Confused on USFS letting some fires burn

Letter: Leonard Wallace, New Meadows

As usual, I am confused as to what the U.S.F.S. was doing when it announced in the 1990s to let some fires burn if they were not threatening private property, because they wanted to put fire back into the management of our forest, especially in the wilderness.

Excuse my stupidness because I only have a high school education and not a high-end college education. However, I was taught that there are two living species on the planet Earth: mammals which breathe in oxygen and expel carbon dioxide, and plants and trees which require water, soil and carbon dioxide that plants absorb and convert to oxygen and then they expel the oxygen back into the atmosphere… which was working out very well until the U.S.F.S. decided that some fires needed to burn.

By allowing the fires to burn, say they burn 500,000 acres in a season that is enough carbon dioxide to grow a 500,000-acre forest. Now this carbon dioxide does not go away as it has taken it years to grow this 500,000-acre forest. No, it is heavier than air so it settles to the ground and causes every little tree and brush to grow like a forest fast until there are enough trees and plants to absorb this carbon dioxide; consequently, there goes our water, which is required for trees and plants to grow. Consequently, we are headed for a drought big time and quickly, like California….

As long as our forests are clearcut and allowed to burn, the forests that have not been managed, as the U.S.F.S. call it, grow up with brush and small trees to the point where you cannot walk through them. We must have a controlled burn and the process starts all over......

Yes, the U.S.F.S. is the forests’ worst enemy, no exceptions, followed closely by our congressmen.

Leonard Wallace

New Meadows

Comments

Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Sign in to comment

CLOSE X

Information from the Free-Press and our advertisers (Want to add your business to this to this feed?)