That depends upon those "too many factors" to which I was alluding.
Here's something that might be of interest:
Roaring debate: For many, wildfire debate contains more heat than light
The article isn't dated, but I assume it's a couple of years old. An excerpt:
“I knew Yellowstone and I knew about fire, so I didn’t doubt that what I heard was correct,” Smith said. “That those fires probably did some good for the land.”
Then came the summer of 1994, and another big -- 3.1 million acres -- wildfire season in the West. This time, the most severe burns were near Boise, Idaho, where wide swaths of old-age ponderosa pine forests were seared. This time, the news reports were flames every day, guys in yellow shirts and laments of landscapes irreparably damaged.
“And I kept thinking about the poor guy in Chicago reading the newspaper and wondering why the fires in Yellowstone were so good and now these fires were so bad,” Smith said. “ Trying to make sense of all that seemingly contradictory information had to be difficult. But it all goes back to this idea that it’s not what we know about these forests in general, it’s what we know about specific places.”
Thus the lesson in fire ecology that Smith and her co-workers at Missoula’s Fire Sciences Laboratory hope to spread nationwide in the wake of this summer’ s wildfires. All forests do not burn equally, the lesson begins. Each fire story is unique to a particular place.
The article goes on to describe some of the factors that determine what's a "good" fire and a "bad" one.
There are some fascinating articles on the site. Unless I'm reading them wrong, the site seems to be apolitical, although not up to the minute. A few articles mention (in passing) Clinton as if he were still prez. Anyway, here's the home page:
MontanaFires.com
My own opinion, which I'm sure I'll get lambasted for, is that the real culprit is Smokey the Bear (U.S. Forest Service) for a hundred years of irresponsible fire suppression. The fact that the forests were not allowed to go through the natural process of fire-rebuilding-fire-rebuilding is the single most important factor in why we're in our current situation. Add to that the droughts we've had, and the entire West is a box of matches. The "enviro-wackos" have some valid points. Unfortunately, we're past the point of being able to let the forests fend for themselves. I do support most of the plan proposed by Bush, as it's the only choice we have now. As things get back to a more "normal" state, we do need to back off. That process will take longer than most of us will live though.
My own opinion, which I'm sure I'll get lambasted for, is that the real culprit is Smokey the Bear (U.S. Forest Service) for a hundred years of irresponsible fire suppression. The real culprit is Congress, who violated state citizenship by retaining lands when the states were admitted, sold off Western lands for nothing, allowed their rape by Eastern timber interests, then sponsored tax funded forestry for their benefit (in the form of National Forests) including fire suppression, and then (after everybody, including private industry, stocked the forests for high production) faced a glut of timber so large that no one could fund the environmental overhead with the lumber and paper. So AlGore lets them burn and the big timber companies get higher prices for their products.
The Constitution forbade Federal Lands ownership for good reason.
The fact that the forests were not allowed to go through the natural process of fire-rebuilding-fire-rebuilding is the single most important factor in why we're in our current situation.
It depends (I guess you knew I'd say that ;). There is nothing intrinsically wrong with reforestation, the problem was that the spread of goals was way too narrow. That "natural process" was abetted by human management for millennia. The presumption that nature "knows" how to recover after an unprecedented disturbance is instead an anthropogenic projection onto nature, usually out of a sense of guilt and futility for being accountable for such an enormous mess.
Add to that the droughts we've had, and the entire West is a box of matches.
What if I told you that at least some (if not all) of the drought was man-made? (Yep, it's quite possible; likely imho.)
The "enviro-wackos" have some valid points. Unfortunately, we're past the point of being able to let the forests fend for themselves.
We always were. You might want to read Thomas M. Bonnicksen's book: AMERICA’S ANCIENT FORESTS, From the Ice Age to the Age of Discovery; Department of Forest Science, Texas A&M University; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2000.
I do support most of the plan proposed by Bush, as it's the only choice we have now. As things get back to a more "normal" state, we do need to back off. That process will take longer than most of us will live though.
I am afraid you are giving Bush's plan way too much credit. It is correct in principle, but not in application.
Western forests are already overstocked. The Sierra Nevada alone produce a net (above fire and pest mortality) of 2.3 billion board feet annually. The Bush plan is to thin 1 billion board feet annually in California, Oregon, and Washington, COMBINED. Thinning, as proposed, COSTS a net of $500 per acre, or $100 billion dollars by the time they (supposedly) catch up AND assuming that the lawyers don't eat up all the money.
That's one big assumption.
There is a better way.