There are stories going back 50 years that illustrate the sense of rage felt by locals who had advised the Forest Service to continue in some form the aboriginal practice of controlling burning. Paradoxically, fire fighting came to be heavily depended upon in the local economy as a consequence of the no-burn policy.  In one story from the 1920s and 1930s a Karuk man returned gassed and scarred from the trenches of the First World War and a former runner in the service now turned these same skills to starting fires by placing candles on bark stands piled about with tinder.  The interval required for the candle to burn down to the surrounding tinder allowed him to be several ridges distant by the time smoke could be seen. On Friday evenings, when the firefighters had been paid, he would appear in the street outside the local bar. He would call out to the paying customers in heavily accented English what was simultaneously a reminder of reciprocal obligations and a statement of revenge and resistance, “I shthart the fires, you buy the drinks.”  Fifty years later this tale is still recounted proudly by older Karuk as an instance of innovative revenge, resistance and an early jobs in the woods program.

 The story is still told of the fellow fighting fire with several downriver Indians who heard a whistle from beyond the fire line that was answered in kind by one of the men fighting with him.  After this exchange had been repeated a number of times, the local asked what was going on.  He was told, "Oh that’s just our partner setting more fires so we won't run out of work.”  Another local of that era is remembered for having used a muzzle loader to shoot burning, kerosene-soaked rags across the river, torching off what were then largely inaccessible areas of forest in response to personal grievances with the Forest Service.   

 But by no means were all fires set as acts of political revenge or modest economic initiatives. The Karuk continued to inhabit their aboriginal lands and continued setting fires for the same management goals that they had practiced for thousands of years. As a consequence of the no-burn policy of the Forest Service, the new menace of conflagration became the greatest "natural” danger to the area, and the level of conflict between locals and the Forest Service increased as the development of massive, uncontrollable forest fires threatened community survival.  This conflict came in part to focus upon aboriginal burning practices. 

Part III of this monograph will be published in the next edition of The River Voice.   
E-mail John Salter at jsalter@shasta.com

     Back to Index                   <Previous                                   Page  1  2  3 

PART II