First of all, the nearest "town" from this national park (btw, the photo is not mine) is over 50 miles away, and the next one is over 90.
Second, I agree that if a fire starts NATURALLY in a national forest or park that there is some argument to "letting nature take its course." I don't think that argument holds any weight when it was caused by someone's carelessness and stupidity.
Third, so a firefighter's life isn't worth that of someone in a village? Innocent people go out and fight things like this that were caused by negligence - and yes, I know it's their job but that doesn't make a loss any less horrific - and don't always make it through.
Four, millions of dollars are spent yearly to stop forest fires, especially during the hot summer months like this one occurred in. It's one thing to watch/monitor a fire started naturally and then have to fight it, but it's totally another to waste all that money because someone didn't put out their cigarette!
Finally, while people may not be losing their homes, there are plenty of animals that did, which is bad on the natural order of things as well.
I know it's a different eco-system, but many plants in Australia can only reproduce after a fire.
Flying over the outback at night, one can often see huge uncontrolled bushfires, which don't seem so bad when you understand that from the destruction comes new life.
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that fire can be a good thing, I'm trying to make a point that carelessness should not be looked at as "oh well, it'll EVENTUALLY grow back."
Those plants you talk about Wombat, that can only reproduce after a fire, have a lifecycle like that for a reason. And when a fire starts *naturally* and allows them to reproduce, that's the way the ecosystem is supposed to work.
It's about the natural evolution of things being f'd up by thoughtless individuals that I'm saying is a bad thing.
Amanda have you forgotton that a lot of bushfires start *naturally* and spread with great force burning down everything that may stand in its path? The more fuel, which builds up over years of no controlled burning, that there is the more fearce the fire becomes. Im also from australia and i have to disagree with you strongly when you say a **natural* burn is the way to go. Here there are many scares from the destruction of bushfire and i cant see any other way of controlling them other the controlled burning.
Anon - this wasn't a CONTROLLED burn. This was someone being stupid. You can argue controlled vs. natural all day long, and everyone is going to concede a few points to the other side. However, you're not going to convince me that some random, careless, jackass starting a fire and then walking away is the way to go.
So tell me, if you can't see any other way of "controlling them other -than- the controlled burning" how does that work in a case where there was no control?
9 comments:
I love the sarcasm in that tagline. :)
And yet the forest will regenerate...
Yes it will anon, but at what cost?
at a cost of perhaps saving near by town sites??? Too often our parks are not regularly burnt off causeing massive bushfires in summer
I disagree.
First of all, the nearest "town" from this national park (btw, the photo is not mine) is over 50 miles away, and the next one is over 90.
Second, I agree that if a fire starts NATURALLY in a national forest or park that there is some argument to "letting nature take its course." I don't think that argument holds any weight when it was caused by someone's carelessness and stupidity.
Third, so a firefighter's life isn't worth that of someone in a village? Innocent people go out and fight things like this that were caused by negligence - and yes, I know it's their job but that doesn't make a loss any less horrific - and don't always make it through.
Four, millions of dollars are spent yearly to stop forest fires, especially during the hot summer months like this one occurred in. It's one thing to watch/monitor a fire started naturally and then have to fight it, but it's totally another to waste all that money because someone didn't put out their cigarette!
Finally, while people may not be losing their homes, there are plenty of animals that did, which is bad on the natural order of things as well.
I know it's a different eco-system, but many plants in Australia can only reproduce after a fire.
Flying over the outback at night, one can often see huge uncontrolled bushfires, which don't seem so bad when you understand that from the destruction comes new life.
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that fire can be a good thing, I'm trying to make a point that carelessness should not be looked at as "oh well, it'll EVENTUALLY grow back."
Those plants you talk about Wombat, that can only reproduce after a fire, have a lifecycle like that for a reason. And when a fire starts *naturally* and allows them to reproduce, that's the way the ecosystem is supposed to work.
It's about the natural evolution of things being f'd up by thoughtless individuals that I'm saying is a bad thing.
Amanda have you forgotton that a lot of bushfires start *naturally* and spread with great force burning down everything that may stand in its path? The more fuel, which builds up over years of no controlled burning, that there is the more fearce the fire becomes. Im also from australia and i have to disagree with you strongly when you say a **natural* burn is the way to go. Here there are many scares from the destruction of bushfire and i cant see any other way of controlling them other the controlled burning.
Anon - this wasn't a CONTROLLED burn. This was someone being stupid. You can argue controlled vs. natural all day long, and everyone is going to concede a few points to the other side. However, you're not going to convince me that some random, careless, jackass starting a fire and then walking away is the way to go.
So tell me, if you can't see any other way of "controlling them other -than- the controlled burning" how does that work in a case where there was no control?
Post a Comment