Wildfires are bad or good?

Question

Forestry experts tell us that wildfires are a natural part of the ecosystem and clean out the debris and diseases of the forest. They also say that the longer you prevent forest fires the worse they are going to get.

So why everytinme a fire breaks out they spend millions in trying to put them out?

It seems pretty contradictory to me.

Answer 1

it depends. i dont know how they really think but yes its good cause it cleans but it not good also cause were loosing our pretty forest. now i know parts up on a mountain in utah where all the trees are dead from beatles, all the pines are dead and it makes me so mad cause its sooo ugly. its not just a small part of the area its huge! so now seeing all of that i think that does need to burn and get all of that out of there so new stuff can start to grow in. now if its a forest with nice pretty green pines and trees, heck no i dont want that to burn. than it will look ugly and have the trees with no leaves or needles on it. get it. so they are both good and bad

Answer 2

People keep building multimillion dollar mansions out in the middle of the woods, and want their investments protected from the fires. The fires are good for the forest, but the forest doesn't pay taxes, and doesn't complain when it burns to the ground. I feel for those who lose their homes, I really do. Home is where the heart is, and to lose your home to fire is devastating. But, to an extent, don't build homes in the middle of notoriously dry forest and you won't have to worry about it.

Answer 3

Back when we had a lot of elbow room in this country we suppressed fires as a matter of policy.  Then we discovered it just a) built up dried matter (fuel), and b) altered a natural cycle that had evolved in forest ecosystems.

Bottom line, some plants are dependent on wildfire, but humans have altered the regime and now fires often burn too hot too frequently.  And because of the urban buildup adjacent to wildlands, they have to protect the homes and human structures, hence the money going out the window.

After the fires in San Diego a few years ago, they changed many laws so that homes and landscaping were more appropriate.  In the firestorm they had, firemen would leave homes that were standing and embers that got into eeves, etc. would smolder and burn the home to the ground hours later.  So it's a nasty situation, but fires near homes must be suppressed; fires in areas that have already burned may be suppressed too, as in the case of a stand of Tecate cypress here in Orange County.  The 2nd fire occurred within 20 years of the first, and only a few trees had managed to set cones.  The survival of that entire stand is and was threatened because of that fire.

Check out Rick Halsey's Chaparral site.  He debunks some of the myths and is devoting his life to studying the issue.

Answer 4

the fires help the ecosystem to stay healthy and often opens up certain plants that thrive in fires so that they release their seeds; some plants need periodic fires to reproduce.  Of course, these fires are not always a good thing.  Thanks to man, there are a lot of small conserved areas of endangered species, that, if subject to fire, could lead to many extinctions.  Also, the massive fires release tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and may burn down buildings and towns.  Additionally, the smoke may cause problems for planes and other aerial-related devices.  Also, it takes a relatively long time for some of these forests to grow back, which may weaken these ecosystems.  e.g., many birds live in the forests and will have to leave for another similar forest if the forest if burned down; this is assuming they are not so conditioned that they cannot locate another forest and assuming there is a nearby forest that is suitable.

Answer 5

Of course wildfires have great benefits and should be left alone when they pose no threat, but you can't expect people to just burn alive for the sake of the environment and when fires encroach on settled areas they need to be put out.

Answer 6

Fires are healthy for the environment, but bad for homeowners.

So, libs, here's a choice:

1) move out of the forest

2) contribute to an unhealty forest

3) watch your house burn down.

Answer 7

Fighting wildfires has become an addiction.  Well meaning people didn't realize that wildfires are a natural and necessary part of nature.  After fighting the fires for so long, the forest became unhealthy.  The trees became much smaller and more closely spaced.  The undergrowth became too thick.  The trees spread diseases making them more susceptible to fire.  Now when a fire comes along, it tends to burn everything and really devastates a forest.  

Previously, when natural fires occurred every decade or so, the existing trees were very strong and did not die when the fires raged through.  Now they are generally more worried about peoples homes that may be in hazardous areas.  Putting those homes there in the first place was probably poorly thought out.

Answer 8

Your right -- this does seem very contradictory.  This is because several state and federal organizations are all involved in the process on how we fight forest fires.  This includes the DNR (which is surprisingly VERY state focused), the BLM, the National Forestry Service (NFS) and sometimes even the National Parks Service (NPS).

Maybe the best way to answer this is by using last year's biggest forest fire -- Washington's Tripod Complex Fire.

The fire was caused by several lightning strikes in the Okanogan National Forest.  This was some heavy timber, but mostly beetle killed lodge pole and spruce, along with heavy slash and ground fuel -- a "dead" forest.  The DNR and NPS initially wanted this dead forest to burn, hoping that the fire would allow the land to recover on several levels.  The first plan was containment set in a few areas and some back burns set to slow the fire.

An expected rainstorm never materialized, a growing wind and a few fire jumps quickly changed the situation -- the fire blew up and suddenly was at 80,000 acres, with barely 10% containment occurring.  How the fire was to be attacked changed overnight.

DNR teams were pulled from all over the state and Oregon (Idaho was already hard pressed to fight its own fires).  The fire was now well off NPS land and threatening several communities, developments and NPS areas (this included several rivers that were key to salmon recovery).

This triggered federal involvement.  Additional resources were poured in (including from the BLM) to protect developments and communities.  Saving lives and property is the protocol in ANY forest fire.

Containment developed slowly and took a great deal of effort.  When the fall rains finally came the fire had torn through 140,000 acres, destroyed over a dozen homes and several forest related services / centers.

The dead forest area is 80% gone, but obviously the forest fire did as much damage as good.

What is need are plans developed and put in place BEFORE the forest fires start.  With strict benchmarks set in place for what the response is as the fire develops.

This obviously means all the agencies involved need to put more into joint cooperation and communication.

I spent 60 days helping fight this fire and it was only in the last 10 that any of us felt we were getting somewhere.

Answer 9

Forest fires are a natural part of the ecosystem. Before we settled here and built highways, etc., forest fires would burn for months and cover areas as big as states. "Environmentalists" should then gladly sacrifce their home to nature when a fire comes. That is the ultimate in Green living.

Answer 10

They can be good because they help the regrowth of trees but its bad when they get way out of hand