Yellowstone Fires: Should they be contained?

[MA-Caver]

Yellowstone is burning once again. About 20 years ago the great park was in flames and was fought valiantly with over 9000 firefighters and at a cost of $120,000.00 which thankfully had no loss of life. Some years later the forest around where the fires had burned bloomed magnificently and we better understood the ecological benefits of forest fires. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_fires_of_1988
Now it's burning again and again thousands of firefighters and dollars are being sent to battle the blaze in an effort to save homes that are around the boundaries of the park itself. Yet should only those areas be fought and the rest burn?
Or should people just simply move and sell their land(s) to the park service and let nature do her thing.
It's almost like living near the Gulf Of Mexico and Floridian coast lines or along Oklahoma and Kansas, along the banks of the Mississippi River and anywhere near San Andreas Faultlines. You're going to live there then it seems logical to me to have to deal with whatever the areas provide, for better and especially for worse.
Fighting against nature IMO is just a futile act and a waste of resources.
Where human life is concerned there are no replacements but as far as property, they, eventually, can be replaced. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080728/ap_on_re_us/wildfires

Thoughts?

 

[theletch1]

Depends on the cause of the fire, I guess. If the fire is man made and other than a controlled burn for underbrush then it should be put out by us. If it's a natural fire caused by lightning or some such then let it burn. I'd also be all for clearing out the underbrush with what ever means available as by not doing so we allow a tinderbox to be created.

 

[fireman00]

Forests have survived and thrived because of forest fires - let 'em burn. Nature's way of cleaning up the mess. The ash returns to the soil, seeds take hold and it starts over again.

 

[Kacey]

Contained - as in, kept from burning outside the park - yes. Within the park, generally, they should be allowed to burn, for the health of the forest.

 

[Tomu]

They should burn. Without regular burning the fuel sources become to large and the fires actually burn too hot and damage the forest instead of rejuvenation. Also, there are a number of conifers whose cones only open to expose the seeds in fire, so without the fire you get no new trees.

 

[Blindside]

They should burn. Without regular burning the fuel sources become to large and the fires actually burn too hot and damage the forest instead of rejuvenation. Also, there are a number of conifers whose cones only open to expose the seeds in fire, so without the fire you get no new trees.

Thats too generalized a description of the Yellowstone fire regime. For the last 2000 years or so the areas fire regime has been characterized by by infrequent widespread stand replacing fires, not the frequent low-intensity fires that characterize many of the lower elevation western forests of ponderosa pine and Douglas fir. Most of the Yellowstone forests have not been impacted by 70 years of fire suppression the way the lower elevation forests have. With infrequent fires the norm, the manmade alteration of slightly fewer fires just hasn't had time to be a big deal.

You are correct about the cones, but even lodgepole pine (dominant conifer in Yellowstone) produces both serotinous and non-serotinous cones in a pattern that isn't fully understood yet. During the fire recovery some local areas had almost no lodgepole seedlings, while other areas you would get thousands per acre.

Lamont

 

[MA-Caver]

I'm not a scientist by any measure but do like to feel I have a base understanding of how nature works... I only speculate that Nature does know a bit more about soil reconstitution than we ever will. We puny humans are in far too much of a hurry when compared to the long wait and patience of nature. "Hoom hum, don't be too hasty" as Treebeard would say.
Even farmers have learned that replanting and replanting in an area is going to deprive the soil of vital nutrients needed to grow whatever plants they desire.
Same with the pines, one century may yield a thick growth in one area because the nutrients in the soil can sustain the number of trees while another cannot.
Cycles, I think, it all revolves around cycles. Periods of intense winters, extreme summers, mild winters and summers and so on. Fires, excessive rains, droughts and so on.
One area clear of trees allows a group of elk, deer, bison to come in forage/graze for a number of years, their droppings enriching the soil. Then decades later a fire wipes out the grassy fields and spurs growth of the trees which can now thrive due to the nutrients replenished in the soil. The "old growth" forest is burnt off in a fire and a new field of greens takes it's place. A 100+ old pine is a pretty big tree and thus needs a lot of soil nutrients to keep it healthy. With a growth of several hundred/thousand in a relatively small area it takes a toll on the soil.


I'm gonna shut up now....

:idunno: Just how I see it.

 

[jkembry]

I would tend to want to let it burn...provided that it can be controlled. I believe that cycles of flooding, burning...and other natural occurrences happen for a reason...and that is to rejuvenate itself.

I am still uncertain how mans encroachment into various areas and building up on these areas has affected these things (example levees on the Mississippi...did they contribute to flooding by changing the natural flow of water?). Good...bad... or indifferent? Any thoughts on this.

 

[MA-Caver]

I would tend to want to let it burn...provided that it can be controlled. I believe that cycles of flooding, burning...and other natural occurrences happen for a reason...and that is to rejuvenate itself.

I am still uncertain how mans encroachment into various areas and building up on these areas has affected these things (example levees on the Mississippi...did they contribute to flooding by changing the natural flow of water?). Good...bad... or indifferent? Any thoughts on this.

It's good for the economy of course. The Mississippi is still a major waterway for transport of trade goods and thus remains viable and useful. Plus because of the levees and dams and whatnots all along the shores/banks the property along the length of the river has soared in value.
It's bad because it's an alteration of nature. Same with the food belts of the U.S. Iowa wasn't there just to grow corn and Kansas wasn't just for wheat. Sure we've become the bread basket of the world but before the white man those areas were a vital ecosystem to a host of millions of animals... predominately bison. But wiping them out (or nearly so) we've changed the purpose of the land(s).
In the near attempt to wipe out the American Indians we almost wiped out(one of) the greatest teachers of harmonizing with the land/nature.
Greed changes a lot of things, not just the weight of one's purse.

Studies however have shown that thankfully if people were removed from these areas and wildlife allowed to repopulate the entire ecosystem would revive itself in less than a century.
But that's not going to happen.

 

[Live True]

I am still uncertain how mans encroachment into various areas and building up on these areas has affected these things (example levees on the Mississippi...did they contribute to flooding by changing the natural flow of water?). Good...bad... or indifferent? Any thoughts on this.

From the little I have read, the changing of the Mississippi is still a bit of dispute, depending on who you speak to. The Corps of Engineers supports the mercantile and practical improvements of trade on the river as the benefits of thier changes, while many who live along the river and some scientific analysts are not so certain. At one point, they had "straightened" large stretches of the Mississippi, as well as increasing it's flow rate by preventing the overflow into backwater areas. While this allowed farming of the areas that often flooded, it also created more treacherous flooding when it happened and also required extensive and continual dredging to resolve the build up of sediment.

As usual, it comes down to whether we are talking benefits to industry and "advancement in commerce" or the impact of a natural system that doesn't look at such short term advancements.

It was my understanding that many national forest and park services had introduced extensive underbrush clearing strategies to help prevent the high heat fires that broke out when we delayed the normal chain of lightening caused fires, etc.

I kinda liked theletch's idea...if it's a natural fire, then let it do as it will...if we caused it...then we have a responsiblity to limit the destruction and harm.

 

[MA-Caver]

From the little I have read, the changing of the Mississippi is still a bit of dispute, depending on who you speak to. The Corps of Engineers supports the mercantile and practical improvements of trade on the river as the benefits of their changes, while many who live along the river and some scientific analysts are not so certain. At one point, they had "straightened" large stretches of the Mississippi, as well as increasing it's flow rate by preventing the overflow into backwater areas. While this allowed farming of the areas that often flooded, it also created more treacherous flooding when it happened and also required extensive and continual dredging to resolve the build up of sediment.

As usual, it comes down to whether we are talking benefits to industry and "advancement in commerce" or the impact of a natural system that doesn't look at such short term advancements.

It was my understanding that many national forest and park services had introduced extensive underbrush clearing strategies to help prevent the high heat fires that broke out when we delayed the normal chain of lightening caused fires, etc.

I kinda liked theletch's idea...if it's a natural fire, then let it do as it will...if we caused it...then we have a responsibility to limit the destruction and harm.

Well think about this... a river floods because there's so much water and it always ALWAYS goes the path of least resistance. Now look it at the grand canyon. Yeah millions upon millions of years to carve out that mile plus deep section of American beauty.
Think grand canyon, think soft river bottom of Mississippi mud think of erosion. What is going on at the bottom of the river now that the water has no where else to go but down as oppose to out? Over time that bottom is gonna wash out to ... bedrock? more than or less than bedrock? Something to think about.

Oh yeah, of course the Corps of Engineers are going to side with the mercantile view of things as they change the river... who else is gonna pay 'em?

 

[Blindside]

In the near attempt to wipe out the American Indians we almost wiped out(one of) the greatest teachers of harmonizing with the land/nature.
Greed changes a lot of things, not just the weight of one's purse.

Studies however have shown that thankfully if people were removed from these areas and wildlife allowed to repopulate the entire ecosystem would revive itself in less than a century.
But that's not going to happen.

The most likely agent for the elimination of mega-fauna in North America after the last ice age was that nasty recently introduced ape, man. The giant sloths, horses, two species of bison, and mammoths and mastadons, turned into endangered species steaks in relatively short order. Not exactly the example of "harmonizing with the land" that I would point out.

Lamont

 

[MA-Caver]

The most likely agent for the elimination of mega-fauna in North America after the last ice age was that nasty recently introduced ape, man. The giant sloths, horses, two species of bison, and mammoths and mastodons, turned into endangered species steaks in relatively short order. Not exactly the example of "harmonizing with the land" that I would point out.

Lamont

LOL Yes true, but nature selected those animals for extinction because they couldn't handle the abrupt climate change, but the Bison (that thrived) lived on to herds numbering in the millions. I was speaking of the time of when everyone followed Custer's advice of "Go West Young Man" and wagon trains were the norm. Post Civil War expansion and pre-industrial age.

 

[Blindside]

LOL Yes true, but nature selected those animals for extinction because they couldn't handle the abrupt climate change, but the Bison (that thrived) lived on to herds numbering in the millions. I was speaking of the time of when everyone followed Custer's advice of "Go West Young Man" and wagon trains were the norm. Post Civil War expansion and pre-industrial age.

You mean when the plains indians would run hundreds of the bisons off of buffalo jumps and just cherry pick the best bits, or when the Maya managed to damage the habitat enough to cause the downfall of their civilization? I suspect that is just as "greedy" as any example from the European expansion in north America.

Lamont

 

[MA-Caver]

You mean when the plains Indians would run hundreds of the bison off of buffalo jumps and just cherry pick the best bits, or when the Maya managed to damage the habitat enough to cause the downfall of their civilization? I suspect that is just as "greedy" as any example from the European expansion in north America.

Lamont

Plains Indians used every single bit of the buffalo that they killed. Bones, hide, organs, muscle, tendons, fat ... everything. So they weren't wasteful of the animals they killed... not all of them ran a herd off a cliff... considering the size of the herds (way back then) it'd be impossible.

The disappearance of the Mayan civilization has still yet to be proven. Environmental changes to ravaging diseases brought by the Spaniards and Portuguese has been attributed. One theory has even been brought about that they were killed off by a drought in spite of living in a rainforest environment. The Aztecs' disappearances are also a mystery. Both tribes could've gone South and faded into other cultures there as some natives are still being born with physical facial characteristics of these once mighty people.