U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service Research Paper SO-151

Southern Woods-Burners:

A Descriptive Analysis

M. L. DOOLITTLE AND M. L. LIGHTSEY

Southern A

&

StiOtl

Tit&.
SUMMARY

About 40 percent of the South’s nearly 60,000 wildfires yearly are set

by woods-burners. A survey of 14 problem areas in four southern States

found three distinct sets of woods-burners. Most active woods-burners are

young, white males whose activities are supported by their peers. An

older but less active group have probably retired from active participation

but act as patriarchs of the burning community. A small group whose

actions are generally disapproved of by the community and who are suspected of other illegal acts complete the major categories of woodsburners. To design fire prevention programs, planners need to keep in

mind that most woods-burning is supported by the community. The isolation of rural communities will require opening of new channels of communication before prevailing attitudes can be changed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research reported in this paper was performed under terms of

cooperative agreements between the Southern Forest Experiment Station

and the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station and

the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Dr. A. W Baird and

Dr. Q. A. L. Jenkins served as principal investigators for the Mississippi

and Louisiana stations, respectively.

The detailed study planning, field work, data analysis and report

preparation were done by graduate assistants Dale Fox, Jim Hoover,

Charles Tekippe, Fred Wanger, Wade Ward, and Stan Weeber. Also, we

owe thanks to the numerous employees of the public and private forestry

agencies whose willing cooperation made the research possible.

1979

For sale by tho Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing ORico, Washington, D.C. ?0402

Stock No. 001-001-00473-1
Southern Woods-Burners: A Descriptive Analysis

M. L. DOOLITTLE AND M. L. LIGHTSEY

Between 1966 and 1975, an average of 59,558

wildfires per year burned an average of 946,231

acres per year in the South ? These figures represent 55 percent of the nation’s wildfires and 22.5

percent of the total area burned on slightly less

than 20 percent of the total forest area under

organized fire protection.

About 40 percent of the South’s wildfires are

classified as incendiary, which means that they

were started deliberately without the property

owner’s permission. These 24,000 fires per year

(80 percent of the nation’s incendiary occurrence)

account for over half the South’s acreage loss to

fire and consume roughly 350 million ft3 of wood

each year. The proportions of the incendiary problem have changed very little in the past 25 years.

The Southern Forest Experiment Station’s fire

prevention research work unit at Starkville, Mississippi, has been examining the incendiary fire

problem for more than a dozen years. Initially, our

study of incendiary fire in the South consisted of

sociological surveys of residents of areas (usually

counties) with high rates of incendiary occurrence.

The results of this phase of research are summarized by Bertrand and Baird (1975). The reIData are from annual reports, Wildfire Statistics (Forest

Fire Stetistics prior to 1968) prepared by the Cooperative

Fire Protection Staff Group, State and Private Forestry,

Forest Service, U.S. Dep. of Agric. Figures are for protected Federal, State, and private lands in Alabama,

Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

search in the second phase, which is reported here,

focused upon specific fire problem areas and

woods-burners themselves.

Incendiary Problem Areas

Incendiary fires occur in clusters or concentrations, ranging from less than 1 miz to perhaps

150 m? or more (Doolittle 1978 ). Incendiary problem areas studied in this phase of the research

process were chosen because they met several requirements:

( 1) The problem had existed for at least 5 years.

(2 ) Fires were particularly disruptive because of

number, values protected, hazard, control difficulty, etc.

(3) A reasonable probability existed for application of a successful fire-reduction effort.

(4 1 Local fire control agency personnel were willing to cooperate fully.

Fourteen incendiary problem areas were examined during the course of the research. Located

in four States, the areas each contained about

36,000 acres and averaged about 50 incendiary

fires per year.2 All areas were in the Gulf Coastal

2The standard way of expressing fire occurrence is the

number of fires per one million acres, called the fire occurrence rate (F.O.R.). The F.O.R. for the average problem

area was about 1,390 (50 - 36,000 X l,OOO,OOO). By contrast, the F.O.R. for the four States wherein the problem

areas were located was 177 for a comparable period, and

in the counties containing the problem areas it was about

1,140. (Data from Wildfire Statistics, 1971-76, and Doolittle, 1977).

M. L. Doolittle is Research Forester, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Forest

Service-USDA, maintained at Starkville, Miss., in cooperation with Mississippi State University. M. L. Lightsey is

Research Assistant with Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Mississippi State Univ.
Plain except two, which were in the Appalachian

Plateau region.3 Four problem areas were totally

or partially inside a National Forest boundary.

The remainder consisted entirely of privately

owned lands.

Field Methods

We adopted a standard research design that is

best described as a case study approach utilizing

observation and interviewing (Dean and others

1967). We established five data categories to guide

the field investigator in data collection: ( 1) the

nature of the fire control agency, (2) the nature

of the local social organization, (3) the characteristics of victims of incendiarism, (4) the characteristics of residents, and (5) the characteristics of

incendiarists. The broad categories were expanded

into nearly 50 subcategories.

In close collaboration with the appropriate fire

control agency, we selected the general area (county, for example) for a study and assigned a field

investigator. The investigator usually was a graduate research assistant with academic training in

either forestry, sociology, or both. Before making

the final selection of a problem area or areas, the

investigator spent several days consulting local

fire control agency personnel. Officials of agricultural agencies such as the Cooperative Extension

Service and Soil Conservation Service were contacted also during this initial period in the study

area.

In preliminary interviews with agency personnel, investigators acquired a list of key contacts

in the study area and made a rough delineation

of the boundaries of local rural communities.

These boundaries were checked during subsequent interviews with residents and adjusted as

appropriate. Interviewing within the rural communities began with the key contacts. Besides

supplying information about the problem itself,

these initial respondents suggested others who

could contribute information. This technique was

used in selecting respondents until subsequent interviewing yielded only corroborative information. Nearly 600 persons were interviewed.

Data Analysis

The raw data from the field investigations consisted of hundreds of pages of notes, most written

immediately after an interview. Initial analysis

of these data began in the field, as the investi3The location of these physical divisions can be found in

A Forest Atlas of the South (USDA Forest Service) 1969,

p. 5.

gator placed information from each interview into

the appropriate categories.

After leaving the field, the investigator subjected the notes to a form of content analysis

(Costner 1965, Selltiz and others 1964). The primary objective of data analysis was to develop a

composite picture of woods-burners themselvesthose individuals identified either by name or by

characterization as people who set fires in the

woods without proper authorization.

Characteristics of Woods-Burners

Most residents interviewed claimed to know or

suspect the identity of one or more woods-burners;

a few identified them by name. Six convicted incendiarists and six other persons who admitted to

fire-setting were included among respondents. We

found that characterizations of woods-burners

were amazingly consistent.

Personal Characteristics4

Most active woods-burners identified in this research were young, white males. Most were in

their early to mid-twenties, were married, and had

either finished high school or dropped out within

2 or 3 years of graduation. Most were unemployed

or employed part-time. Practically all had lived in

the same area since birth except for brief absences,

usually for military duty. The overall level of living of most woods-burners was quite low by national or regional middle-class standards, but only

slightly below average by local standards.

A second group of woods-burners we identified

may be more numerous than the first group, but

are not as active. They are also white males, but

are older (those specifically identified averaged

46 years), not as well educated (a reflection of the

larger population of that age ), and generally enjoy

a higher standard of living than the younger group.

These older woods-burners probably have retired

from active participation, act as the patriarchs of

the burning community, and help to perpetuate

the woods-burning custom.

A third group of woods-burners were characterized by respondents as no-account, lower-class,

social outcasts, a conception of woods-burners

commonly held by fire control agency personnel.

Some of these burners had been in trouble with

the law for various illegal acts and were looked

upon with disfavor by most of their neighbors.

Their personal characteristics are too variable to

4A more detailed description of the personal characteristics of over a hundred woods-burners may be found in

Dunkelberger and Altobellis, 1975.

2
permit further characterization.

Few formal organizations existed in the communities we studied, and woods-burners did not

belong to the few that did. The church was the

only exception, and only about half the younger

burners attended its services. The older group was

somewhat more active in organizations. But rural

residents as a whole are non-joiners, so formal

organizations are poor media for communication

with them.

The younger group of woods-burners bordered

on being loners, associating only with members of

their immediate family or one or two close friends.

Their favorite pastime appeared to be hunting,

either alone or with only one or two friends. Some

hunted deer as members of larger, informal confederations, but none belonged to formal clubs or

sportsmen organizations. In fact, some resented

such groups because of the perceived unfair advantages they gain in hunting leases and expensive equipment.

In most instances, woods-burners were not

harshly regarded by other members of the community. For example, in one study involving four

communities the investigator recorded 56 responses by residents regarding woods-burners.

Thirty 754 percent) were favorable, and 26 were

unfavorable. But 13 of the 26 unfavorable comments came from residents of one community

where the woods-burners in question were strongly

suspected of being involved in car theft, drug

trafficking, and other felonious activities. This left

only 13 negative responses scattered throughout

the other three communities.

Attitudes and Beliefs

Regarding Woods-Burning. The woods-burners

we interviewed were unanimous in their belief that

fire is essential in man’s treatment of the forest.

The desirable frequency of its application was reported to be from 1 to 3 years. According to the

woods-burners, fire has several benefits:

1. Clear undergrowth-thick underbrush is seen

as a threat because it is unattractive and provides fuel for a potentially large and damaging

fire, a habitat for forest pests (ticks, red bugs,

snakes), and a nuisance to hunters.

2. Eliminate pests-fire is believed to consume

the pests themselves as well as their habitat.

3. Facilitate wildlife and cattle managementfire, it was reported, greens the grass, puts tender

shoots on shurbs for deer, causes pine mast (seed)

to fall for quail and turkey, and enhances growth

of certain legumes upon which quail feed.

4. Facilitate timber management-fire is believed

beneficial in preparing the ground for seed fall,

controlling certain tree diseases, and killing the

pine beetle.

Woods-burners are ambivalent about incendiarism. Most are fully aware of the illegality of the

act and about half even assessed the usual penalties as fair. However, they feel justified in the

practice because they believe that the community

supports woods-burning and only fires that damage or destroy valuable property should be illegal.

Both beliefs are shared by most residents of incendiary problem areas.

Regarding the first belief, woods-burners and

many other residents expressed the view that most

local landowners want fire in their woods periodically. (Some landowners confirmed this desire. )

Other owners, like the government, corporations,

and absentee individuals, simply do not recognize

the benefits of fire and so do not burn their woodlands or do so too infrequently. Some people even

think that woods-burners are performing a valuable service for these landowners and should not

be punished.

The second basic belief distinguished clearly

between harmful and beneficial fires. Harmful fires

destroy houses, barns, and mature trees, but beneficial fires produce one or more of the beneficial

effects described. Harmful fires often are associated with other unlawful acts, like car theft and

whiskey making, of a few individuals or are acts

of vengeance; beneficial fires are started for practical, functional reasons.

Regarding Forest Landowners. We encountered

a wide range of attitudes toward ownership and

management of forest land. The traditional tendency to regard the forest as free and open still

exists in most areas we examined, so regulations

and practices that impede free entry and use are

met with resentment and, at times, retaliation by

the offended residents. In general, the more restrictive the practices of a landowner, the more

likely that his land will be burned-although the

fires usually are intended to be more irritating

than destructive. Corporate landowners are perceived as most restrictive and government as least

restrictive with individual owners falling somewhere in between. 5

5The relationship between class of ownership and incendiary fire occurrence rate was as expected in a recent survey

of 77 fire problem areas; corporate land was highest followed by absentee private and other private. (Doolittle

1978).

3
The Forest Service is the only government landowner represented in the areas we studied. It apparently ranks highest as a landowner/manager

for two central reasons: (1) use of national forests-particularly for hunting-generally is less

restricted than use of private lands; and (2) the

Forest Services hires local residents but corporations rarely do. This is not to say that the Forest

Service is looked upon with favor by all. In fact,

80 percent of the woods-burners and half of all

respondents opposed some of the agency’s policies

or practices.

Specific actions that alienate residents from the

Forest Service are closing woods roads, restricting

or regulating livestock grazing, developing recreation areas around community swimming holes,

charging for fire suppression on private land, managing timber in a way thought to be detrimental

to wildlife, and threatening and fining individuals

for dumping trash on national forest land. However, the overwhelming general gripe against the

Forest Service was that the district ranger and

his staff (the “office people”) never come around

to visit and explain what the Forest Service is

doing and why. If there is contact between a resident and an official of the agency, it either is initiated by the resident or its purpose is to censure

a resident for some wrong-doing. Woods-burners

are more nearly unanimous in this assessment of

the Forest Service than are other residents, but

the number of comments regarding infrequent and

impersonal contacts is simply too large to ignore.

As noted already, the corporations and the individual landowners fared worse than the Forest

Service on the landowner prestige scale. Many of

the owners of large tracts live outside the communities and, as far as the residents know, rarely

come around. Thus, this landowner group is somewhat enigmatic, and their treatment by woodsburners varies depending upon the woods-burners’

perception of each owner.

The landowning corporations (usually large

wood-using companies) are considered the most

restrictive and impersonal of,all landowners. Rarely does a resident know or have contact with a

company employee.” To many residents of fire

problem areas the profitmaking emphasis of large

6This is indicative of the fact that corporations seldom

employ local residents. In one instance where two corposations owned considerable acreages in the area, one

employed a local resident while the other did not. The first

corporation was held in higher esteem and experienced

fewer fires than the second.

companies translates into exploitative practices.

The corporations seem to have everything the residents do not: wealth, power, influence, control.

Practically the only kind words field investigators

heard about the companies pertained to their prescribed burning practices. In this area of management, companies generally are regarded as superior to other landowners because they burn more.

Although the States owned no forest land in the

areas we studied, the State forestry agencies certainly are important, even central, elements in the

wildfire situation. All forest landowners except the

Federal government rely heavily upon the State

agencies for prevention, detection, and suppression of fire. Also, most State agencies offer a

hazard-reduction burning service to individual

landowners on a fee basis. We found that, in general, State forestry agencies are highly regarded

by most residents of problem areas-including

woods-burners. In fact, some residents of fire problem areas feel sympathetic toward the State

agency because many fires it has to fight are

started because of antipathy for the landowner,

not the State. Only rarely were “dislike for the

State agency” or “to see the State employees work”

mentioned as motives for woods-burning.

The most likely reasons for the relatively high

regard for State agencies are ( 1) they employ local

residents and (2) they are engaged in fewer controversial activities than the forest landowners.

In most instances, State lookouts and fire crewmen were people whom local residents knew and

visited with informally on occasion. The image

that residents-woods-burners and non-burners

alike-have of the State agency normally is based

upon whether or not they like the employees they

know.

As far as residents of fire problem areas are

concerned, the State forestry agency is only a

fire-fighting outfit. Even those few residents who

are aware that the agencies are capable of providing

other forestry services state that they do nothing

but fight fire.7 Practically all negative comments

made about an agency’s activities related to fire

suppression: cutting fences to gain access to a fire,

causing erosion by plowing deep fire lanes, charging landowners for suppression, etc. Residents are

generally unaware of any kind of fire prevention

activity in these areas.

7In view of the many fires that occur in the areas we

studied, this perception often was accurate.

4
;-

Motives for Woods-Burning

Researchers and other investigators have been

asking why people set fire for at least 50 years,

and the answers have changed little: grazing,

grudge, hunting, jobs, meanness, pests, retaliation. We heard these and more during the course

of this research. The twelve woods-burners identified by name illustrate: five had burned to clear

the woods of pests and undergrowth; two attributed their burning to hunting; one indicated that

mischief was the reason he set a fire; one claimed

that his burning resulted from a conflict with the

Forest Service; one was a seasonal member of a

fire suppression crew at the time he set a fire;

two denied (in court and to our investigator) having set the fire for which they had been convicted,

but people in the community speculated that they

had done it for a cattleman.

Although it was not unusual to hear the full

range of motives in a study area, each area had

its leading two or three. These leading motives

often changed from community to community, but

in all cases, the reason related by an actual burner

conformed with one of the leading motives stated

by his neighbors. Also, there was evidence that a

motive can change to fit the situation. In one

area where a stock law was being vigorously enforced for the first time, hunting had replaced

grazing as a leading motive for burning.

Conclusions

Two general conclusions about woods-burners

and their environment can be derived from the

descriptions we have presented.

Most Woods-Burning is Normative Behavior

Most woods-burners encountered or described

by others during these investigations were acting

out roles that to them are completely justified by

local standards. These normative burners consist

of two subtypes; active burners and passive burners, whom we have already described. The rural

communities where the normative burners live are

isolated pockets of traditionalism orientated toward the past and the status quo; change is resisted. The family and informal social groups are

the major agents for teaching cultural skills, so

children form their basic beliefs about fire quite

early. These beliefs are continually reinforced by

the frequent demonstration that fire has desirable

effects. Although not all residents of these communities will actually set fires, most will condone

the woods-burning done by others. Only when fires

are destructive by community standards or are set

by undesirable, deviant burners, will local opinion

be on the side of landowners and protection agencies.

Rural Residents Are Socially Isolated

From Forestry Agencies

Open, active, two-way communication between

woods-burners or their neighbors and officials of

forestry agencies (public and private) are, for all

practical purposes, non-existent in the areas we

studied. When the agency has a grievance (a fire,

for example), its contact with the resident involved

is official, formal, and final. Conversely, when a

resident has a gripe (a woods-road closed, for example), he has no authority, no convenient communication channel, and no appeal. So residents

feel powerless, for they perceive that they have no

control over the environment in which they live.

Most of these people express their frustrations

verbally only; a few retaliate with actions-a fire,

an act of vandalism, perhaps a game law violation.

However, the acts of these few are supported by

the majority.

References Cited

Bertrand, Alvin L., and Andrew W. Baird.

1975. Incendiarism in Southern forests: a decade

of sociological research. Miss. Agric. For.

Exp. Stn. Bull. 838, 40 p.

Costner, Herbert L.

1965. Varieties of content analysis. Unpublished

essay ISR: 65-50. Inst. for Social. Res., Univ.

of Wash., Seattle. 26 p.

Dean, John P., Robert L. Eichhorn, and Lois R.

Dean.

1967. Observation and interviewing. In: An introduction to social research. p. 274-304 John

T. Doby, ed. Meredith Publ. Co., N.Y.

Doolittle, M. L.

1977. Forest fire occurrence in Southern counties, 1966-1975. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv.

Res. Note SO-227, 41 p. South. For. Exp.

Stn., New Orleans, La.

Doolittle, M. L.

1978. Analyzing wildfire occurrence data for prevention planning. Fire Manage. Notes 39(2):

5-7.

Dunkelberger, J. E., and A. T. Altobellis.

1975. Profiling the woods-burner: an analysis of

fire trespass violations in the South’s national

forests. Ala. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 469. 35 p.

5
Selltiz, Claire, Marie Jahoda, Morton Deutsch, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

and Stuart W. Cook. 1969. A forest atlas of the South. South. For.

1964. Research methods in social relations. 622 p. Exp. Stn., New Orleans, La., and Southeast.

Holt, Rinehart and Winston, N.Y., For. Exp. Stn. Asheville, N.C., 27 p.

6
Doolittle, M. L., and M. L. Lightsey.

1979. Southern woods-burners: a descriptive analysis. U.S.

Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Res. Pap. SO-151, 6 p. South. For.

Exp. Stn., New Orleans, La.

Describes three groups of woods-burners identified in a survey

of 14 fire problem-areas in the South. Also explores prevailing

attitudes toward woods-burning in these rural communities.

Additional keywords: fire-concentrations, incendiarism,

prevention.