US

Suppressing Wildfires Is A ‘Calamity’ For The Environment, Scientists Say

No featured image available

Suppressing forest fires instead of letting them burn may be doing more harm than good.

Some scientists claim that letting wildfires burn will not only benefit hundreds of species of plants and animals that live in burned habitats, but it will also save the lives of firefighters sent to extinguishes blazes that are doing more good than harm, The New York Times reported Sunday.

“From an ecological standpoint, everything I’ve learned teaches me this is a good idea: Stop putting out fires,” Yale geographer Jennifer R. Marlon told TheNYT. “These forests are made to have fire.”

Years of prematurely suppressing fires combined with poor forest management have led to overgrown forests ripe for a spark. When the spark comes, packed fuel causes wildfires to become vicious, unpredictable blazes rather than the more mild fires that would otherwise occur. Blazes fueled by mismanagement are more likely to disrupt the ecological balance of the area by killing more and leaving less nutrients and organisms alive to rebuild.

Federal and state governments spend nearly $2 billion a year fighting fires. Scientists say some of that money would be better used fireproofing homes, according to TheNYT.

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has been criticized for not maintaining forests properly, causing more frequent and stronger wildfires.

Fire suppression has been an increasing amount of the Forest Service’s budget, which totals $1.6 billion, up from $683 million 15 years ago. The USFS estimates that fire suppression will eat up two-thirds of its budget within the next decade, while land management programs meant to deal with fires are facing cut backs.

Follow Tim Pearce on Twitter