For decades, the federal government’s approach to wildfire was fairly simple: put the fire out.

Beginning in the 1930s, the U.S. Forest Service operated under what became known as the “10 a.m. rule” — the goal of suppressing every wildfire by 10 a.m. the day after it was discovered.

That policy was eventually abandoned as our understanding of fire changed.

We now know that fire is a natural and sometimes necessary part of healthy Western ecosystems. When nearly every fire is suppressed, vegetation and other fuels can accumulate, potentially contributing to larger and more destructive fires later.

Now, aggressive wildfire suppression is receiving renewed emphasis from the federal government.

The old 10 a.m. rule has not officially returned, but the Forest Service has emphasized aggressive initial attacks and full-suppression strategies.

For Nevada, the question isn’t whether we should fight wildfires. Of course we should protect communities, homes, firefighters and lives when they are threatened.

The question is whether suppression alone is enough.

Wildfire policy must also include prescribed fire, fuel reduction, defensible space, responsible development, adequately funded firefighters, healthy forests and watersheds, and preparation for hotter and drier conditions across the West.

Creation care requires us to think beyond the fire burning today.

How do we protect our neighbors today while stewarding our lands so they are healthier and more resilient tomorrow?

Sometimes stewardship means putting the fire out.

Sometimes it means understanding that fire itself is part of creation.

Good public policy needs the wisdom to know the difference.