First name: Jennifer Kirkpatrick, National Geographic

This forum is closed. You can no longer post a message here but we hope you will enjoy reading the thoughts of previous visitors.

First name: James
Age: 11
State or province: Wales
Country: United Kingdom

They should burn if they are natural. There are some plants which can't grow unless their seeds have been through fires. But if it's been caused by a human it should be put out.

First name: Hansel
Age: 16
State or province: Cavite
Country: Philippines

I think we should be responsible enough to take care of our environment and even if fire occurs naturally as God's creation we have been given the responsibility to protect his creations. More so I think letting wildfire continue when you know you can do something is like committing a crime.

First name: Lauren
Age: 11
State or province: oregon
Country: USA

Fire should be restored to the ecosystem by planning prescribed fires. There is too much fuel in the forest now to just let things burn all the time. American Indians used fire to their advantage...time for the new care takers of the earth to look back to ancient ways of dealing with the forest. I am sure there is much to learn. The problem is not as simple a question as to let burn or not let burn. There are many answers to be found between these two extremems. Thank you.

First name: Rachael and Emily
Age: 13
State or province: Missouri
Country: USA

Yes,they should be allowed to burn for 2 to 3 days at a time. If it gets too close to a town or city put it out. Trees may be the most important oxygen supply on this planet and they should not all be allowed to burned by us, and instead just let Mother Nature do her own thing on her own planet. This planet belongs to us all and no one person owns her, so we need to take care of her as we do ourselves....

First name: Rob
Age: 12
State or province: New York
Country: USA

I think that people should just let them burn. That's the way it happened before there were people and everything seemed to work out OK.

First name: John
Age: 12
State or province: California
Country: USA

We have LOTS of fires here!! I think if a fire is not threatening homes or private or commercial property it should be allowed to burn, to a point. In a 2.5 million acre forest, a 65,000 acre fire is very small. The threatened animals can run to safer areas of the forest, and the burned forest is not killed, it is just changed. Life continues and will restore itself quickly.

First name: Marnie
Age: 16
State or province: Gothenburg
Country: Sweden

Let the fires burn. In the long term, it is absolutely best for nature.

First name: Daniel
Age: 10
State or province: Alabama
Country: USA

In my opinion, we shouldn't let forest fires burn and destroy habitats. They could kill animals that we don't even know about. We should put out the fires as best we can to save some of the forest. Animals that we don't even know about are becoming extinct.

First name: Billy
Age: 9
State or province: Michigan
Country: USA

I THINK WE SHOULD PUT OUT THE WILDFIRES. IT'S KILLING WILDLIFE. I MEAN, HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF YOUR HOME AND FAMILY GOT BURNED AND YOU TOO? I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE SOME OF THE TRILLIONS OF GALLONS OF WATER THAT WE HAVE AND WE SHOULD PUT IT TO GOOD USE. I'M SURE MOST PEOPLE AGREE.

First name: Heather
Age: 12
State or province: Mississippi
Country: USA

I would definitely put them out so our children will have something to play in.

First name: Alex
Age: 9
State or province: Illinois
Country: USA

Wildfires can destory our forest's trees that make fresh air out of carbon dioxide. I think that wildfires should be put out a.s.a.p!

First name: Mandy
Age: 12
State or province: Pennsylvania
Country: USA

I'm not sure. To keep the fire burning can break open things for seeds. But then again it can kill a lot of harmless animals that help us and give us food. It could also burn down a lot of animals' homes.So I guess I am more with putting out wild fires than I am for letting them burn.

First name: Jessica
Age: 13 (soon!)
State or province: New Jersey
Country: USA

I think that it depends on whether people and their towns are endangered by the fire spreading, or if the fire is in a tree-congested area in the middle of nowhere.

First name: Emily
Age: 13
State or province: Missouri
Country: USA

I think that the wild fires should be allowed to burn naturally, at least for 1 or 2 days, or depending on how fast the fire burns. The fires have been a part of Mother Nature for billions of years and they also bring new life to the forests. It also depends at what time of the year that the fires are at. If it has been unusually dry they should not be allowed to burn. If it has not been dry then let nature take her own course.

First name: Nakul
Age: 10
State or province: Michigan
Country: USA

I think that we should put out the fires because it is important to preserve our wildlife. We need the trees to live because they give us the air that we breathe and absorb the carbon dioxide that we let out. In this way they make the world a better place to live.

First name: Paul
Age: 11
State or province: Alabama
Country: USA

I think that the fires should be put out because there are trees being cut down, so the more trees there are, the less we have to worry about the greenhouse effect.

First name: Fahim
Age: 13
State or province: Minnesota
Country: USA

I think wild fires are natural. They burn off the old and dead trees so new trees can grow. But they do destroy lots of homes of animals.

First name: Dusty
Age: 8
State or province: Vermont
Country: USA

I think although it induces growth and seems to be a natural forest housekeeping, I wonder what harm it does to the animals and people living in and near.

First name: Elise
Age: 10
State or province: Maryland
Country: USA

Dear World, I naturally think putting out fires is a good idea but all fires are for a purpose, good or bad (it depends on your point of veiw). I mean, a bonfire is good as long as you don't burn the forest up! TIP:If you are facing a drought and are planning a bonfire, ALWAYS water down the place with a hose. Then you will have a lesser chance of a fire! Thank you for letting me talk! Bye!

First name: Kevin
Age: 11
State or province: Texas
Country: USA

I think that if a wildfire occurs within 50 miles of a residential area, that firefighters should put them out immediately. But if it is far away from a residential area, then firefighters could let the fire burn, at least until it becomes a threat to plants and wildlife.

First name: Decontee
Age: 13
State or province: New York
Country: USA

I think forest fires are very bad. Trees give us oxygen. Where would all the animals go? I don't think that they should let the fire keep burning. There could be some homes in the forest that could be burned down. Maybe there could be an airplane flying by, and the airplane could get confused about which way to go.

First name: Laura
Age: 13
State or province: New Mexico
Country: USA

I think you should let wild fires burn when they are prescribed. That way in years of drought, common to New Mexico, the risk of a fire being totally out of control is greatly reduced.

First name: Jessica
Age: 17
State or province: Ontario
Country: Canada

I think that small, under-control fires aren't a problem. It becomes a problem when the fires are out of control, possibly harming both humans and nature. When fires are started, either by accident or on purpose, they should be carefully watched to make sure nothing gets out of hand.

First name: Coral Grace
Age: 14
State or province: Western Australia
Country: Australia

The smoke from controlled "burn offs" causes a lot of pollution in our city (Perth). However, if we did not burn off some of the scrub forest occasionally it would result in large uncontrolled fires that would do even more damage to the environment.

First name: Stefan
Age: 12
State or province: Cape Town
Country: South Africa

I think that they should let them burn until they threaten peoples' houses or lives. Nothing is worth more than somebody's life.

First name: Meg
Age: 11
State or province: Ohio
Country: USA

I don't live where wildfires are a problem so I think they should not be put out. Putting them out would be like stopping rain from falling. I think it's natural but should be kept under control.

First name: Gary
Age: 15
State or province: Georgia
Country: USA

Wildfires are necessary to the ecosystems. These fires are needed to replenish minerals and nutrients in this earth. Without them, the current vegetation could not survive. Within a few years without fires we would have no more trees, wildlife, or other natural "things" which God placed here. I say that the fires should be able to burn naturally. Would you like some occasional wildfires or a raging inferno with the natural fuels which accumulate? According to my opinion, the wildfires must burn naturally, or we may have no more forests left!

First name: Radha
Age: 11
State or province: North Carolina
Country: USA

WILD FIRES ARE VERY STRONG AND CAN DESTROY TREES AND ANIMALS, BUT THE FIRES ALSO BRING NEW LIFE. SOME OF THE NATURAL SCIENTISTS EVEN START WILD FIRES ON PURPOSE. I BELIEVE THAT SINCE THE WILD FIRES ARE SO STRONG AND ARE CONTROLLED, THE WILD FIRES WOULD NOT DESTROY THE WHOLE FOREST BUT BRING MORE LIFE TO THE FOREST THAN BEFORE.

First name: Brent
Age: 8
State or province: Western Australia
Country: Australia

Burning causes too much pollution close to the cities.

First name: Sydney
Age: 11
State or province: California
Country: USA

Yes, I would let wildfires burn. But if it wasn't on someone's property or could have people be put in danger then I would not let the wildfires burn.

First name: Alexander
Age: 14
State or province: Ontario
Country: Canada

If wildfires are caused naturally, such as by lightning or volcanic eruption or something to that nature, the fire should be left to burn. If the fire is caused by people, such as a camp fire being left unattended, the fire should be fought and the people responsible should have to pay for the firefighting costs and should also have responsibility for planting new trees and plants.

First name: Maria Antonia
Age: 13
State or province: Antioquia
Country: Colombia

I think we have to put them out. See, in ancient times, wildfires were natural and they were part of the life harmony. But now they're caused by men, and we have destroyed our planet, so it can't resist those fires as well as it did before. We got to help our Earth!

First name: C.J.
Age: 11
State or province: Ontario
Country: Canada

Sometimes fires can be useful but most of the time they are destructive and deadly. In regards to what Giana said, fires DO endanger lives. Whether they be animal, human, small or big. Put yourself in a squirrel or mouse's shoes. Your home would be destroyed by a forest fire and you could be killed. In addition to that, forest fires can spread very fast. They can take down cities and homes including the homes of animals and wildlife. Maybe even your home. Just something for you to think about. Bye!

First name: Giana
Age: 11
State or province: Ontario
Country: Canada

I think that they should let forest fires burn, as long as they're not endangering lives.

First name: Dustin
Age: 14
State or province: Minnesota
Country: USA

I think if it is made by nature, nature should deal with it.

First name: Goob
Age: 10
State or province: Texas
Country: U.S.A.

I would let them burn because didn't they have wild fires before they had firemen to put them out?

First name: Karan
Age: 13
State or province: Delhi
Country: India

As kids, isn't there anything we can do to stop them? Why don't we start an organization run by kids?

First name: Alyx
Age: 12
State or province: Colorado
Country: USA

I think that you should let the fire burn. But if there are houses that may be affected by the fire they should put it out. Fire is a natural part of nature but for some reason we think that it is bad to have forest fires sometimes. Forest fires clear out dead plants and make room for others. If there hasn't been any fires for a long time the the dead plants will pile up and when there is a fire it will be a really big one that would burn so hot that it would kill a lot of big trees. It is good for a forest to have a small fire every 20 or 30 years instead of a really huge fire every thousand years.

First name: Susanne
Age: 12
State or province: Michigan
Country: USA

I think wildfires should be put out. To save what is left of a forest.

First name: Christine
Age: 12
State or province: New Jersey
Country: USA

I think that if we let wildfires burn naturally, the fire might get out of control and it might become a fire that we can't destroy. It could ruin our homes and destroy our lives. This might not happen all of the times, but it might happen someday.

First name: Adrien
Age: 11
State or province: Massachusetts
Country: USA

I would put out the fires because if they kept on burning, eventually they would destroy a lot of our forests. Already, too many trees have been chopped down.

First name: Alex
Age:
State or province: Florida
Country: USA

I think that natural wildfires should burn out, for a distance set beforehand.

First name: Nathan
Age: 11
State or province: Arizona
Country: USA

I think it depends on what kind of fire it is. If it's an arson fire they should put it out, but if nature caused the fire , I think they should let it burn, unless there is a danger of somebody getting hurt.

First name: Melody
Age: 9
State or province: North Carolina
Country: USA

If a forest fire starts naturally you should let it burn out by itself. If a forest fire is started by someone you should put it out IMMEDIATELY.

First name: Anita
Age: 14
State or province: Michigan
Country: USA

Wildfire should be left alone. It's part of Nature, and that's the way that it should be left.

First name: Lindsey
Age: 12
State or province: Ohio
Country: USA

I would let the fire burn, because after reading the article about it in your August issue, that seems like the right thing to do. It helps the forest. But, if it started getting close to a city, i would make people put it out.

First name: Christi
Age: 13
State or province: Texas
Country: USA

I WOULD PUT THE FIRE OUT, BECAUSE MILLIONS OF INNOCENT LITTLE CREATURES COULD DIE, AND I CANNOT STAND THE THOUGHT OF DEATH.

First name: Jessica
Age: 10
State or province: Virginia
Country: USA

Maybe some people think fire is good, but to me, a big, supervised fire is too much!

First name: Claudia
Age: 10
State or province: Virginia
Country: USA

If you see a fire, you should put it out immediately!!! The trees help us get oxygen, and after all, they are beautiful!!!

First name: Laura
Age: 13
State or province: Colorado
Country: USA

I think that you should put wild fires out!! Because the wild fires destroy the forests and land. Then it takes a long time for the land to regain the beauty it had before. And think about the people and animals who live in that area; it destroys their homes.

First name: Toby
Age: 10
State or province: Virginia
Country: U.S.A.

I think only idiots would burn forests. All of the air that we breathe comes from the trees, and without the air and trees, good-bye humans! That's what I have to say about that!

First name: Rachel
Age: 12
State or province: New Hampshire
Country: U.S.A.

I think putting out fires can have a good use, but then again, a bad use. We should TRY to protect our homes and community but forest fires are natural, made by mother nature, and have to happen. They in fact help the forest which it burns by renewing. If we put the fires out, we do keep our homes safe, but we actually stunt the forest's growth, making the forest too crowded. In conclusion, if I had to make the decision of putting out a forest fire or letting it burn, I would say: LET IT BURN!!

First name: Robert
Age: 10
State or province: California
Country: U.S.A.

I'd put them out because if whole forests burned out we'd have to plant them over again. And trees are homes to animals that need shelter. Trees are also producers of the oxygen we breathe.

First name: Shayna
Age: 8
State or province: Georgia
Country: U.S.A.

PUT OUT FIRES! If you don't, all animals will become endangered or extinct. Girls probably don't want that to happen because then there wouldn't be any cats or dogs to love. Boys [who are very gross] don't want that to happen because there would not be any sharks or stuff to fight. See, if animals were extinct [because of forest fires] nobody would be happy. See Ya!

First name: Stephanie
Age: 9
State or province: New York
Country: U.S.A.

People should put out fires because they destroy nature, pollute the air, and cause animals to lose their homes.

First name: Stephanie
Age: 11
State or province: Texas
Country: U.S.A.

I think that people should let fires burn as long as they are natural, but the fires burning really close to houses or cities should be put out.

First name: Steven
Age: 10
State or province: Louisiana
Country: U.S.A.

I believe that a wildfire should be left alone unless it is near a city.

First name: Sunayana
Age: 10
State or province: Auckland
Country: New Zealand

I think that if there is a wildfire BIG or small that you should put it out so that we still have a place for wildlife.

First name: Tara
Age: 13
State or province: California
Country: U.S.A.

Yes, people should let a wildfire burn because it helps the forest grow, but if it gets close to cities or towns,it should be put out.

First name: Thomas
Age: 11
State or province: Alabama
Country: U.S.A.

I would let wildfires burn until they reach about five miles from a town, which would give fire fighters enough time to either evacuate the town or put the fire out. Forests can't survive without natural fires, so putting them out is almost equal to cutting a forest down.