Reply #21: Not these fires

[sandnsea]

Controlled burns and thinning does wonders, I agree. But these fires are not normal fires and it would seem you ought to know that. Why in the world would you just want to let forests burn in a way that is not natural to them? They can't grown back naturally, even in a generation or two, if the fire didn't burn through them in a natural way in the first place.

Why not let backcountry fires burn? Because it's not healthy for those forests as I alread said, and the fires don't stay in the backcountry. Apparently you just haven't been paying attention to the communities that have been threatened and the people who have lost their homes and businesses. And certainly in alot of instances, the care of the property can make a difference, but these fires are so hot and the flames so high that they're burning everything in their path no matter what's done to prevent it. Some of these fires are within 15 miles of major populations, and you say let it burn. Geesh.

And firefighters do tend to let fires within the fire line burn, as long as it's not a fire that is doing more harm to the natural environment than good. These days they're actually alot more environmentally sensitive than in the 'good old days'.

Seriously, it makes no sense to let old growth just burn up completely when fire retardent and helicopter drops can keep the fire cool enough to allow the fire to burn somewhat normally while being kept away from communities and watersheds. And those are the main goals of firefighting today.