Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects of wildfires on ecosystems
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Prescribed fires are a well debated topic. While many people support them because they "help prevent" more wildfires, and they are "controlled," I see from a different point of view. There's a reason most building don't allow smoking within a certain distance of the building. Many people don't like it and it can damage their health. Same thing with prescribed fires. They add more pollution to the air we breathe. I know a lot of people support these kinds of fires because the help control fuels, but there are other ways.
Prescribed fires are used to clean up the dead plants that will produce harmful fuels after a wildfire. The problem with these fires are even though these fires are supposed to be controlled, they can get out of hand. May 20, 2016, a prescribed fire in Minnesota escaped and burned more than what was planned and continued unstopped for a few days. Firefighters finally were able to put a stop to it. This has increased in the United States quite a bit this year. The acres burned by escaped fires are forty-six percent above normal. Unlike what many think, prescribed fires are not always watched. Sometimes, they will be left for a couple days with no one checking on them. How do they expect to keep them controlled when no one wants to control them?
…show more content…
The reason for this is we have been having more wildfires then ever before. A big contribution to the natural disasters of this world is the ecosystem. When the air is highly polluted, the risk of things like wildfires rise. We are only raising that risk by adding more pollution to the air with prescribed fires. These fires are dangerous. They are starting to get out of control too often. By trying to reduce the risk of wildfires, we are only creating
Malibu and Yosemite share similar ecosystem, which encourages wildfires and periodic firestorms. In his book Ecology of Fear, Mike Davis argues that Malibu should burn because wildfires are a part of its history. To illustrate his point, he relates numerous historical events from the first settlement of the region to modern days. Despite the high frequency of wildfires in Malibu, humans have continued to settle there in droves. Those settlers have fought the fires, which has done nothing but augment their intensity. Unlike Malibu, with its populated areas that have been damaged by wildfires, Yosemite benefits greatly from wildfires. Yosemite’s ecosystem has evolved with wildfires; indeed, without wildfires, Yosemite would lose its uniqueness. Also, Yosemite is not as heavily populated as Malibu, so fires in Yosemite would not affect humans to the same degree that they do in Malibu.
Fire plays a huge role in natural forests. The let it burn policy allows natural fires to burn unless, they threaten people, property, or endangered species. This policy allows the years and years of kindling that has fallen and piled up on the forest floor to burn up in smaller fires, instead of having huge devastating fire like the ones that burning for months in 1910 and 1988. When the west was first settled, forests were thinned by lumber companies that logged the trees and burned the logging debris, and by ranchers looking to increase pasture land. The last herder coming out of the mountains would set a fire to ensure good forage for the next year.
Wildfires started as an annual and seasonal occurrence in the south western region of California since the early 1930’s in part because of the hot dry summers and the hot dry turbulent Santa Ana winds that blow in from the desert during the fall months. Now it has become a yearlong event (Mckay, 2010). These conditions greatly contribute to the “fire season” throughout this area. This set of circumstances in conjunction with downed power lines and humans that ignited fires took place in October of 2007. This led to a series of fires that burned more than 500,000 acres, destroyed 1,500 homes, killed 9, injured 85, and forced the successful evacuation of around 500,000 people out of harm’s way.
Policies regarding the handling of wildland fires continue to change and evolve as new information is learned each fire season. Attitudes have changed between complete wildland fire suppression to no suppression at all. We now seem to have reached a balance between the two schools of thought and fall somewhere in the middle.
Prescribed fire is a controlled burn of an area done by a team of experienced or educated people in a grassland or forested area. This type of burn is intended to help the health of plant and animal species and restore them to their native state. When certain areas that need to be burned so often do not get burned, they can be a hazard to the ecosystem in which it presides. A forest can get over grown and thick which will create more fuel for a wildfire that can destroy a forest community. In grassland a controlled burn, or prescribed burn, can help eliminate invasive species that can take over grasslands that are harmful to the more desirable plants. This type of fire can be seen as harmful and a disaster by many people, but it has great benefits on the areas in which it is done.
As people of the twenty-first century, we are all too familiar with the frequent occurrence of wildfires in our nation’s forests. Each year millions of acres of woodlands are destroyed in brutal scorches. It has been estimated that 190 million acres of rangelands in the United States are highly susceptible to catastrophic fires (www.doi.gov/initiatives/forest.html.). About a third of these high-risk forests are located in California (www.sfgate.com). These uncontrollable blazes not only consume our beautiful forests but also the wildlife, our homes and often the lives of those who fight the wildfires. The frequency of these devastating fires has been increasing over the years. In fact, in the years 2000 and 2002, it has been reported that the United States has faced its worst two years in fifty years for mass destruction fires (www.doi.gov/initiatives/forest.html.). The increased natural fuels buildup coupled with droughts have been a prevailing factor in contributing to our wildfires and unhealthy forests (www.blm.gov/nhp/news/releases/pages/2004/pr040303_forests.html). Due to the severity of these wildfires, several regulations and guidelines have been implemented to save our forests. In fact, the President himself has devised a plan in order to restore our forests and prevent further destruction of our woodlands.
Thousands upon thousands of acres are lost in forest fires every year. We always hear about the dramatic losses caused by forest fires and are often concerned by them. There are so many horrible effects from fires and most of them affect so many people. Studies have shown that out of all of the different methods to decrease fire damage, prescribed burns are the most affective. Many people would argue that they are not as affective because they cause so many health problems. Although that is a very important view and may seem valid, those health issues are not as extreme as one might think. People should look at the majority of the benefits form prescribed burns and they will see how affective and important they are. Prevention is the key to society these days and is definitely an important factor in saving lives. If more lives can be saved as well as land and wildlife, prescribed burns may be the better way to go about forest fires. Although, prescribed burns are better for the environment in order to prevent drastic forest fires, severe damage to timber and extreme death of wildlife; some people feel it affects the health of a firefighter too much and it causes too many long term effects.
Forest fires kill many animals and usually destroy a large amount of land. Prescribed burns seem like they would be the best idea, but are they? Their claim to fame is to clear out land in order to decrease the burning space for when an actual forest fire occurs. Yet this may seem like a brilliant idea, but one must look at the negative aspects of controlled burnings. People might have a change of heart when they realize the damages and effects of such an interesting act. Keep in mind that not only is your health involved but even such things as the inconvenience of dealing with a smoky town. It is important to understand that prescribed burns cause severe health problems especially to firefighters; these are concerning carbon monoxide poisoning, visibility issues and health risks that will affect the future.
Approximately three miles west of Colorado Springs in the Pike National Forest, the Waldo Canyon fire of 2012 was the most destructive wildfire in Colorado history burning 18, 247 acres, killing two people, destroying 347 homes and damaging many more (City of Colorado Springs, 2013). In addition to property damages and loss of life, there were other damages caused from this wildfire to include wildlife, plant life, watershed and soil. Economic damages caused by this wildfire include firefighting costs, insurance claims, home displacement costs and business closures during the duration of the fire.
Allergens in the air also affect pollution, as carbon dioxide levels cause plants to produce more pollen (Climate Change, 2007). Smoke pollution from wildfires worsens the air quality and is harmful to breathe in. Wildfire smoke contains ozone-forming pollutants, particulates, and air toxics (California’s drought, 2015). The drought increases dry, hot, and windy weather, which intensifies the severity of wildfires. According to the CDC, the drought also increases the risk of catching fungal infections, or valley fever (Live Science Staff, 2012).
California alone was estimated at “2 billion” in funds during wildland season according to Arun Malik. In the forest service they have been managing fire for over 100 years. Spending tons and tons of money managing the forest every year. Managing the forest is great, it minimizes the outcome. It will not stop the fire entirely, however it will prevent mass destruction of the forest, and prevent communities and peoples property from getting destroyed. Close to 3,500 people caused wildland fires in the past 10 years. Which is understandable, most wild fires are caused by people, and people are not going to change, there is always going to be that one person that throws the match or lighter on the ground and walks away. Like I was saying fires are getting expensive and is a big issue in forestry
Fire at any level can be devastating, yet the effects that wildfires have on every worldwide country really has left its mark on the land. As written by world renowned wild fire spokesperson Smokey the Bear, “Every year, wildfires sweeps through parts of the United States setting wilderness and homes ablaze. On average these raging infernos destroy about four to five million acres of land a year. But in 2012, wildfire burned more than 9.3 million acres, an area about the size of Massachusetts and Connecticut combined” (U.S. Wildfires). Destroying homes, crops, towns and of course forests. Yet the effects of these fires can be seen from a negative perspective as well as some positive. Plus there are natural causes as well as manmade that makes these destructive fires erupt and become almost unstoppable in seconds.
One of the biggest problems that people are faced with on a day-to-day basis is cigarette smoke. The sole cause for 480,000 deaths each year just in the United States is accredit to cigarettes(CDC). For a lot of the smokers the habit of smoking happens to assist them when under stress and dealing with issues that are unmanageable. Some smoke to appeal to their peers or simply because it “feels good.” Smoking one cigarette can lead to a major addiction. The effects of smoking hurt oneself and those amongst us. Smoking Kills as the ad portrays this revolver and cigarettes as the bullets, and also lists the side effects of smoking. Cigarettes causes cancer, increases the risk of you getting a stroke, highly addictive and causes a lot of health problems. Nearly 16
Obliterating everything in its path, a bushfire is a natural hazard, which can be defined as wild fires in scrublands and or bushlands, especially one that spreads rapidly and is hard to contain. They can be catastrophic, causing severe damage to properties, the environment and even deaths. And as a result there is an ever-increasing need to prepare for the potential impacts of bushfires.
Fires can take out many acres of trees and destroys many forests along the way. This can lead to government spending tons of money and man-hours to stop the fire or let nature burn all of it down. Then the land is left burned and no one to replant trees. “Hundreds of trees are lost each year due to forest fires in various portions of the world. This happens due to extreme warm summers and milder winters” (conserve-energy-future 2). This quote backs up my claim and my thesis because government would need to spend more money on forest fires to help it return the way it was before. This is relevant because in the past when government got involved and invested billions to help deforestation, we have seen outstanding result and millions of cubic meters of deforestation being