Fire is universally recognized to have great power, and
is often associated with the destruction that it causes, both to property and
life. And this association is not unfounded: tens of billions of dollars of damage are
caused each year (Hall), and in 2008 over four billion dollars was spent on
wildfire suppression alone (Gorte).
However, fire has an equal, if not greater, capacity to benefit human lives by
· providing heat to homes
·
managing undesirable plants and pathogens
· clearing land efficiently for travel
·
reducing fuel loads (such as dead, dry plants that are extremely flammable)
·
maximizing food production (Pyke).
![]() |
"Prescribed Burning." Environmental Encyclopedia. N.p.: Gale, 2011. Gale Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 1 Nov. 2012. |
The purpose of prescribed, or controlled,
burning is to clear land of fuel build up, such as flammable debris. These intentional
fires are generally small enough to be easily controlled if winds pick up or
other conditions vary, and are temperately cool, preserving natural root
systems. Frequent, low-intensity fires are beneficial to the land, clearing
ground for new life ("Prescribed Burning").
Bryant Olson explains in a New York Times video (starting at 5:11) how his home was likely saved from the brunt of the Wallow fire, a destructive Arizona wildfire that burned a several hundred square miles of land in 2011 ("Science"). Not only will more lives be preserved by making better use of this new technique of preventing uncontrolled wildfires, but wildland animal habitats and precious land will also be better preserved since they are adapted to periodic disturbances from fire ("Prescribed Burning for the Management...").
![]() |
"Prescribed Burning for the Management of White-tailed Deer." Deer Management. Buck Manager: Deer Hunting and Management, 10 Jan. 2011. Web. 04 Nov. 2012. |
With rising number of
wildfires occurring and limited money to spend suppressing wildfire, better
wildfire prediction models are also of interest (Alderson). These models would
allow firefighters to most effectively concentrate efforts on fighting the most
dangerous fires with the most potential to damage fragile ecosystems, human
lives, and precious property.
All in all, it is clear that fire can be a tool to conserve lives of humans and animals alike as well as wildland habitats, and local communities should not resist prescribed burnings because the benefits of this practice far outweigh the risks.
Works Cited
Alderson,
David L., Nada Petrovic, and Jean M. Carlson. "Dynamic Resource Allocation
in Disaster Response: Tradeoffs in Wildfire Suppression." PLoS ONE 7.4
(2012): 1-9. EBSCOhost. Web. 29 Oct. 2012.
Gorte,
Ross W. Federal Funding for Wildfire Control and Management. Rep.
no. 7-5700. Congressional Research Service, 5 July 2011. Web. 1 Nov.
2012.
Hall, John R., Jr. Rep. no. USS13. National Fire Protection
Association, Feb. 2011. Web. 3 Nov. 2012.
"Prescribed
Burning for the Management of White-tailed Deer." Deer Management. Buck
Manager: Deer Hunting and Management, 10 Jan. 2011. Web. 04 Nov. 2012.
"Prescribed
Burning." Environmental Encyclopedia. N.p.: Gale, 2011. Gale
Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 1 Nov. 2012.
Prescribed
Burning.
N.d. Photograph. South Dakota. Environmental Encyclopedia. Ed. Mary
A. Cunningham, Marci Bortman, and Peter Brimblecombe. 3rd ed. Detroit: Gale,
2010. N. pag. Gale Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 30 Oct.
2012.
Pyke,
David A., Matthew L. Brooks, and Carla D'Antonio. "Fire as a Restoration
Tool: A Decision Framework for Predicting the Control or Enhancement of Plants
Using Fire." Restoration Ecology 8.3 (2010):
274-84. EBSCOhost. Web. 29 Oct. 2012.
"Science: The Forest for the Trees." NYTimes.com Video Collection 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In
Context. Web. 2 Nov. 2012.
Stuart, John. "Controlled Fires
Are Beneficial to Forests." The Environment. Ed. Laura K.
Egendorf. Sand Diego: Greenhaven Press,
2005. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Fire: Friend or Foe?" Mother Earth News (2003): 51-54. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 29 Oct. 2012. Islands,
British Columbia, Canada." Canadian Journal of Forest Research (2010):
2104-114. EBSCOhost. Web. 29 Oct. 2012.
I completely agree. Perhaps you should mention in furthur depth the environmental benefits this has. Do wildfires help contribute to the quality of the forest soil?
ReplyDeleteGood point! I have to do some more research to say for sure, but from what I know now I would say wildfires do increase the quality of the soil. It's a lot like farming actually, how if you have the same crops on the land for a long period of time the land will become worn out. The same is true for wildland soils: by reducing fuel loads on the land new growth is allowed which aids the replenishing of the soil and prevents buildup of topsoil.
DeleteFirst of all, really nice job with having a lot of sources; it gives you credibility! Most of your article talks about the benefits of intentionally setting controlled fires, but your intro and bulleted list don't really give us a sense of that. Looking back the first part of your article seems a little of topic and random, so I would make it specific from the get go, you can always expand in your research paper. Also, from a design standpoint, its not good to seperate text, meaning your words should flow and not be broken up by pictures in the middle of the page. Instead you should have a picture on the side and words flowing around it. But nice job!
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for your comments! I'm sorry if the introduction confused you; I certainly will try to be more clear in my research paper. I actually have decided to go a little bit of a different route with my paper, talking about the cost effectiveness of different wildfire prevention methods, such as prescribed burning and newer and more accurate models.
DeleteThe title is clear, but the introduction is confusing. It led me to think that you were going to explain the listed positive aspects of fire, especially since they are bulleted. Also, a possible a counterargument to address is the opposition against prescribed forest fires; are they unethical or dangerous?
ReplyDeleteThere are some people who are opposed to prescribed burning, especially since it could be dangerous (there have been prescribed burns that have gone out of control and left damage comparable to wildfires in their natural course). There is also the issue of cost: is it worthwhile for the man hours and money it costs?
DeleteYou support your side of the argument really well and you have some great sources. Maybe you can address how this (controlled burning) won't negatively affect residents or wildlife who live nearby. How is controlled burning safer than normal wildfires (escpecially during droughts or dry periods)?
ReplyDeleteWhile there are chances that prescribed burns could go out of control, overall they have a positive influence on residents and wildlife because they are milder fires than what would occur if the land is left alone and fuel builds up, especially, as you mention, in dry areas. This is because controlled burns generally only burn the surface of an area, leaving root systems, large trees, etc., thus protecting lands and residents from the harsher effects of out-of-control wildfires.
Delete