SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (481974)10/27/2003 12:30:43 AM
From: Orcastraiter  Respond to of 769667
 
Did they have lit cigarette butts being flung out of windows in the 1700's?

I think that most experts agree that some thinning, and removal of underbrush reduces the fire danger. But that probably would not be a solution for old growth forest. First because the trees are so dense that there is little underbrush to begin with, and the bark is so tough that fires just can't make much headway. Sometimes a lightning fire will start in the tops of old growth trees and burn across the tops.

A lot of the working forest is second growth. It's not so resistant to fire. Each type of forest, whether it's a rain forest or a pine barren needs different tactics to reduce fire.

And there is the need for forest fires in the life cycle of many plants and animals too. If every fire was extinguished, there would some life cycles interrupted.

Orca



To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (481974)10/27/2003 1:22:23 PM
From: Selectric II  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
That article, by the way, mentions that the last time fires of that magnitude had occurred in Yellowstone was in the 1700's. Was that Bush's fault too?

Of course it was! Need you even ask?


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News