Should we strive to stop forest fires before they take place?

Question

Forest fires have been taking place far before any human beings walked the Earth. The proof for this is that many tress' seeds have evolved in such a way to germinate following a forest fire. Basically, these seeds have pores blocked with corks, or so you can visualize it. When they are heated to a certain degree, the corks "pop off." That's good enough a reason for me to believe that forest fires are natural occurrences in nature.

So why should we stop a natural phenomenon from taking place? we all know that tampering with nature ALWAYS produces more undesirable results than ever intended. Remember when the rangers at Yellowstone noticed that the number of deer were decreasing so they stepped in by killing all the wolves? That had a horrific detrimental effect on wildlife there.
Same goes for forest fires. If you attempt to stop them, the dead, unburnt trees accumulate on the ground leaving logs of potent fuel to burn even more in future fires..this produces even wilder wildfires.

To hardrockingjoe: This is a transcript from the Glenn Beck program on CNN:

John Kostyack, he is the director of the wildlife conservation campaigns for the National Wildlife Federation.

John, I`m just guessing where you work and what I do for a living, you and I don`t agree on very much of anything, but can we agree on this, that these super fires in many ways are our fault, because we thought we were doing the right thing?

JOHN KOSTYACK, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: Well, certainly there were mistakes made over the past century in terms of letting too much fuel build up in the forest -- in forests. Fires are a natural phenomenon. They`re good for forests when they happen in moderate levels.

more here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/10/gb.01.html

And regarding my education, I earned a BASC from the University of Toronto and I'm doing my MS in Mechanical Engineering at McGill University.

So don't think your degrading comments will have me sobbing and sniffing.

Answer 1

Stopping all forest fires is counterproductive, and is rarely if ever practised. It leads to accumulation of dead material as fueld, and can even kill the forest - which has evolved to cope with fire and even has species that require it to reproduce.

However, the natual cycle of forests has not prevented people living in the danger zone, so some level of management is inevitably necessary. It will never be complete though.

Answer 2

For all that we should always work to stop forest fires. Those that get away, and that's a huge amount of acreage, will obviously not be a total loss from the natural regrowth standpoint. But we live in an age where we and the diminishing forest and animal reserve need protection, not the natural fire event that would happen before the rise of our civilization. We have too much to loose in life (human, animal, and plant) and in land and property. I would not want to give up my home and all my possessions because nature called in my "number". On occasion in keeping with the role of fire in Mother Nature's scheme, we have and do actually burn area's in a controlled fire event to promote the growth of environments that need the occasional burn to be healthy, but it is a thing that really needs to be researched carefully to make sure it is a necessity for that area.

It's hard to see fire fighters die to keep a forest fire contained, and our "Smoke Jumpers" are the best of the best. I hope one of them have something to submit here. That really is a good and valid question, if for no other reason than we don't want our Fire Fighters killed horribly, and we do want nature to thrive. In some of the remote jungle areas that is probably the only solution and best solution; let them burn and regrow better, it is their time.

Answer 3

Some plants/trees life cycles are dependent on fire. The lodge pole pine has a cone which is sealed by resin. When the cones are heated in a fire the resin melts and they spread open and release the seeds contained within. There are other plant as well which will only appear after a burn.

Answer 4

You are correct, fire is part of the normal life of a forest. We have indeed gone too far in preventing and extinguishing them. We now recognize that and are beginning to change our forest management policies, at least in North America.

We also need to balance forest management with protection of life and property. The best overall plan involves:
1. Allowing controlled burns to clear out the undergrowth and reduce interference with the life of the forest.
2. Allowing uncontrolled burns where risk is minimal.
3. Building and maintaining fire breaks now, so the spread of wildfires can be controlled.
4. Proper landscape management by property owners to protect their own structures. This includes clearing out brush, dead grass and trees, and using fire-safe plants near structures.
5. If you must build structures in wildlands, build them to resist fire. If you put a wood shake roof on a house in a risk zone, you might as well set fire to it yourself.

Answer 5

obviously not all forest fires are caused by "nature". unless you call people setting trees on fire natural. It takes a very long time for plants to bio-degrade and fossilize.