Politics, News & Issues >
Conservation
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedWildfires in national parks: Let them burn naturally or extinguish at all costs?
Results so far:
| Let burn | 42% | 39 votes | Total: 93 votes | |
| Extinguish | 58% | 54 votes |
Let burn
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesTo allow wildfires to burn out themselves makes sense only to those who believe that for every action there is a reaction, or draw on another fact, for everything positive, there is a negative side. Taking this into consideration, it makes sense that before man was able to control wildfires as we do today, the world and its inhabitants got along just fine.
The negative side of a fire is that it puts tons of pollutants into the air, and erases most of what wildlife depends on for survival. This is only temporary as new growth starts almost immediately upon the first few rainfalls, and the remains of the fire add to the quick and new growth of food for animals to graze on.
The event is a natural occurrence that, by design, nature plays out its role to ensure that the lack of fires do not interfere with the replenishing of the soil. We as man try to control the event, thereby allowing for the deterioration of what animals need as food because of all the dead debris that inhibits new plant growth, and only the tall nonedible plants thrive.
Unless there is danger to property owners and their homes, a fire should be left to burn uninhibited so as to completely destroy old vegetation that does nothing to encourage new growth. The earth is in constant change, and the natural fires that occur have been going on way before man walked the planet.
Like always, man does not think ahead before we do anything, and we suffer the consequences long after we make decisions to change things. The planet is alive and well, despite our efforts to destroy it. But it won't be that way forever, and unless we decide that we are going to take care of this vehicle in space that is unlike any other in the universe, we better be prepared for the damage we cause to our planet's ability to support man.
No matter what it is that we do or change on this planet, there has to be some kind of consequence, and we need to recognize what that consequence will be when we decide to do anything at all that might break the chain of normal events. We are here because of millions upon millions of years of natural changes that came about which enabled man to inhabit this planet and survive.
Protecting homes and life are the first concern, but other than that reason, the fires should be allowed to follow the course that was intended, and not be interfered with so that the earth can renew itself in a way that it is most beneficial to its inhabitants.
Learn more about this author, Richard Serra.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Extinguish
I personally believe that when a wildfire does not threaten human life or structures then it should burn until it burns itself out. It is natures way of cleansing and renewing. It keeps the forest healthy and alive with new growth. However, when a wildfire erupts in a National Park then I feel that it should be fought and extinguished at all costs.
In 1988 Yellowstone National Park was struck by devastating fires. It was a far drier year then normal and fire erupted across the park throughout the summer months. Some of these wildfires were fought but a vast majority were left to burn. The devastation they wrought was insurmountable. The loss was grieved nationwide. Over 1.2 million acres was lost. Sixty seven park structures were burnt to the ground totally over 3 million dollars in damage from structure loss.
The loss to animal life was also heartbreaking. Of Yellowstones famous elk herd 350 Elk perished. Several Bison were killed. Moose and Bear also fell to their deaths due to the fire.
Yes, some of the wildfires in the summer of 1988 were fought but it was too little too late. It was decided at the start of these devastating wildfires to let them burn themselves out. It was not until things got completely out of control that an effort was made to combat these fires. By then it was too late. The fires were too intense and could not be fought even with a diligent effort.
Maybe if the decision had been made early to fight the Yellowstone fires the loss would not have been so devastating. In the case of this historic National Park it was heartbreaking the loss that had resulted and could have perhaps been prevented. I feel that if an all out effort had been made to extinguish at all costs the Yellowstone wildfires then the fires could have been controlled and the loss would have been minimal.
As it stood the US Congress had to step in and fund millions upon millions of dollars to help restore the park and structures that had been lost. Perhaps if a quarter of that money had been used to fight the wildfires when they first erupted then it would not have needed to restore the park.
Many people will argue that the Yellowstone fires of 1988 aided scientists in studying forest regeneration so the knowledge gained was valuable through the years. However, enough wildfires burn every year in National Forest Land and Bureau Of Land Management forest that if a study needs to be conducted it can be done on these wildfire areas and their aftermath. Yellowstone did not need to be a test subject. The public does not wish to visit a National Park that has been scorched and blackened to the ground. It is unappealing and heartbreaking when you consider the loss of animal life also. So the National Parks need to be saved at all costs from the devastation of wildfire.
Learn more about this author, Kim Sharpe.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Conservation
- In calculating endangered fish species, should hatchery populations be counted or just wild fish?
- Should consumers have the option of reusable glass bottles?
- Do individual consumer choices make a difference in creating a more sustainable society?
- Will there be wars over the ownership of water?
- Should the Springfield City Council continue to pursue construction of Hunter Lake as a backup water source to Lake Springfield?
