Wildfire is a powerful force of nature, as natural as rain, wind, and lightning. A burning issue in forestry is whether to let some fires blaze. What do YOU think? Read on, then share your opinion on the talk board.

Wildfires normally burn through forests every 5 to 25 years. These fires breeze through quickly and do little permanent damage. Without occasional natural fires, the forest becomes the stage for a raging inferno. That’s because an unnaturally large amount of fuel—fallen branches, leaves, and other debris accumulates after years without natural fire.

There are other benefits to regular small fires. They speed up the process of recycling dead plant material into nutrients for the soil. Many kinds of pines have cones that only fire can pop open, releasing the seeds inside. Prairie grasses have buds underground that spring up quickly after a fire. All this new growth is food for wildlife.

Because regular small fires can keep ecosystems healthy and prevent more serious fires, they are sometimes “prescribed.” Forest managers allow them to burn, or even deliberately set them, in parts of the United States. “The right amount of fire is as essential as the right amount of rainfall and sunlight,” says Sharon Hermann, a fire ecologist in Florida.

In other parts of the U.S., however, and especially in neighborhoods that border wildlands, many people view any fire as bad. They put them out. Often they resist prescribed burning, arguing that heavy smoke from fires causes air pollution and health problems and that the danger of a prescribed fire getting out of control and burning homes is too great.

To learn more, read “Fire!” in the August 1997 issue of WORLD magazine. to become a Junior Member of the National Geographic Society and receive WORLD each month, or call 800 437 5521.

Back to WORLD