A new fire paradigm is emerging.

“I think something that really sticks out to me as someone who’s not native to Oregon is that Oregon has a lot of reckoning to do with its very racist past and its racist present. And I think this case is a really clear opportunity for that reckoning to happen and for Kotek to stand up for what she says she stands for,” Lusk says.  

“That was kind of the take-home message from the Forest Service: Be afraid, be very afraid,” Ingalsbee says. “That’s when they first divulged that, in their minds, a burned forest is no longer good for spotted owls.” He says that since the Forest Service no longer viewed the roadless area as a habitat for the endangered spotted owl, it set its eyes on timber sales. “It’s literally at that moment the lights went on in my brain and I said, ‘No way.’” 

The Forest Service claimed the burnt forest could no longer house spotted owls. But according to Ingalsbee, multiple owl fledglings were spotted during the first spring season following the fire. This added to the growing pressure against the Forest Service. 

Overwhelmed by opposition, the Forest Service eventually organized a committee to come up with alternative solutions. Ingalsbee was one of the committee members, due to his experience with forest fire management. 

Representatives from the timber industry argued in favor of logging the area, claiming that old-growth clear-cutting would be environmentally beneficial and that clear-cut areas serve as fuel breaks that reduce the severity of future wildfires.

But opposition was strong. 

“‘Let’s learn from the burn’, was our slogan, and make this a research natural area,” Ingalsbee said.