Wildfire is the major natural agent of disturbance in interior Alaska. We examined the magnitude of human impact on fire by comparing fire regime between individual 1-km(2) grid cells designated for fire suppression with lands where fires are allowed to burn naturally. Two-thirds of interior Alaska has an essentially natural fire regime, with few human ignitions, negligible suppression activity, and many large lightning-caused fires. In the 17% of land that is designated for fire suppression due to its proximity to communities and roads, there was a 50% reduction in the proportion of area burned from 1992-2001, relative to areas without suppression. The remaining 16% of land serves as a buffer, receives some suppression, and has an intermediate fire regime. Even though there were 50 times more fires and the fire season began two months earlier in lands designated for suppression, most of these fires were lit by people and remained small because fires tended to occur at times and places less favorable for fire spread and were more accessible to fire fighters compared to lands not designated for suppression. Even in the absence of fire suppression, human-caused fires were less likely to exceed 400 ha compared to lightning-caused fires. Fire suppression reduced area burned in all fuel types but was somewhat more effective in less flammable (non-forest) vegetation. Alaska's fire policy of focusing suppression efforts on a small proportion of the fire-prone region maximizes the ecological and social benefits associated with fire-dependent ecosystem services, while minimizing the social and ecological costs of suppression. Application of this policy to other areas would require well-informed managers and stakeholders to make difficult decisions about the relative costs and benefits of fire across ecologically and culturally variable landscapes.
