With the air hanging heavy all around us in Seattle, we are not left untouched by the forest fires in B.C.   The question for many is what do we continue to do in the U.S as far as containing or allowing the fires to rage until completion?

As biologists look at the effects of stamping out these forest fires, many would argue that it is preferable to allow them to burn.  In the aftermath of a fire, there is wildlife that thrives in the remnants of what remains of the forest.  Birds like the black-backed woodpeckers go to work at the site of the dead-burned trees, working on the trees like jackhammers.  Over a million years of adaptation allows these birds to thrive in a place that essentially looks dead.  They are not the only species to thrive in such conditions and many biologists are arguing that instead of putting the wild fires out, we should be using resources to assist surrounding communities fireproofing homes.  Hundreds of species prefer to live in the charred fire remnants of the forest.  Beetles with heat sensing detectors often rush toward the areas of fire to lay their eggs and nest.  Benefits of the fires are that they thin out the landscape and allow for variability of species and nutrients to exist.  Forests with dead trees are called Snag forests and provide valuable habitats for animals that have adapted to recreating the landscape from the charred remains of trees.

In studying America and how forest fires have shaped the landscape in previous generations, geographers like Jennifer R. Malon states that we are in a fire deficit since these forests were designed to have fires.

With the debate over climate change, resources, and budgets, it remains a political dilemma how to manage these forest fires especially when they rage close to communities.  Fire fighters’ families are now questioning why they must be sent on such dangerous assignments and some are even suing the government saying that their family members should never have gone to such remote and dangerous areas.

There doesn’t seem to be any easy answer, afterall do we let nature take its course in the fire, or do we stop it and use resources that are precious and risk lives in the process to do so? The debate still rages on.