forest management practices,not just so.
The two responses are let's getmore firefighters, um, and
let's go out and harvest as muchas we can in anticipation that
it's going to burn anyway.
So to me it's almost like, yes,let's keep funding the response

(16:59):
to fires, but we also need totake a cold hard look at our
forest management practices andstop doing the ones that are
actually accelerating theproblem.

Jen Baron (17:12):
So immediately we should stop doing the things
that are making it worse, whichinclude things like leaving a
lot of slash on cut blocks orbrushing and spraying aspen.
I mean, that's essentially afree solution because we spend a
lot of money brushing andspraying aspen.
That we could just not.
And that's immediately, youknow, a wildfire risk reduction,
treatment and then, long term,trying to implement some of

(17:40):
these broader changes.
So when people ask me, what'srealistic in terms of how much
can we treat each year?
Right now we treat a couplethousand hectares per year.
In BC maybe 3,000 to 5,000hectares, and we don't actually
have any real records of thosetreatments either.
They go into forest managementdatabases and they're not
flagged as fuel treatments.
So I would like to argue that,given the extent of area we
harvest each year, we should beaiming to retrofit the forest

(18:04):
industry and proactively managean equal or larger area in
treatments if we're capable ofharvesting that area of the land
base, to shift that capacity,to address some of the wildfire
risk, and that would also ensurea more sustainable future for
the forest industry.
I think the forest industriesare concerned because they've
realized a lot of their tenureis going to burn and they will

(18:25):
lose that fiber, and so they tosome extent are interested and
invested in these changes, andthe Forest Practices Board did
come out with a special reportlast year on landscape fire
management that articulatesquite a few of these concepts.

Jan Sumner (18:46):
Okay.
So in terms of the fires, Ialso want to get to how much
burns, and I'm thinking verymuch in terms of carbon.
So one of the things thatpeople have talked about is the
wildfires are just basicallyobliterating the carbon and
releasing it into the atmosphere, and I have not looked at this

(19:08):
in depth, but some of thephotographic evidence that we
looked around the Big Mac fire.
We were looking at it andsaying we're not sure that it's
actually a complete removal ofthe carbon, because there's a
lot of standing charcoal orstanding trees that are you know
, for all intents and purposes,that carbon's stillly using the
limbs and the needles and thatthat really just creates an

(19:42):
enormous conflagration kind ofthing.
And my question to you is haveI got this all wrong, or has the
intensity of the fires becomeso great that it is eviscerating
all that carbon?

Jen Baron (19:55):
Yeah.
So to be honest I don't thinkwe have a very good idea at
scale of how much carbon we'reactually emitting during these
recent fire seasons.
So at present we don't yet havekind of national maps on burn
severity.
For example, Like in the US,there's the Monitoring Trends
and Burn Severity Dataset.
The Canadian Forest Service isworking on datasets like that,

(20:16):
and so is BC Wildfire, but theyall have to be field validated,
so we don't actually have asuper good idea of the effects
of recent fires In general.
It is true that most fires burnpatchy, even high severity fires
.
There are areas within thosefire perimeters that you know
lakes or water bodies or rockthat don't burn, and so we do

(20:39):
know that our fire perimeterrecords generally overestimate
the area burned, although thereis often heterogeneity within
that as well.
So patches that burn at highseverity, areas that fire skips,
fire refugia, so areas thatfire persistently skips over,
that serve often as sources forseed dispersal and new
regeneration.
But I also think that we don'thave a great idea of the

(21:04):
long-term carbon impacts ofthese fires, and so when we
account for that carbon you'reright we often assume that it's
all released immediately, whenin reality some of those pools
are consumed and releasedimmediately, and some of those
pools, particularly the standingimmediately, and some of those
pools, particularly the standingdead, are released and decay
over much longer time periods.
So essentially we can assumethat that carbon will be emitted

(21:25):
, but we don't know exactly whenit will be emitted.
In addition, one of the bigrisks of these severe fires is
that they might burn again athigh severity.
And when a stand burns at ashort interval at high severity,
that's when we get all of thebiomass on site essentially
consumed and state or phasetransition to something that is

(21:47):
potentially totally novel fromwhat was there.
So these moonscapes or kind ofshrublands, invasive grass
systems, areas that arecompletely novel ecosystems that
we have no frame of referencefor, and so one of the major
concerns with those highseverity fires and the carbon
cycle in particular, is thatthey might burn again, and
particularly when that standingdead starts to fall down in a

(22:08):
couple of years.
If we get another synchronousfire year at the same time, then
we can have really highintensities in those stands.
So it is complicated.
I do think that in generalwe're probably still
underestimating the amount ofcarbon that we're emitting,
because most of our carboninventory management is based on
data sets that inventorymerchantable timber, and we know
there's a lot more fuel inthese stands than what's

(22:30):
merchantable timber, and so ingeneral, we're under-accounting
for the amount of biomass, butwe're also you know, it's a
large country but we do vastlyoversimplify the carbon dynamics
.
probably yes.

Jan Sumner (22:41):
Yeah, and I think there's also a good chance, with
the increased severity of thesefires, that we're losing some
of that soil carbon as well,which is also not, you know,
reported, and I would like tosee that.
So it is complex and we'veoversimplified it and there's
going to be places where we'rereleasing more and maybe places

(23:02):
where we're releasing less, butwe've got these blanket
assumptions.
That's interesting.

Jen Baron (23:06):
Yeah, particularly in systems that have a lot of
below ground carbon.
So I'm thinking peatlands andalso coastal forests that have
up to a foot of duff, forexample.
That carbon we do not do a verygood job of accounting for and
that is a huge concern,especially those peatlands, I
think.
Moving forward and potentialmethane emissions that result

(23:30):
and that is something again thatpeople are working on and
looking into, but our currentsystems don't do a good job of
accounting for and you get lotsof zombie fires in those
peatlands.

Jan Sumner (23:39):
Yeah, maybe we should just explain what a
zombie fire is for anybody who'slistening.

Jen Baron (23:45):
Yeah, the media came up with that term, I didn't.

Jan Sumner (23:47):
I know, I know, I think the scientists think it's
pretty funny.

Jen Baron (23:50):
But essentially and I'm not a boreal expert or a
peatlands expert, but I'll do mybest to do it justice so
essentially because there's somuch organic matter in the
peatlands that dry out over aperiod of time similar to
throughout boreal forests.
Once a fire starts in thesesystems, it doesn't necessarily

(24:13):
burn at high severity the wholetime, and I think that's
generally a misconception aswell, like Donny Creek last
summer when people were likeit's 500,000 hectares, I think
they envisioned like 500,000hectares of like flaming front,
like it's all on fire at thesame time.
But what that really means isthat 490,000 hectares have burnt
and you know a couple, like acouple thousand hectares are on

(24:33):
fire at the flaming front movingforward, and then there's
little hot spots that pop upthroughout the fire.
And so in the case of zombiefires because there aren't,
particularly in peatlands,because there aren't overstory
trees that are on firenecessarily the fire is actually
burning underground and whenyou get the conducive fire
weather, then it will flare upagain, but otherwise it's kind
of dormant, and I think that'swhere the idea of zombie fires

(24:55):
comes from and also where we getsome of those images or videos
from last fire season, like inNorthern Quebec, where all the
fires come up at once becauseall those ignitions occurred due
to lightning clusters over theprevious, you know, several
weeks.
But then we get a hot dry cycle, come in, they're burning
underground and then they allflame up at the same time.

Jan Sumner (25:12):
They come back to life, hence the zombie term.
If you like listening to theClear Cut and want to keep the
content coming, support the show.
It would mean a lot to Kai andI.
The link to do so will be inthe episode description below.

Kaya Adleman (25:29):
You can also become a supporter by going to
our website atwwwwildlandsleagueorg.
Slash the clear cut and alsomake sure to leave us a review
on your favorite podcaststreaming platform.
It would really help thepodcast.

Jan Sumner (25:45):
I have two other questions that I have.
One of them is you talked aboutretrofitting mills for smaller
stemmed trees.
Can you give us an example ofthat, or why would you do that?

Jen Baron (26:02):
Yeah, so I think this is an idea that comes out of
kind of intersections betweenwildfire risk management and
people who work in thebioeconomy.
The idea on the forest industryside is that with decreases in
the annual allowable cut, wehave seen a lot of licensees
starting to leave BritishColumbia or shifting their

(26:24):
markets and a lot of closures ofmills where rural economies
rely on them, and those havebeen relatively recent.
So those mills in general arestill in operable condition, but
they're designed to managelarge trees and there are no
longer large trees to harvest onthose land bases.
At the same time, a lot ofthose rural communities are

(26:47):
facing heightened wildfire risk,with a large need for these
fuel reduction treatments toreduce fire risk around
communities and make it so thatwe can reintroduce fire more
beneficially.
And so what we imagine, kind ofin the intermediate term over
the next kind of like five to 20years, is we'll need to remove
a lot of biomass from thesestands that has filled in over

(27:09):
the past hundred years beforethey could be safely burned.
Have these mills that areavailable that are not currently
operating, as well as peoplewho are employed by the forest
industry who have since had tolook for work elsewhere.
There's an opportunity toretrofit them to manage some of
these smaller stems that wouldbe coming out, and so that will
likely require, you know,subsidies and investments.

(27:32):
But at present the way a lot ofthese forest thinning
treatments work is there's a lotof biomass that we can't do
anything with because we don'thave the infrastructure to
manage it, and so that is alsocarbon emitted.
It often gets burned, and so away to offset the short-term
carbon loss of these treatmentsis also to try to find other
things to do with the wood,whether that's kind of

(27:52):
small-scale wood products orchipping or paper products, kind
of more creative solutions,also bioenergy options to
support these communities,trying to think of how that wood
could flow back into the forestindustry, considering that we
do have a surplus of biomass.
It's just not biomass that fitswithin current markets.

Jan Sumner (28:14):
So small stemmed fiber and you're calling it
biomass, but it's biomass isoften used as a short term for
biofuel and what you're reallysaying is that this is smaller
stemmed wood products that arewood that can then get turned
into either products.
It might be turned into biomassfor fuel that could be used to

(28:37):
run a mill, or could be used torun a school boiler, or could be
used in homes across the region, etc.
So there's a there's a jobopening or a a financial
opportunity there to to retrofitthe industry so that we can
start using some of the smallerstemmed fiber that's coming out,

(28:57):
because, quite frankly, we'vebasically removed all the large
old trees that used to be there,so getting out and combining
sort of a fire treatment regimewith a potentially an economic
opportunity.
But, as you say, it's going torequire some retrofitting of the
industry and a moving away evenfrom the big producers.

(29:18):
Right, because the bigproducers are really about
maximizing the volume of cubicmeters going through a mill and
this is more about doing someniche products and some niche
ideas.

Jen Baron (29:32):
Yeah, and I would say it's less about directly trying
to find the next thing for theforest industry and more so to
say that we have recognized at aprovincial scale that our
current management decisions areonly perpetuating the problem
and that we need to act quicklyat scale to reverse some of

(29:53):
those consequences.
If we would like to interruptthe fire cycle that's currently
ongoing, and one of theconsequences of that is that
we're going to have to remove alot of biomass, as you say, like
small scale fiber, from theseforests and at the same time, a
lot of local and small ruralcommunities have been the most

(30:13):
negatively impacted by thechanges to the forest industry
that we've seen as a consequenceof the pine beetle outbreak and
kind of these other changesdeclines, an annual allowable
cut and so is there a way tosupport those local economies
and also find a way to not wasteall of the fuel, all of the
biomass that comes out of thesesystems by retrofitting the
mills and and kind of shiftingcapacity and expertise?

Jan Sumner (30:38):
Do you see any opportunity to change power
harvesting and what I mean bythat very specifically is using
full tree harvesting that mightleave the most amount of slash
on a site, versus, you know,stem only or select, cut or is
there any kind of forestharvesting method that you would

(31:00):
say this is going to be betterbecause it will leave less slash
or less fuel?

Jen Baron (31:05):
yeah, I think in general we are moving away,
hopefully, from planning forclear cuts in the future.
Unfortunately, most of what wedo in BC is still clear cut
harvesting and that certainly isthe most negative in terms of
the ecosystem impacts but alsothe potential fire risk.

(31:26):
After I think you know moreselective harvesting systems,
kind of variable retention andkind of managing for variable
age classes and also thinking alittle bit more about what is
actually ecologicallyappropriate in different systems
.
So that's not to say that Iwould, you know, make the same
recommendation in dry forests asI would for harvesting and kind

(31:49):
of like colder montane forests.
But I do think in general A theless slash we produce, probably
the better, and B the more wemanage that residue.
So, for example, what we domostly now is either clear cut
or sometimes seed treeharvesting, but we'll often

(32:10):
leave as seed trees the speciesthat aren't merchantable, so
things like Western Larch, forexample.
So it's very common to see ayoung plantation with Western
Larch in the overstory and theplantation has a bunch of slash
underneath it.
That's very common to see inSoutheastern British Columbia
and the Rockies, and so whatwe'll often do with that slash
is, instead of even piling it onsite, they pile it at landings

(32:32):
and they burn it at the landing,and so there's a ton of residue
left on site.
And so I think thinking aboutboth what makes sense
ecologically in terms of whichspecies we should be taking from
those systems and what we'reretaining, as well as making
more strategic decisions abouthow we manage the slash and the

(32:53):
residue, would be more adaptive,moving forward.
And you know, I will say thereare some regions or models or
licensees that do that quitewell.
I think, in particular, in thecommunity forests across British
Columbia, they do a very goodjob of trying to manage for
multiple values, includingcreating revenue to manage the
forest, as well as managing forwildlife, habitat, wildfire risk

(33:15):
, you know, recreation for thecommunity.
Many First Nations also do avery good job of this as well,
with very small budgets, butit's not something we've really
seen at scale.

Jan Sumner (33:33):
I guess, when I sort of think about the fact that
we've got an acceleration ofwildfires, both in severity and
frequency and intensity, andthat's very much being driven
from a climate perspective, asyou were saying, but then we
also have this fuels increase.

(33:54):
We're not going to harness orprevent climate change from
continuing for for some time.
You know we we might be able toreduce our emissions and
hopefully we do and hopefully weget a handle on that but it's
going to continue for the nextlittle while.
Is the best, or is part of thebest, strategy to stop expanding
our forest management andharvesting into new intact

(34:18):
systems?
Is that should we start toallow some of these intact or
natural forests to have theirinsect breaks, their you know,
their fires, et cetera, and givethem more space to do that and
stop trying to manage withforest management?

(34:39):
I mean, obviously, if it'sgoing to affect human life or
communities, we need to go inand suppress the fires.
But should we just stopexpanding into these new intact
areas, give them more space,take a precautionary approach,
allow the systems themselves tohave a response back and forth?

(35:00):
Is that kind of one of thethings I've been thinking about?

Jen Baron (35:04):
Yeah, so I think that , in general, reducing expansion
of the forest industry in itscurrent form is probably a
proactive approach.
Unfortunately, even in areasthat we haven't been harvesting,
things have changed in thosesystems, and that includes other
industries like oil and gas,but it also includes the

(35:30):
indirect consequences of firesuppression.
So there is no area where wehaven't suppressed fires, and so
those consequences are felteverywhere.
So I think it's not we're farpast the point where we can just
leave things alone and they'llrespond naturally.
We've changed too many elementsof the natural environment to
expect forests to respond in away that's resistant or

(35:50):
resilient to future disturbance.
But I do think that if we aregoing to do any management
activity in those forests thathaven't previously been
harvested, it certainlyshouldn't be more harvesting the
way we've been harvesting.
Do think that if we are going todo any management activity in
those forests that haven'tpreviously been harvested, it
certainly shouldn't be moreharvesting the way we've been
harvesting, and so that caninclude things like allowing
fire to re-enter into thosesystems, so things like fuel
treatments, and that's whereit's very important that the

(36:11):
fuel treatments are welldesigned and that we're not
using fuel treatments toactually, you know, take
merchantable biomass out ofthose sites that we actually are
removing the fuels that are atrisk, and also things like
looking at regenerationstrategies after fires that
occur in those types of forests.
Will they regenerate in a waythat we would consider to be

(36:34):
desirable, or do we need tointervene and manage for things
like invasive species or toencourage the you know
regeneration of native plants?
Or should we be introducingkind of climate adapted
seedlings as opposed to theseedlings that might regenerate
naturally on those sites?
Those types of strategies, Ithink, can be fairly adaptive.
But I also I think I guess Iworry that there are no systems

(36:58):
that are untouched or unmanaged.
I mean, the impacts of ourmanagement practices have been
so widespread that even in areasthat have been kind of safe
from harvesting per se, we'vestill removed the natural
disturbance from.

Jan Sumner (37:15):
Yeah, I think there are some forests in BC, but
you're right, it is fairlywidespread.

Jen Baron (37:20):
I'm thinking the northwest, with the Casca
territory, where they don'treally have any mining oil or
gas and they haven't hadforestry so there are some areas
in particular, where we havethese very large landscapes, and

(37:41):
we have been managing firedifferently in the north that's
also true, so we have beenletting fire burn more regularly
and certainly in those cases Iwould advocate for discouraging
continued industry expansion,kind of from Prince George South
.
We've had such widespreadimpacts in terms of the forest
industry that I think there isno stand back and let it do its

(38:02):
thing, unfortunately, but I dothink, particularly in boreal
forests that there's, theremight still be a space for that,
although one of the challengesis whether those forests are
going to be resilient to climatechange going to be resilient to
climate change, and that'swhere it becomes very important
for us to monitor, because wereally don't know how they will

(38:23):
respond and whether they willrespond in ways that are
desirable or undesirable orunexpected.

Jan Sumner (38:36):
I have one last question, and you may not be
able to speak about this, but Iwant to ask because we've seen
it in the news what's yourthoughts about?
They want to get in and logStanley Park before it burns.

Jen Baron (38:51):
Yeah, so I have been paying attention to the
conversation around Stanley Park.
I would consider Stanley Parkto be a novel ecosystem.
Stanley Park is not a pristinepiece of old growth forest that
we're managing for for diversehabitat values.

(39:13):
It's a park that's visited bymillions of tourists and so we
have to manage it that way.
I mean, if there is a lot offall down, for example because
of mortality from the insectoutbreak that went through, that
is a public safety risk and soultimately you know, sometimes I
struggle with theseconversations around wildfire

(39:34):
risk on the coast.
Sometimes we get these questionsabout Vancouver Island as well,
and it certainly is possiblethat we could experience a bad
wildfire on the coast.
Sometimes we get thesequestions about Vancouver Island
as well, and it certainly ispossible that we could
experience a bad wildfire on thecoast.
You know, never say never.
Every time you say that duringa fire season, then that thing
seems to happen.
You know, you say it won't jumpthe lake, it jumps the lake,
right.
So crazy things happen everyyear.
But of all the places I'mconcerned of, certainly the

(39:56):
lower mainland has a densepopulation, but it's still a
relatively wet system.
We get enough precipitation inthe winter that we're rarely
faced with really heightenedwildfire risk and when we are,
our response is so quick.
I mean, if a fire ignited inStanley Park, our suppression
response would be very rapid.
So I think the questions aroundpublic safety in Stanley Park

(40:21):
are important.
Fire risk certainly, but I'mnot sure I would even consider
that a wildfire.
To be honest, considering thesize of the park, that would be
like an urban forest fire in mymind.

Jan Sumner (40:32):
Would you think maybe a prescribed burn might
work in that situation?

Jen Baron (40:36):
Again, it's really hard to say actually because the
species composition is sounique.
I mean it's so overstocked withhemlock, which is part of the
reason why they've had thelooper moth problem in the first
place.
It's possible it might makesense.
I have a hard time makingrecommendations in systems that

(40:58):
don't have a frame of referencefor, so it's much easier for me
to make recommendations for dryinterior forests where they used
to burn a lot.
We know they used to burn andthey haven't burned, and so that
makes a lot of senseecologically.
If we're trying to do some typeof restoration and also adapt
it to climate change, we want togo back towards those more open
conditions.
We know that the native speciesare adapted to fire, and so
that's actually easier.

(41:19):
Making these decisions in thingslike coastal forests, urban
forests, boreal forests isactually more challenging
because we don't have a frame ofreference for when the climate
was like this, when they burn,this frequently be.

(41:39):
So, particularly if we'rethinking about thinning and
burning in coastal and borealforests, we also potentially
risk, when we open up the canopy, increasing wind speeds and
solar penetration to theunderstory, which can dry out a
lot of those really dense groundand surface fuels, that duff
layer, and so it could actuallyincrease wildfire risk, and so I
think that's one of the thingswe're trying to better
understand.
But that's kind of a caseseparate from Stanley Park.

(42:00):
Stanley Park is a totallyunique can of worms.
We would never be doing thistype of management intervention
there if it was, you know, inthe backside of a mountain
somewhere.
Right, this is a very specificplace that we make management
decisions for.

Jan Sumner (42:14):
Yeah, no, that's a lot to think about.

Kaya Adleman (42:17):
Hey, are you liking the Clear Cut as much as
we like making it?
Your donation helps us bringmore of these important stories
to life.
You can actually support ourwork by going to our website,
wwwwildlandsleagueorg.
Slash the clear cut, or you canclick the link in the episode

(42:38):
description below.

Jan Sumner (42:40):
Your support means the world to us I always just
have one more question, don't I?
Uh, I'm actually going to stopfor a second and let kaya kaya.
Are you have your last few?
Yeah?

Kaya Adleman (42:53):
um, I guess, as a fire ecologist, what are your
thoughts on the conversationaround last year's wildfire
season?

Jen Baron (43:04):
Yeah, that's a great question.
I think I have noticed changesin how we talk about fire, even
over the past five years, and ingeneral I would say that some
of those changes are positive.
So, for example, when I domedia interviews, I now get
asked about things like the roleof fuel treatments and whether
we should be doing moreprescribed burning or what

(43:26):
should we be doing kind of longterm to address this.
But I do think that ourconversation is still very
reactive and so we don't spend alot of time unpacking the
nuance during the fire season,when everything's crazy and
there's evacuation orders andthere's smoke and people are
stressed, and so I think we canprobably still do a better job.

(43:50):
And I also think that in general, in public communications and
media, there's always going tobe oversimplifications and some
nuance lost.
I mean communications and media.
There's always going to beoversimplifications and some
nuance lost.
I mean most of these topicswe've talked about today.
People have spent their entirelives studying and there's like
you could spend your you knowthe next like 10 years reading
all the papers that have beenwritten about all of these
things.
So we have to oversimplify orwe have to simplify things to

(44:13):
some extent.
But the conversation last yeararound climate versus fuels was
very frustrating to watchbecause it essentially seemed to
come from a point where peoplewho wanted to deny climate
change were saying it's all thefuels opposed to kind of the
ecological nuance of the factthat both factors can be
changing and driving changes inour forests and that our

(44:43):
solutions can be multifacetedand also look different in
different forest types.
I think that that's been leftout a lot of the conversations.

Jan Sumner (44:52):
Yeah, and I think you really, when you talk about
simplification, it's actuallyinteresting Sometimes when you
simplify something, like you didat the beginning of this
conversation, turning it intothis triangle, it really helps
create the right frame.
And I think that that's one ofthe things that I would suggest
in communications is, maybe thesingular change needs to be.
The frame is this triangle.

(45:12):
We're not going to change thetopography, but we certainly
have climate, driving fires andwe have the fuels load, and
those two aspects are thingsthat need immediate attention
and addressing.
Is there anything left for youto say?
I mean, if you want to talkabout the railway that was my

(45:35):
one last question.
I thought about that when youwere saying it in the beginning
is that sometimes that's anignition switch?
Right, that's an ignition.

Jen Baron (45:49):
Yeah, so one thing.
So there are multiple triangles, like there's also kind of the
fire triangle which is separate.
But anyways, one of the thingswe didn't really talk about is
ignitions, and so ignitions alsocontrol fires, not just the
frequency of ignitions, but kindof the spatial pattern and the
like temporal pattern ofignition.

(46:09):
So, for example, in Canada weactually have two fire seasons.
We have our human fire season,which usually happens in the
spring, and then BC.
We get a little bump up in thefall again, and then we have our
lightning fire season, whichhappens in July and August,
especially in British Columbia,and so the patterns and the

(46:30):
mechanisms and prevention toolswe might use, as well as the
locations of where fires start,are very different.
Human fires happen where peopleare, so mostly in our
communities and also along ourroadways.
A really good proxy for whereto expect human ignitions is
roads.
Wherever people can access,you'll find human fires.
And I think sometimes thepublic's understanding of what a
human-caused fire is is alsovery different from what they

(46:52):
look like in practice.
So there certainly are still anumber of haphazard ignitions
that can be prevented.
Things like throwing acigarette out a car window is
everyone's favorite visualexample of what a human fire is,
or arson although those casesare usually quite rare but it
does happen or leaving acampfire unattended, but there

(47:14):
is a level of human ignitionsassociated with having people on
the landscape that is just verychallenging to prevent.
So that includes things likeindustry, and there are area
restrictions for industry duringextreme fire weather, but
inevitably if we have a forestindustry on the land base with
heavy machinery, we areeventually going to have some
ignitions associated with it.
The railroad is alsoresponsible for a lot of

(47:36):
ignitions and there's alsolitigation that's associated
with that, and they're aware ofthis and they do monitor for
fires and they actually actionfires within a certain band on
either side of the railroadThings like power lines going
down during high windstorms,which are also very good
conditions for a big fire tostart when it's super hot, dry
and windy, and so there areother ignitions that I think are

(47:58):
not necessarily associated withnegligence per se, but just a
product of people existing onthe land base, having industries
that we have to becomeaccustomed to.
And then the lightningignitions we tend to get kind of
in the backcountry, in clustersand areas where they're really
hard to action.
I think there's sometimes thisassumption still that if we'd

(48:18):
have more technology and fasterdetection we can put all these
fires out.
If we knew about that fire,like the second it started, we
still couldn't do anything aboutit.
It's still not safe to putcrews on the ground, we still
don't have equipment to actionit there, and so that's where it
becomes kind of important tounderstand the kind of
ecological role but also thestrength of fire in some of

(48:42):
these systems especially.
We get these narrativessometimes coming out of like
Toronto or New York, of like whycan't they just go put them out
?
What are they doing, right?
This idea that we can justcontrol everything, people who
live in really urban landscapes,who maybe aren't familiar with
the size and strength of aboreal forest fire, this idea
that we could, you know, laythis like hose down the length

(49:03):
of 40 kilometers.
It'll do a 40 kilometer run inone day and someone could go in
on the ground and action thatright.
So, yeah, the ignitions pieceis also important and an
important nuance and alsosomething that's changing.

Jan Sumner (49:19):
Yeah, I think it's a little ludicrous to think that
we can go in and stop thesefires, and certainly having sat
on a patio in the summer, lastsummer, where the smoke was
filling the skies and it wascoming from the boreal forest in
northwestern Ontario or inQuebec.
Fire crews were out but wecouldn't stop those.

(49:40):
It was all the way down toWashington.
Everybody was feeling it.

Jen Baron (49:50):
Yeah, and I think that that mindset is still a
relic of that 20th century.
People aren't used to firesburning and they assume that we
have the technology to deal withthem, like this idea that we've
mastered mother nature and wecan ultimately control things,
when really we're just startingto feel the consequences of this
kind of false perception thatwe thought we did that and we
didn't.
And so I think that's why it'simportant in the solutions space
.
I mean, you know, I've seen alot of people in private
industry and in the tech worldbecome really interested in

(50:13):
wildfire solutions.
I think that there's a role forthat, for sure, but it's really
important to understand whatfactors are actually limiting
right now.
I'm not convinced that earlydetection is the solution, as
well as how that fits into kindof this longer term vision to
manage fire more proactively, soenhancing suppression only to

(50:36):
the extent that we need to, toallow us to do some of these
more proactive strategies, asopposed to once and for all
winning the war on fire.

Jan Sumner (50:46):
Yeah Well, Jen, you did not disappoint.
That was an amazingconversation.
Is there anything?
Anything that we have left offthe table, that you want to put
back on the table or that youwant to say just in conclusion,
because that was an amazingconversation.

Kaya Adleman (51:04):
Yeah, or any advice that you have for people
listening who maybe want tolearn more about fires.

Jen Baron (51:11):
Yeah, so I certainly like to think of fire as an all
of society problem.
It affects everybody and itaffects a lot of different parts
or aspects of society.
A lot of fire management alsodoes happen at the kind of local
, municipal, regional level, andso, if you live in a fire

(51:32):
exposed ecosystem, becominginvolved in your region's local
fire smart committee, attendingthose meetings, talking to your
representatives about theirstrategies towards fire
management, is never a bad idea,because it impacts you directly
.
Right, if you're a constituent,then it's important to
understand what what your, yourrepresentatives, are doing.

(51:54):
I also personally am not apessimist.
I also personally am not apessimist.
I see a lot of really good workhappen on the ground,
especially led by, for example,some of the community forests or
Indigenous communities andFirst Nations, to try to
revitalize fire and put it backon the ground.
This idea that fire is notnecessarily a bad thing and that
, at the same time, while we'refacing some of these challenges,

(52:16):
we can use it as an opportunityto try to undo some of the
harms of the past century, andso, you know, that also gives me
a lot of hope and kind ofperspective for the future.

Jan Sumner (52:33):
So we've just finished the interview with Jen.
I think Kaya asked a greatfinisher question before.
I have, of course, a couplemore questions, but she finally
gets a chance to ask a reallygreat finisher question, which
is you know, what did you thinkof the last fire season?
And Jen was really good talkingabout just what has changed in

(52:54):
terms of the public literacy.
That's the other thing.
Well, in previous years havebeen like oh, that's really
terrible, that wildfire, but nowthat we're seeing this and it's
becoming part of people'svocabulary and knowledge base
that they can talk about all ofthese things, it's really quite

(53:15):
astounding, and so I wasinterested to hear that from
from Janet.
That was a really greatquestion.

Kaya Adleman (53:22):
Oh, thank you.
Thank you for the compliment,but no, what she was saying
there struck me as well, becauseit's kind of like during the
pandemic, when the pandemicfirst started and no one knew
anything about like viruses ordiseases, and then all of a
sudden everyone becomes anexpert, um, in infectious

(53:42):
diseases, um, people that didn'tknow the difference between,
like, a viral infection or abacterial infection.
So, yeah, I think, for betteror for worse, it's uh, that's
how I would make an analogy toit.
But yeah, I just want to maybeadd a few things, kind of to
jump off what you were saying inthe beginning of this episode,

(54:03):
jan, is that I think it wasreally helpful to hear from Jen
for me personally, because Idon't know, even up until now,
the discourse about wildfiresthat I was familiar with and you
know Jen alludes to peopleincreasing their literacy and
their knowledge about wildfires.
But what I was familiar with wasthere is kind of like a binary

(54:25):
between the causes there is.
So, oh, it's either climatechange or forestry or, you know,
topography or human causedignitions.
I guess that's not a binary,because a binary is two things.
Have four things maybe.
Um, there's a word for that?
Would love to love to get somefeedback.
But, um, anyway, from what Igather, it kind of seems like

(54:46):
these points on the trianglereally work together to create a
perfect storm for these likeunprecedented severe fires that
we've been seeing.
You, climate change creates theconditions for drier, hotter
seasons which allow fire tothrive, and then forest
management provides the built-uptimber or fuel for the fire to

(55:07):
burn, and then you have thetopography which dictates
whether a landscape naturallyburns or doesn't naturally burn,
and then you have a spark toset off that chain of events.
Either it's lightning orignitions associated with heavy
machinery which I personallywasn't aware of from forestry or
the railroad that was veryinteresting to learn or other

(55:30):
industrial activities ordifferent factors are kind of
all building off of each otherand that because we can kind of

(55:51):
understand that these factorsare playing into each other, we
have a better idea of how thesetools will work to maybe help us
better adapt and change.

Jan Sumner (56:03):
Yeah, I had thought there was more caused by human
ignition than what Jen is sayingand I was very surprised by
that.
I mean, I knew that nature,these firestorms and lightning
storms, were causing some fires,but I hadn't.
I thought there was more kindof oh, I dropped a cigarette in
a place where I shouldn't have,or I had a campfire, or things

(56:27):
like that.
So I thought that was morecommon than it actually is and
these fire ecologists havestudied the causes.
So that was really interesting.
And, like you, I did notunderstand the role of the
railroad.
I did not understand the roleof all the industrial activities

(56:47):
, because we are very focused onforestry and et cetera.
But just having heavy machineryin the landscape building roads
, mining, mineral exploration,forestry all of those are
bringing new elements into theforest that you might even just
have metal machinery andsunlight hitting it and creating

(57:08):
a very heated patch through itsreflection, etc.
Right, and that being apotential ignition switch.
So all of these were new ideasto me.
The other thing that she talkedabout was that there are some
places where we're doing reallywell with this and that is
community forests, forests thatare being run by some of the

(57:31):
first nations.
But these, these places are notat scale.
The large operators, theindustrial operators, are still
using much of the traditionalmethods and are not able to get
at it.
It's almost incompatible.
This large-scale clear-cuttingand she calls out clear-cutting
quite a bit and that the lessslash we produce, the better,

(57:54):
and so looking at systems thatcan produce less slash Even when
we're burning it at roadsideshe talks about that, and the
other place that we veer intoand almost create a bit of
foreshadowing is the urbanforestry with Stanley Park, and
we're going to get into moreurban forestry when we talk to
Kim Statham from the city ofToronto.

(58:16):
So, yeah, it was a really goodconversation.
I would love to see some ofthese proactive approaches as
she talks about.
There's been three years ofreports and we haven't yet
implemented all of those things,and we can't just, it's not
enough to just be reacting toforest fires.
We actually have to start beingproactive in our management

(58:39):
decisions and there's some bigdecisions for us to start making
to get to that less slash, thebetter, and finding a way to
reduce the fuel load in theforest While at the same time
reducing the emissions that arecausing climate change, because
Wildlands League is not myopicand we don't just see the

(59:00):
problem as being how we managethe forest, but it's.
It's a there's two points onthe triangle that we have some
control over.
We cannot control thetopography, but we definitely
can control our response toforest fires and how we are
managing the fuel load andbringing it down and not

(59:20):
expanding into these new intactareas with the same old, same
old and certainly not using firesuppression.
And then the other piece for usis fire suppression to maintain
forestry.
Fire suppression to maintainhomes is obviously something we
need to keep doing.
But what's that word she used?
Wowie the wild wilderness urbaninterface.

Kaya Adleman (59:45):
Yeah.

Jan Sumner (59:46):
And the other is the climate change piece.
So all of those need to beaddressed, those two points in
the triangle that we havecontrol over is the fuel and the
climate.

Kaya Adleman (01:00:01):
Yeah, or could we?
Could we?

Jan Sumner (01:00:03):
could if we decided to act proactively on it.

Kaya Adleman (01:00:07):
Mm-hmm, and I will just say I think it's as an
aside.
It's funny that the railroadhas seemingly come up in our
podcast so many times, come upin our podcast so many times.
I think it came up in ourconversation with Anastasia
Harvey and now our Wildfireepisode with Jen Barron.

Jan Sumner (01:00:29):
Yeah.

Kaya Adleman (01:00:29):
Interesting, isn't it Always sneaking its way in
there somehow?

Jan Sumner (01:00:33):
Yeah Well, thanks, kaya.
Another great conversation withone of our guests.
A huge shout out to Jen Barron,and I know you'll be very busy,
with wildfire season alreadyunderway.

Kaya Adleman (01:00:44):
Yeah.

Jan Sumner (01:00:44):
Our thoughts go out to all the people who are
suffering from wildfires, theevacuations, etc.
The human cost and the naturalworld cost.
So our hearts go out to you.

Kaya Adleman (01:00:55):
Yeah, and thanks Jen, and thanks everyone.
All right, see you next time.

Jan Sumner (01:01:01):
Bye.
If you like listening to theClear Cut and want to keep the
content coming, support the show.
It would mean a lot to Kai andI.
The link to do so will be inthe episode description below.

Kaya Adleman (01:01:15):
You can also become a supporter by going to
our website atwwwwildlandsleagueorg.
Slash the clear cut and alsomake sure to leave us a review
on your favorite podcaststreaming platform.
It would really help thepodcast and stay tuned for new
episodes by following us onsocial media.

Jan Sumner (01:01:36):
That's at Wildlands League on Instagram, twitter and
Facebook or LinkedInin, ofcourse see you next time.