Abstract only:..'In the middle of July, 1997, I had the opportunity to present my views on 'Wildfire Management' to the House Agriculture Committee. On my return to Missoula one of my graduate students came running into my office waving a set of new fire management definitions issued by someone in Region 4 hot off the 'DG'. Upon reading these definitions and reflecting on my work as a technical advisor to the National Fire Policy Review Team in 1988-89, I was very concerned and frustrated by the new terms. After teaching fire management at the university-level for 22 years, I was saddled with a set of definitions and implied fire policy that I can't clearly explain to sophomore-level students! The public trust in natural resource managers will be further undermined with government double-talk of 'wildland fire', or is it a 'wildfire'? The term, 'prescribed natural fire', the only term actually agreed upon by the National Fire Policy Review Team in 1988, a term with strong public recognition and support, is now 'obsolete'. As I interpret the policy such a fire becomes a 'wildland fire' burning under an approved fire management plan, meeting prescription criteria and resource management objectives, BUT WE PAY FOR IT WITH SUPPRESSION DOLLARS! You can fool all of the people some of the time. We are now entering an era where we will openly manage the landscape with wildfires, unwanted events. Agencies have yet to do the fuel inventories, fire histories and the fire management planning for the non-wilderness lands to utilize 'wildland fires' to achieve resource objectives, hence wildfire will continue to dominate the landscape. You can't fool all of the people all of the time!'