Arn't forest fires sometimes a good thing?

Question

All you people saying i'm a tree hater...i'm just asking a question...like isn't it sometimes a good thing..because after the fire...the dirt and what not is better....

Answer 1

You are right on. Forest fires can ARE a good thing. Before humans came to North America much of the continent burned naturally every three years from lightening strikes. The animals, plants, and ecosystem evolved in the presence of forest fires. That is why some plants can not reproduce without a fire opening up their cones and releasing their seeds. Giant Sequoyah trees are an example of this, their cones are called serotenous and they only open after a fire goes over them and opens them up. Wildlife have evolved to survive forest fires. I am a wildlife biologist and part of my job is actually doing prescribed burns to help certain species of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians have the type of habitat they need to survive and reproduce. I can tell you that I have seen many rabbits hunker down during a fire against a downed log and hop away unscathed. Larger mammals run away from the fires. They survive because they have been in forest fires for longer than humans have been in North America.
Because humans decided that forest fires were bad people started repressing them and putting them out. This has led to many many years of fuel building up in forest. When a fire is started in places that haven't burned for 20,30, or 40 years the fire has a LOT to burn and can become devasting.
So bottom line is - Forest fires can and are good to wildlife and plants. In fact, they help many many species of wildlife and plants.

Answer 2

Yes, in some ways they are. People tend to only look at the destruction they cause, but they (fires) used to happen all the time naturally and people weren't really affected by them, because the population was not so spread out.

One of the positive things that happens when there is a forest fire, is that it activates certain kinds of seeds that have been laying dormant for many, many years. There are some seeds that will not grow until they have been through a fire. An example is in this quote from a site I looked at:

"Fires are a natural way of clearing old growth, causing organic matter to decompose rapidly into mineral components which fuel rapid plant growth, and recycling essential nutrients, especially nitrogen.

Controlled burning can help
Some trees cannot survive without periodic blazes. Lodgepole and jack pines are serotinous species - their cones open and their seeds germinate only after they have been exposed to fire."

It is scary for people to have to witness forest fires and for their homes to be threatened by them, but they really are a natural part of the ecosystem. Although, there are a lot of them these days that are set by careless humans. They used to be started mainly by lightning.

Answer 3

I am going to get a little philosophical on you here so hold on to your shorts!

You ask if forest fire is sometimes a "good" thing. Here is the issue: "goodness" is a value judgment and for a value judgment to have meaning it requires and intelligent being to make that judgment. That being will have a point of view and depending upon that point of view, exactly the same event can be judged to be either good or bad.

That is why your simple question has generated a bunch of "no" answers from folks taking the point of view of those harmed by fires and a bunch of "yes" answers from those taking the viewpoint of those helped by fires. Often times these sort of value loaded questions generate this kind of "yes"/ "no" shouting match that does not really edify anyone.

May I suggest a different approach. Rather than a value question how about a factual question such as: "Are forest fires a natural part of the forest ecosystem?" or "How do forest organisms deal with fire?" a great follow on question might be "What are the consequences of trying to suppress forest fires?"

These questions have factual answers that are not subject to value judgments and point of view. We either know the answers or we do not. Because of that the answers can be useful for formulating policies and actions relating to forest fires.

So to consider these more factual questions: Forest fires are a natural part of most forest ecosystems. The organisms that live in forests subject to fire have learned to cope with fire and in many cases have come to expect and depend upon fire. Suppressing fires will interfere with the natural balance that the forest ecosystem has evolved and therefore can significantly change the ecosystem by favoring organisms that do not depend upon fire, disadvantaging organisms that do, and allowing the introduction of organisms that ordinarily could not survive where fire is common. One significant consequence is should a fire finally break out after long-term suppression, the altered forest ecosystem is likely to sustain significantly more damage than if fire had never been suppressed.

The obvious policy implication is that messing with a forest ecosystem by suppressing fire may turn out to be counterproductive.

Does that mean fire is sometimes a good thing? I will let you be the judge :).

Answer 4

Are Forest Fires Good

Answer 5

Contrary to common belief natural forest fires are good. A part of nature is a process called sucession and forest fires provide a good way to make sure smaller plants don't overwhelm the forest. For ex. in a regular forest fires, the bigger trees would survive because of their fire-resistant bark, but the smaller shrubs are burnt down. If these shrubs continue to grow they suck the water out of the bigger trees, etc. When human beings put out forest fires (to protect homes etc.) all they are really doing are harming the forest.

Answer 6

YES ..this is true..I have quoted a cite which explains in detail.." Some seeds, however, recall the mythical Phoenix, a bird that would rise from a fire's ashes to begin life anew. To thrive, these seeds actually need to get burned: intense heat is required to explode their seed cones or crack their hard kernels, so that water can leak in and begin the growth process. Such "fire-germinated" species are common everywhere forest fires occur on a regular basis. In an ironic turn of events, the recent campaign to stamp out forest fires has put some of these species in jeopardy. Indeed, in some parks, rangers now intentionally set forest fires just to make sure certain plants grow.

Many prairie species, for instance, only sprout after fires clear the way. That has made the spring "prairie burn" an annual ritual throughout much of the Midwest, with teams of fire-wielding plant-lovers tromping into the fields in a quest to imitate the grass fires that once swept across the plains. In Michigan, biologists have also become fervent arsonists in an effort to make sure there are enough young jack pines, a kind of tree essential to the survival of an endangered songbird called the Kirtland's warbler. For some reason, the bird will nest only in the young pines -- and the trees will grow only in recently burned forests. That's because fire is needed to get the pines' tough cones to crack open and release their cargo of seeds.

Recently, however, biologists have learned that flames aren't enough to unlock some fire-resistant seeds -- they need the smoke as well. In the 1970s, researchers discovered that some seeds germinate when exposed to the merest whiff of wood smoke, even if the seed is buried in the soil. The response makes sense: the seeds can wait years underground until smoke reveals that a fire has taken place overhead, filling the soil with fertilizing ash and clearing away plants that might block the seedling's light. Having gotten its smoke signal, the young plant can take advantage of the disaster.

But smoke is made of literally thousands of chemicals, and researchers have long puzzled over which ones might be triggering the seeds. Then, in 1997, researchers Jon Keeley and C. J. Fothereringham of Occidental College in California were able to pin down one of the responsible agents: a gas called nitrogen dioxide. They discovered that the seeds of a common wildflower called yellow whispering bells germinated when exposed to even tiny amounts of the gas. The discovery, however, had a troubling side. Nitrogen dioxide is produced by natural fires -- but it is also one of the most common pollutants produced by cars and power plants. Tons of the compound fall to Earth every day, carried by rain and dust particles. Some botanists fear the pollution could be tricking sleeping whispering bells seeds into thinking a fire has occurred -- causing them to sprout beneath the deadly shade of another plant. That would mean fewer seeds would be around when a fire really occurs.

Like other plants, however, even whispering bells show creative variation in getting their seeds to sprout. While those that live in fire-prone areas need smoke to germinate, whispering bells living in deserts, where fires are scarce, don't respond to smoke at all. Instead, they have evolved a clever response to the desert's scouring winds. For these seeds to germinate, they must be blown across rough sand, which scratches the seed's outer coat. Moisture then leaks in through the scratches, signaling the seed that it is time to grow.

Such strategies don't surprise botanists. Says one: "If you can think of a way to get a seed to sprout, you can be sure some plant is already doing it"

Answer 7

Yes, sometimes. Fires kill many types of diseases found on vegetation. Also, some types of trees can't release their seeds until seed pods/cones are 'burnt' open or cracked open by animals. Forest fires can be a cleansing, or fresh start for some old, sick forests. But in large areas or fresh young forests, this probably isn't a good thing.

Answer 8

Yes. Forest fires are not only a good thing but a scary thing. They do two very important key things, first they clear out all of the dead underbrush and make new for the new living organisms. Second of all lots of trees, when they drop their seeds, the seeds only start to germinate when they feel heat. So the fire actually grows some plants it do sent just kill them all.

Answer 9

I don't know what makes you ask this, dear, but the answer to your question is 'no'. Forest fires usually burn out of control and can lead to harming people. Rarely do forest fires happen away from a domestic area.

The benefits of having a tree burn outweigh that of having a one living. Trees convert carbon dioxide to oxygen, which is important to create cleaner air. The more trees the healthier and longer we'll live!

Answer 10

Yes they are , young lady. Keep learning!
:)

Fire is sometimes essential for forest regeneration, or provides tangible benefits for local communities. In other cases it destroys forests and has dire social and economic consequences.

Forest fires are a natural part of ecosystems in many, but not all, forest types: in boreal and dry tropical forests for example they are a frequent and expected feature, while in tropical moist forests they would naturally be absent or at least rare enough to play a negligible role in ecology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_fires