Forest Fires - A Good Thing
("Did he just say that?")

First, a bit of background about myself. I went to college to major with the goal of getting into the College of Veterinary Medicine at The Ohio State University. The best way to do that at the college I attended was to major in Biology and minor in Chemistry, as taking the pre-requisites for OSU would fulfill about 80% of the major and minor requirements. I completed all of the pre-requisites in three years and applied to OSU with the goal of skipping my senior year of college altogether. I was close, but was told in summary, "Try again next year."

So I had a year to kill in college. With my vet school pre-requisites satisfied (and in between video editing, launching fruit with a water-balloon sling-shot from my third-floor window, and sometimes a combination of both), I was left to a) take classes to finish out my major, b) take classes to further prepare me for veterinary college, and c) take enough classes to qualify for full-time status so I could live on campus (rolling out of bed and making it to class in 120 seconds is a great thing) and get health insurance. One of the classes that qualified for "a" and "c" was Ecology.

Second, a bit about Ecology. Ecology has very little to do with the type of Veterinary medicine I knew I wanted to practice and that I practice today. I'm not particularly green, either, and I wasn't looking forward to the class. As I look back on it, I recall very little that I "learned" from that semester. One thing sticks out in my mind, though, as I reminisce, and that is the Forest Research study that was required of us, and particularly the role that fires play in the development and growth of forests.

Forest fires are necessary for healthy ecosystems.

I can't recall all of the specifics, such as ideal frequency/temperatures/etc., but I can tell you with certainty that fires are ESSENTIAL to healthy forests and ecosystems. Our models (as well as history) proved it. The model took into account new growth, intermediate growth, and old growth; density of the forest in trees per acre (broken out into specific species); and the rate at which the forest was subject to fires.

Early on in the study, my group tried to run the model with as little fire destruction as possible, so we set the frequency of fires very long (hundreds of years between fires). This resulted in an old growth forest that was not dense and very unhealthy. What we determined through the study was that the more frequent the forest was "replaced" by fires eliminating old growth and allowing new growth to establish itself every so often (decades), the more dense the forest became and the healthier the ecosystem became.

Fast-forward to today's Federal Government and Forest Service. They simply refuse to take the action necessary to prevent the degree of destruction that we're witnessing in California. Furthermore, they contribute to it. Here's how:

• Forest fires are necessary for healthy ecosystems. So rather than promoting controlled burns, or allowing naturally occurring forest fires to run their natural course, the Government does its darndest to put out all fires and block prescribed burns with court orders. This contributes to the next point.
  
  
• Naturally occurring fires would not burn as long or as hot if the underbrush that stokes the fire (and likely contributes to its origin) were allowed to be cleared periodically. This build-up of underbrush would not be so if natural fires were allowed to burn. Instead, naturally occurring fires are fought by the Government, leaving square miles of brush to accumulate over the course of decades. Additionally, enter the environmentalists. They seek court injunctions to prevent private land-owners from clearing their own property of brush. ("So-long private property rights.")

These two points are not rocket science. A biology major who didn't want to take the Ecology course remembers these points 8 years later. There are intelligent folks all over the world who are aware of these principles. Certainly there are smart people at the National Forest Service who know these things.

An additional cause of the degree of destruction that we're witnessing that doesn't necessarily involve the Federal Government is the proximity to large forests that homes are built. Sure, it's a free country, but some of the same citizens who don't have an ounce of sympathy for those who live on flood plains along the Ohio or Mississippi Rivers apply for permits to build homes in forests ripe for fires.

One of the great tragedies of these particular fires is that the type of growth that returns following natural forest fires will likely be set back hundreds of years due to the temperatures at which the current fires are burning. This, too, is due to the unnatural amount of underbrush that has accumulated over the years that natural forest fires could have prevented. When extreme temperatures are reached, the types of bacteria, fungi, and seeds that are spared under typical forest fire conditions are singed, effectively sterilizing the land.

Ultimately, I have tremendous sympathy for the families that are forced to leave their homes, a significant portion of their possessions (and sometimes their pets), not knowing what they'll return to, but having a pretty good idea that things will be charred.

Secondarily, there are policy changes that could be made that could limit the personal and financial destruction now being experienced in Southern California. But until the environmentalists care more for mankind than for underbrush, and until the Federal Government and the National Forest Service being to think according to established science rather than political correctness, millions of people will continue to be impacted by extreme forest fires from time to time.

Don't be fooled, folks. These fires aren't caused by Global Warming, as Harry Reid would have you believe. With the possible (and yes, I say possible) exception of arson, forest fires are part of a normal, natural process that has taken place over thousands of years. They are part of a forest's life-cycle, and it's high time we allow the forest land to develop as nature intended. (Does that makes me "more green" than the environmentalist?)

10/24/2007