[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
By definition: a wilderness area is wilderness.

What is there in the wilderness out west to burn, but the wilderness? What would one be saving from burning in the wilderness? The wilderness? So let's build roads and chop down the wilderness to save it from burning?

Father to child: "Yes, on this vast plain used to be a huge forest wilderness, but we chopped it all down so it wouldn't burn and be destroyed."

Fire is nature's way of 'saving' the wilderness. I drove thru Yellowstone National Park when the whole thing was on fire. The park rangers stopped all traffic at one point, wouldn't let cars thru for several hours, and then with instructions of keep driving, don't stop. Park is still there, wilderness has recovered, better than ever.

Let it burn. The forests have been around for a lot longer than lumber compaines. I wondered how they survived before?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a bit more complex than that. Redwood trees and other evergreen trees actually require fires to survive. Some species have pine cones are actually fire activated. They open and release the seeds after being exposed to fire. Other trees have fire resistant bark. Not all species of plants, are like that. Some species of plants, trees, and animals actually respond very poorly to fire. I will admit that this is the first valid arguement that has been posted. I just don't agree with it in every area, and neither do the vast majority of wilderness firefighters, national rangers, fellow scientists, that are very liberal I might add, that I work with, etc.