Let Forest Fires Burn
nytimes.com
Let Forest Fires Burn
1–10 of 112 posts
Re: Let Forest Fires Burn
#2There are trees that cannot reproduce unless their seed pods are baked open
Animals coming back to scorched areas carry all kinds of seeds with them that love the mineral- and carbon-rich environment
Some deer can grow beautiful atypical racks only when feeding in areas ravaged by fire
And burning-out old growth and underbrush allows whole new generations of forest to start because their impediments to growth are gone
Seems like the best thing to do is to let the fires run their course (at least the ones started naturally) .. and maybe note the risks of living near treelines like people who live near water lines know they could be flooded
Re: Let Forest Fires Burn
#3There are trees that cannot reproduce unless their seed pods are baked open Animals coming back to scorched areas carry all kinds of seeds with them that love the mineral- and carbon-rich environment Some deer can grow beautiful atypical racks only when feeding in areas ravaged by fire And burning-out old growth and underbrush allows whole new generations of forest to start because their impediments to growth are gon…
>There are trees that cannot reproduce unless their seed pods are baked open
Aspen and lodgepole pine
Re: Let Forest Fires Burn
#4It's well known that because of fire fighting, there are build ups of flammable material causing subsequent fires to be bigger and hotter. I wonder if theres a point where if we just let the fires burn, they'll be so hot that the natural benefits will be lost and the forest damaged for much longer than usual. Maybe we need to ease into it by not putting out the fires, but still keeping them from getting really intense.
Re: Let Forest Fires Burn
#5Sometimes small and constant fires clean up the area, cleaning up dead leafs and so on. Constantly stopping those fires can lead to accumulation, until a great and wild fire comes and destroys more than the "nature following the natural fate" would have.
Re: Let Forest Fires Burn
#6The problem with this is local politics. "Let wildfires burn" sounds great when it's not your multimillion dollar vacation home going up in smoke. Yes, in the long run it would be better for everyone involved. But we humans are anything but longsighted when it comes to dollars and cents.
Re: Let Forest Fires Burn
#7The problem with this is local politics. "Let wildfires burn" sounds great when it's not your multimillion dollar vacation home going up in smoke. Yes, in the long run it would be better for everyone involved. But we humans are anything but longsighted when it comes to dollars and cents.
Remember, you don't hate Mondays, you hate capitalism.
Re: Let Forest Fires Burn
#8There are trees that cannot reproduce unless their seed pods are baked open Animals coming back to scorched areas carry all kinds of seeds with them that love the mineral- and carbon-rich environment Some deer can grow beautiful atypical racks only when feeding in areas ravaged by fire And burning-out old growth and underbrush allows whole new generations of forest to start because their impediments to growth are gon…
>There are trees that cannot reproduce unless their seed pods are baked open Aspen and lodgepole pine
Jack pine is another, and a nearly-extinct bird really depends on these trees. The Kirtland's Warbler relies on large stands of young jack pine trees, and jack pine cones only open in intense heat of forest fires. Really sad, the birds can't survive in super cold climates and only like reproducing in jack pine forests, so the ending ice age and the formation of the Great Lakes trapped the birds in the northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan. They can't move into the Upper Peninsula or Canada where jack pine is more common because it's too cold, and can't move further south because there aren't any jack pine forests further south.
As the number of wildfires has declined, so has the number of large stands of young jack pines. This has had a devastating impact on the Kirtland's Warbler, who already had their natural habitat decimated.
Re: Let Forest Fires Burn
#9The problem with this is local politics. "Let wildfires burn" sounds great when it's not your multimillion dollar vacation home going up in smoke. Yes, in the long run it would be better for everyone involved. But we humans are anything but longsighted when it comes to dollars and cents.
Or even your not so multi-million house that is nonetheless in forest or even somewhat sparsely forested areas that get wildfires--which out West can mean a pretty large swath of land that just isn't urban or built-up suburban.
Re: Let Forest Fires Burn
#10Letting fires burn is standard policy at this point. We learned it the hard way, particularly after the Big Burn, or the Great Fire of 1910.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_1910
It is uncontroversial to let isolated fires burn, but fires close to houses must be contained and fires close to towns must be contained.