Wildfires

So, the wildfires down in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas... aren't they natural on the prairie? Not that there's much prairie left, but it seems like they should just focus on protecting homes, and let the open land burn. Of course, I'm not a farmer/rancher down there, so clearly I'm biased. It just seems like it'd be better if they let it burn. Like forests, they need to burn regularly or the fuel just builds up and you get explosive, very dangerous and destructive fires.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Weather/wireStory?id=1732623

 

The sooner you contain it, the easier it is to protect homes. Think about it, if you don't contain it, then you have to protect every single house that it might threaten. This is much easier, simpler, and cheaper to do.

 

Yeah, many are natural, but still pretty fuckin' dangerous...

 

^touche. But I wonder if a more sensible fire policy would end up even better, you know, like controlled burns? I don't know if grassland areas build up in fuel like forests do, but if they do, it can't hurt to do some controlled burns.

 

Let it burn and lose money on crops/farm animals?? Infect the air with ash and smoke? Then again, you could backfire on my question, What matters more: well-being or human greed? It's a tough question to answer... There's no right or wrong answer if you ask me.

 

What do you mean.

 

She means the taxpayers aren't natural to the prairie in that they came later and now work to stop the natural cycle of grass fires. The fires are natural, all the plants are fire adapted and many depend on fire to open their seeds or whatever. But along come the ranchers, farmers, and regular city people with their permanant settlements (unlike the more nomadic Native American villages), who don't want these natural fires burning their crops, cattle, and homes. A reasonable urge but it doesn't help the prairie much.

And closing tide, you're right, I could turn that against you, but I'm going to actually take both sides. It might be better for the ranchers as well as the prairie to allow some fires, so that the prairie stays healthy and they continue to have good land to graze on. It goes both ways.

 

The best way to control a burn is not to let it happen, and for that you need constant rains. Unfortunatly that zone doesnt have em, so you will only have to save lives and learn to live with the fire. The animals there, had learnt it so, human beings must do it too and NOT CAUSE em.

 

Ok, but she was talking about snakes and gophers, tehy are hurt by the fires to, I'm sure if snakes and gophers had the means to, they would stop fires as well.

 

Yea, I can tell you as a firefighter, I don't want to have to spend time doing controlled burns, its tiring, and annoying, The best thing is to let the fires start naturally, and put it out as fast as possible, in most cases, the winds will carry the fire to a large area, allowing enough burn, but, that way, its less tireing to the people than controlled burninggs.

 

Mowing mimics some aspects, but not all. Many seeds need fire to germinate. Fire promotes the root development in the grasses, keeping them thick, diverse, and healthy.

And yeah, mowing would just cause debris, buildup for a HUGE fire next time.

 

Due to humans, fires can occur more often than its natural burn cycle. This can lead to non-native plants virtually taking over areas and crowding out the native plants. So really an area needs to be studied well enough to know what its natural burn cycle is and its attributes are and try to maintain it.

 

So if forest fire suppression is supposedly a big part of the problem, why don't we just simply suppress fewer wildfires then? Duh?

Especially in milder weather, in which forest fires may spread over large regions, burning mostly unchallenged for weeks, and yet creeping along and never become much of a "monster."

I agree that "controlled" burns are often overrated, and more work and expense than they are worth. And then there are annoying liability issues, if a "controlled" burn gets out of control. And "controlled" burns often are way too pidly, to make much difference anyway. We should try to prevent wildfires, and set fewer "controlled" burns I think, but be more willing to let forest fires spread naturally through the forest, without so often trying to fully "contain" them, once the forest is on fire, to cut down on the soaring expenses of fire suppression.

I do think that farmers, have a natural right to burn their land to clear overgrowth, within some reasonable set of guidelines.

I find it hard to imagine fire fighters, contending with the stiffling heat of summer, having to get all dirty and heated up all the more, setting backburns to fully "contain" a spreading wildfire, too often out "in the middle of nowhere" anyway. Even many animals are smart enough to simply "get out of the way." Why not leave more such wildfires, more to nature to manage, and have minimal people to monitor the spread of the fire, for public safety, or to temporily close affected roads? I disagree with the radical "environmentalists" that we have to let forest fires burn, because it is supposedly "natural." Rather, what's the logic of pouring on taxpayer dollars onto the fire, until it rains, in sometimes some gloriously futile effort to show nature "who's boss," when nature doesn't even "care" about such things? Why can't more wilderness areas, not be "worshipped" or "protected" from humans, but to be left more "wild," in that if wildfires break out, that they are more likely to be just left to burn for more fiscally responsible fire fighting, more where it is really needed? I think most people of the public, can understand that many regions, such as much of Alaska, is just still too remote, to make firefighting practical. I like the idea of managing forest fires with minimal cost and effort, which means more merely protecting human interests and letting nature and the forest, fend more for itself, as nature somehow got by for 1000s of years, without human "help" to manage its natural summer wildfires. Surely it's often a lot cheaper to steer a growing forest fire, away from human inhabited areas with a backburn or two, than to completely surround it with "containment" firelines, and then leave the ever changing fickle weather, to naturally stall the rest of the fire, whenever it will.

Humans should alter our environment for our own benefit, but where do we get the idea that we must tightly "control" everything? If "April showers bring May flowers," then wouldn't hot dry summers bring the occasional wafting smells of burning forests? If more forest fires were less aggressively suppressed, I think that more of the hazardous and accumulating natural ground litter, would burn itself out in moderate creeping ground fires, that only occasionally leap up into the trees, in just some patchy regions of the forest, in a roaring inferno when the wind gets a-gusting too much during the heat of the day or when some parts of the fire get so hot as to start stirring up its own wind.

Forest fires are supposedly part of the natural life cycle of the forest, that we still aren't able to "control" all that well. They do produce nasty smoke, and so we should make some effort towards healthy forests and less acres burning, and more logging to benefit man, before the wood resource goes to waste. Better maintainance and pruning of overgrown forests, would be better for man and nature, except that it costs way too much and we can't afford to do much to much "fireproof" remote and roadless and inaccessible wilderness, where people don't live anyway.

I think many places are still too sparsely inhabited by humans, to much be practical to much intervene in the natural wilderness wildfires, and by cutting back on forest fire suppressed areas, we can conserve firefighting resources for where they are most needed, to benefit mainly humans and protect their lives and property.

And I get sick and tired of hearing the phrase about wildfires being needed to open pine cones or release seeds. So what? That's no excuse to burn the forest. But it could be an excuse, to not try to fight a spreading forest fire in a drought, out in some remote enough area, because the effort costs more than the expected benefit. As least a forest on fire, does clear out the hazardous fuels, that might have burned more explosively, had the fire been suppressed, until they piled up so high and the forest became so choked and dry with overgrowth, that "control" becomes impossible anyway, as billowing firestorms break out, of the sort that easily leaps most any firebreak, stoppable only by better weather, in the beetle-infested, dying forest, during the hottest, driest, windiest days of summer.

"Only you can stop forest firefighting." What some website quipped that Smoky Bear would have said, had he been free.

Forest fires, aren't quite the "monster" that Smoky Bear made them out to be. But they are awfully inconvenient in places, where humans are becoming more and more populous, and spreading throughout more of the planet. Which means, that "wild" wilderness areas, can't forever remain so "wild" anymore.

 

Forest fires are a good cleansing tool made by Nature. I travel to a very dry place often, and there are fires that get rid of the dry, dead trees and give birth to new young ones. When caused by humans, however, I would not say they are good because the forest is usually not ready for a cleansing.

And yes, they are dangerous for human and animal civilizations

 

That's ridiculous. How could nature possibly "know" when forest fires are caused by humans? To nature, fire is fire. "Controlled" burn, wildfire, natural, it's all about the same. Nature can't start fires right when a "cleansing" is "due," but sometimes more at the worst possible time, during a drought.

Humans are so numerous, that of course we should be expected to alter nature for our own benefit. But why do we think we always have to "control" everything?

One reason of course, why "naturally" caused forest fires are "better," is because there isn't the complication of determining who to blame. We should try to prevent forest fires, in order to not have to fight them, but not all forest fires can be prevented, and once the forest is on fire, it's often easier and cheaper to let it burn, at least in remote and inaccessible terrains.

Forest fires aren't "good," but more like "inevitable," the natural result of human-neglected forests. But the forests are so vast, we can't maintain them everywhere, the expense would be too great, and the benefit too small. So in some remote enough wilderness areas, why not leave the forest fires to nature to manage?

 

In a forest enviroment, fuel build up is what is the critical factor. If the fuel level is low and a fire occurs, it may typically be a low intensity ground fire. If fuel levels are high and a fire occurs, a crown fire may happen, where whole trees, top to bottom burns. Controlled burns are the most effective way to reduce fuels to safe levels. It basically tries to mimic the natural fire cycle for an area. They are not overrated but they are relatively expensive. Fires are natural, the are not good or bad, it is essential to many different ecosystems.

In many places, total fire supression for the last 100 years or so has let many forests build up fuels beyond what is usually natural. That is part of the reason that some of the fires in the last 2 decades have been so large. Such as the 1988 Yellowstone fire and within the last 5 or so years, some of the biggest fires ever in the south western states.

 

I don't think that even crown fires are so "bad," because they still burn in patchy patterns, and only some of the time, such as the heat of the day, up hillsides, or when the wind blows more during the day. And when the fuel load is high, it's even harder to "control" wildfires, yet another reason to let them more often run their natural course in remote wilderness areas. Sure, humans could reduce the fuel load, but at what cost? The cheaper or natural way to reduce fuel load, is to let it burn off whenever the weather conditions cause it, out in areas too remote to justify human intervention. Of course with more human beneficial use, such as logging or increased population or development, intervention may be more easily justified.

Who's to see really what is "natural" or "pristine" forests? I don't accept all this nonsense about humans being "hands off," but rather most any "wild" area should invite hikers and campers and fishers and miners and loggers. And the occasional or inevitable droughts, would also be to "blame" for the some of the biggest fires. I agree with some sensible balance of "natural fire use" or whatever, and that some places could leave wildfires to run their natural paths during the hot summer, but keep them monitored and protect areas of value to humans with backburns, firebreaks, etc. They probably could have avoided wasting huge taxpayer money to let Yellowstone burn, as winter weather is mostly what stopped the gloriously futile firefighting efforts anyway, but the politics complicates reasonable cost-benefit analysis. Too often, the approach it to waste and throw as much money at most everything, as possible.

Forest fire fighting should seek to reduce the number of acres that burn, to reduce air pollution, but not to reduce it to Zero, because that's still impossible at any reasonable price that taxpayers can afford. Many areas are still too remote to afford forest fire suppression, and so such suppression should be concentrated to where people most need it.

 

Forests need fire, let them burn - if you're worried about your house then don't build one in the middle of the forest - firefighter's aren't going to save it unless it'll only from heat damage and even that is kinda expensive to do - people just need to stop living in 'wilderness' type areas

~Dan